Comments on: Hillary’s Prospects: Dim, But Not Dead

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:23:50 +0000

They said that by electing a Republican (Crist) governor in FL that many, especially Democratic voters, would be disenfranchised. They were right!

It is absolutely delicious that the GOP leader in FL said he is happy to spend the money on a do-over but that the Democratic Party refuses.

Where is David Boies when you need him?!

By: JayHub

JayHub — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:30:50 +0000

There they go again! This from Politico.com today (quote w/o comment - none needed):

“Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson, taking the campaign a bit meta on a conference call today, attacked Obama for attacking Clinton, and compared him to a notorious Clinton foe.

‘When Sen. Obama was confronted with questions over whether he was ready to be commander in chief and steward of the economy, he chose not to address those questions, but to attack Sen. Clinton,’ Wolfson said. ‘I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president.’

Politico full column link

By: Don

Don — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:27:59 +0000

One question I’ve not seen anyone pursue is, what would happen if Florida and Michigan actually DID have a do-over primary? It would be a huge hurdle to overcome, but so far everyone I’ve read seems to assume that it would be an advantage to Hillary if they did. I’m not so sure. Living in the Ann Arbor area, my perspective may not be representative, but I saw a LOT of campaigning for “Uncommitted.” What if they had a do-over, and Obama came out on top?

By: assistant devil's advocate

assistant devil's advocate — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:26:04 +0000

in the spirit of a superdelegate, i proclaim myself the internet’s first supercommenter, unpredictable, driven by capricious whimsy and beholden to no one.

By: rhodeymark

rhodeymark — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:23:52 +0000

Unsmiling Hillary to Superdelegate:
“It’s better to vote in Dixville Notch than Knoxville Ditch - you know what I mean?”

By: JD

JD — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:44:56 +0000

Shouldn’t the only delegate count that really matters be 50 percent +1 ? Neither candidate will be at that figure prior to the superdelegates voting, and given the millions of votes cast, they are in a virtual dead heat, especially if you count Florida and Michigan. I will sit back and watch the fireworks over the Dems trying to deny the franchise to the voters in those states.

By: WLS

WLS — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:32:11 +0000

AMac — that’s exactly my point. The Superdelegates don’t have to chose until late August. Hillary has 6 months to put stink on Obama now that they see signs he is somewhat thin-skinned and doesn’t like to be scrutinized.

As for S.E. Croft — Obama is a HUGE UNKNOWN to about 60% of the general election population. With nearly all the big vote primaries done, Hillary and Obama have collected about 27 million votes. John Kerry received about 59 million votes in 2004 while George Bush received 62 million votes.

So, about 1/6 of the number of voters have gone to the polls in the Dimo primary compared to the last general election.

Further, Obama has a 15-20 year history of involvement in civic affairs in Chicago. Only 3 years of his political life have been spent on the national stage in the Senate. His Chicago history is yet to be completely explored.

Remember, no one had ever heard about Whitewater and Madison Guarantee Savings & Loan until Jeff Gerth of the NYT ran it all down and put it on the front page of the paper.

There is no way Obama spent 15 years at the side of sleazes like Tony Rezco without getting some slime under his fingernails. They’ve kept it well contained for now, but his Dim opponents have always been reluctant to take him on in that regard. The GOP will have not such reluctance.

By: Daryl Herbert

Daryl Herbert — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:24:01 +0000

I’m not sure we do prefer to have Hillary as the nominee.

Potential Outcomes:
1 - Obama clinches nomination now, sails through to convention
2 - Hillary stays alive until convention, has ugly fight with Obama the whole way through, and loses
3 - like #2, but Hillary wins

Between outcomes 1 and 2, #2 is clearly superior for Republicans. But between 2 and 3, it is not clear, because we don’t yet know who would be better in the general.

Democrats should remember that the general election won’t be a caucus. They can’t browbeat people into supporting their candidate. Caucuses are contrary to democracy and should be rejected by all states. The only reason there are any caucuses is because insiders have undue influence over them, and insiders are the ones who decide whether to have a caucus or not.

My fearless prediction: if Obama gets the nomination, and then loses the general, at least three states will get rid of their caucuses for the Dem nomination.

By: AMac

AMac — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:28:20 +0000

I don’t see that Hillary is far behind Obama in the delegate count. CNN’s Democratic Delegate Counter Game lets you guess who will win how many delegates in PA, NC, and the other upcoming contests. What’s clear is that neither will secure the nomination in Denver without a majority of the 358 Superdelegates. The supers can pledge to their heart’s content, but their votes aren’t final until they’re cast.

The Dems have created strange rules for their game (Repubs–differently strange rules). Hard to view the continuing weaseling on either candidate’s part as some endorsement for Change!. Charming.

By: rhodeymark

rhodeymark — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:06:45 +0000

are slavering for a Hillary victory precisely because we think she’d be easier to beat.

I think a lot of us are rooting for Hillary more because, a) it thwarts the “popular” vote which is anathema to Dems, and b) makes Hill a huge hypocrite (remember her stupid Electoral College rant), which is double-secret anathema to Dems. It isn’t the external beating, so much as the internal beating, that we anticipate.