Clinton Camp Electoral College Spin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html
Senator Bayh suggested today that the superdelegates will choose to back Senator Clinton because she leads in an imaginary "Electoral College" count of the state she has won compared to Senator Obama.
I realize the Clinton campaign is running out of positive material to spin, but the logic in this one seems so flawed. The logic is very similar to the "big states" argument. That being that because Senator Clinton won the big states like NY and CA that she is a better candidate than Senator Obama.
The thing the Clinton campaign refuses to acknowledge is that this is a primary and not the general election. These big states will almost certainly vote democratic in November whichever of the two is on the ballot.
The Democratic candidate isn't running against a Democrat in November, he or she is running against a Republican.
The longer the Clinton camp keeps pushing and spinning these flawed arguments, the worse it looks. Now, it doesn't make Senator Clinton look worse, she's doing the best she can to ensure that on he own. But, it is starting to put some of her prominent supporters in awkward positions.
Gov. Rendell has already had to backtrack and declare he will deliver PA for Obama if he is the candidate. Yes, he will spin, but he isn't stupid. This recent comment by Senator Bayh makes him look like he is disregarding his intellect to spin and it won't help his credibility or reputation.
At what point will state and nationally elected Clinton supporters wake up and smell the coffee and realize that they are hurting themselves with this almost humorous spin?
Senator Bayh suggested today that the superdelegates will choose to back Senator Clinton because she leads in an imaginary "Electoral College" count of the state she has won compared to Senator Obama.
I realize the Clinton campaign is running out of positive material to spin, but the logic in this one seems so flawed. The logic is very similar to the "big states" argument. That being that because Senator Clinton won the big states like NY and CA that she is a better candidate than Senator Obama.
The thing the Clinton campaign refuses to acknowledge is that this is a primary and not the general election. These big states will almost certainly vote democratic in November whichever of the two is on the ballot.
The Democratic candidate isn't running against a Democrat in November, he or she is running against a Republican.
The longer the Clinton camp keeps pushing and spinning these flawed arguments, the worse it looks. Now, it doesn't make Senator Clinton look worse, she's doing the best she can to ensure that on he own. But, it is starting to put some of her prominent supporters in awkward positions.
Gov. Rendell has already had to backtrack and declare he will deliver PA for Obama if he is the candidate. Yes, he will spin, but he isn't stupid. This recent comment by Senator Bayh makes him look like he is disregarding his intellect to spin and it won't help his credibility or reputation.
At what point will state and nationally elected Clinton supporters wake up and smell the coffee and realize that they are hurting themselves with this almost humorous spin?
Advertisement
You ask:
"At what point will state and nationally elected Clinton supporters wake up and smell the coffee and realize that they are hurting themselves with this almost humorous spin?"
They cannot wake up. They appear to be "brain dead".
March 24, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Makes a lot of sense to me. If Obama can't win the big states against Hillary, why think he's gong to win them against McCain? especially with Obama supporters telling Hillary supporters how brain dead they are. Don't they know it's over!! We said it was over!!!
On a more rational note, it is worth saying this is not a landslide. It may turn into an Obama victory, but it's not a landslide. Her people think she is the better choice to win in November. They think the future of the country is at stake -- you may not agree, but they clearly think Obama is unelectable in November. I agree with them, but I apprecaite that's a minority opinion around here. I'd love to vote for Obama's firt and second term, but I don't think he can win. To me, Hillary Clinton can. She knows how to fight, and fighting is what will be necessary. I understand you don't agree, and that's what deomcracy is about. But please stop telling me -- and others -- to give up what we think is the best hope for the country at THIS time. When Obama wins, he;ll have my support. But I don't feel the need to do so until he wins. And, as much as you might not like to hear it, he hasn't won yet.
March 24, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If Obama can't win the big states against Hillary, why think he's gong to win them against McCain?"
By this argument, you believe that McCain should win CA, whether against Clinton or Obama because he beat the other Republicans in the CA primary. It just doesn't make sense.
Why will Obama win CA and NY in November if he is the nominee? Because he is a Democrat and those states will vote for the Democratic candidate, same with MA, same with RI. Granted, RI is a small state, but it will vote Democratic. That is the difference between the primary and the general elections.
My point was further backed by Gov. Rendell. He realizes this and stated that PA will go for Obama in November if he is the nominee. So, why should I think Obama will carry PA in November, for the same reason Gov. Rendell thinks so.
Secondly, in my post, I did not tell you, or Senator Clinton to "give up." The point of my post was not about her, but about her supporters. The idea is to question how long they will try to stay with the Clinton spin machine. The longer they stay, the wilder the spin, the worse they look. Is it going to look good for Senator Bahy to be pushing the "electoral college" argument while opponents are quoting Senator Clinton's harsh words calling for an end to the electoral college?
March 24, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I watched that interview Bayh had on MSNBC yesterday morning and he said something quite interesting and I was curious how much more of this we will hear in the following days.
He argued that Hillary and Bill were "partners". This was in response to voters wanting to return to the prosperity of the 90's and to address Hillary's "experience" issue.
Here's the question. Has anyone polled to find out how many people are voting for Hillary with the actual desire being to get Bill back in the White House?
If Hillary is elected as President, would Bill Clinton as the first gentleman have security clearence? If so would he then be allowed to sit in on all levels of presidential decisions?
Would this then be actually a co-presidency? A "partnership" as Bayh described. Would this be a third term then for Bill and therefore unconstitutional?
Are presidents allowed to have a "partner"? Not just advisors, but actual partners, sharing in decisions?
Is this the kind of "change" we would get if Hillary is elected? I don't know about you but based on the two of them on the campaign trail, this prospect is quite scary. What kind of power would the ex-president wield sharing the White House with a sitting president?
March 24, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink