Looks like Hillary is winning this thing by about 10 percent, 55-45 with 94 percent reporting.
If you just consider Pennsylvania’s demographics, that isn’t too surprising. However, we’re coming out of a month in which she was massively outspent by Obama, and the media narrative has been that she is unlikely to win the nomination now.
The official memo from the Obama campaign notes that Clinton failed to make significant gains in the pledged-delegate count. True, but what does it say about Obama that he couldn’t close the deal despite spending more than his opponent and having generally more favorable media coverage?
As a memo from the Clinton campaign pointed out earlier today, Obama spent a lot of money on negative advertising and negative direct-mail pieces in Pennsylvania. He still couldn’t make the sale.
I like the way Todd Beeton (a Clinton voter in the California primary) reacted to the spin from Obama-leaning analysts at MSNBC:
I have to say I was amused to hear Keith Olbermann announce with child-like glee at 8:01pm that the race was too close to call and how that had to make the Clinton campaign nervous. The subtext of his enthusiasm was clearly shadenfreude that Hillary Clinton was going to underperform expectations. I thought to myself: where the hell has he been? Time after time exit polls overestimate Barack Obama’s performance, not to mention that on election nights past, namely Feb 5th and March 4th, neither California nor Ohio, solid Clinton wins both, was called for her right away either. And sure enough, 93% in and she’s still up by the magic 10%.
Then just a few minutes ago, Keith asked an uncomfortable Tom Brokaw whether it is wise for Hillary Clinton to be Bush to Obama’s Gore in Bush v. Gore.
Riiight.
Seriously, at what point are these guys going to start holding their own candidate accountable for why this thing is still going on instead of complaining that Hillary is competing in contests that she is winning.
But Todd, didn’t you know that the Clintons are evil, and everything bad that happens to Obama is orchestrated by them?
I am glad that Clinton didn’t listen to the Obama fan clubbers who demanded that she drop out a month ago. There was record-breaking turnout today in a state that has not influenced the nominating process in recent history. Oh yeah, and Democrats made huge gains in voter registration in a critical swing state this past month.
In other news, a Democrat almost won a special election in Mississippi’s deep-red first Congressional district. Looking like a great year to be a Democrat!
16 Comments
MS-01
That was a heartbreaker. Just about 400 votes shy of winning the seat. If the others hadn’t been on the ballot maybe we could’ve won. But, for a positive spin, the NRCC will have to spend even more money that it just doesn’t have in this R+10 district. Can’t wait for LA-06. Anyone know the rating on that district?
isucyclones94 Tue 22 Apr 11:20 PM
have we been watching the same election the past month?
i don’t see how you can argue that obama has had more favorable media coverage than clinton during the last month–rev. wright, the abc debate, bittergate…
and i’m sorry, but this “why can’t he close the deal” argument is annoying. why couldn’t hillary close the deal? she had every institutional advantage going into this thing, has 200 percent name recognition, a popular former president campaigning every day for her, a money-raising advantage in the early going.
the question i’m asking is, why couldn’t THAT candidate close the deal? i think what obama has done is nothing short of spectacular. and if clinton were anyone other than a clinton, she would have been done after the kind of february she had.
i also think that obama is running against hillary, bill and john mccain every day. whatever.
sunhaws Wed 23 Apr 2:16 PM
the ABC debate was rough, I agree
but he has done badly in debates before. I didn’t see any commentary after that debate suggesting that he was fatally damaged as a candidate, or that he should drop out. On the contrary, most of the commentary was on how bad Stephanopoulos and Gibson did, and how disgraceful ABC is.
Every day commentators suggest that Hillary should drop out because she has no chance.
The Reverend Wright story was overshadowed after Obama’s speech on race, which the media hailed as one of the great speeches of all time.
Around the same time, Hillary was getting hammered for lying about Bosnia sniper fire.
Bittergate was a wash, with just as much commentary bashing Hillary for using it as an issue.
Neither candidate can close the deal, which is one of the remarkable things about this primary race. However, it’s only the Obama campaign that continually says it’s over, and it’s only Obama surrogates who continually say that Clinton would only win by cheating.
Both Clinton and Obama are extremely strong with certain important elements of the Democratic base. That’s why I think this race should continue until after all the states have voted. It would be a huge mistake to try to pressure Clinton to quit now.
By the way, the Clinton campaign apparently raised more than $10 million in the past 24 hours.
desmoinesdem Wed 23 Apr 3:41 PM
i'm an obama
partisan (iowa precinct captain), so i see everything through that lens. and i gather from your postings that i’ve read over the last few months (post-iowa) that you are much more favorably inclined towards hillary (although i know from your past work that you were an edwards person), so i imagine that colors your perceptions.
i didn’t think obama did poorly in the abc debate–answered the bullshit questions as best as anyone could. especially when hillary took every opportunity to “follow up” and rip obama a little more. while he declined to go after her when they brought up the sniper lie–which was a lie–a repeated lie.
so if hillary is behind in pledged delegates, as will surely be the case, and is not the winner of the popular vote (unless you accept her ridiculous argument that florida and michigan should count in the popular vote totals but caucus states should not), but takes the nomination by superdelegates, you support that? it’s worth soldiering on to win in that fashion?
because that’s why i argue that it’s over–her only path to the nomination is, i guess, through the superdelegates, and i think that that would be a nomination not worth having. it would rip the party apart, and i don’t want that.
so all she is doing is bloodying the person who will be the eventual nominee. i don’t respect that.
sunhaws Wed 23 Apr 4:31 PM
and the Obama campaign
has put out memos saying the Clintons are racially divisive, Hillary can’t win, and other things that would have potentially crippled Hillary if she were the nominee.
This is hardball politics. Get used to it. What the Republicans will throw at Obama will be ten times worse.
As for my preference, I don’t care for Clinton or Obama and would have fairly low expectations for either of them as president.
Right now I lean slightly toward Obama as a stronger general-election candidate, but lean slightly toward Clinton as more likely to exceed my expectations as president.
If Obama manages to get past McCain, he is going to spend a lot of time proving to the Broders and Russerts of the world that he is not wacky liberal. Also, he will be less likely to fight for progressive policies, in my opinion, because he will believe he owes his election in part to Republicans.
Clinton knows the beltway media hate her and the Republicans will not negotiate with her in good faith (it will take Obama a year or two to figure that out). Also, she would be more highly motivated to deliver on promises so as to restore the Clinton legacy.
desmoinesdem Wed 23 Apr 5:33 PM
oh, and as for that $10 million--
maybe hills can finally pay some of the vendors here in the dez (i know koch bros. printing was waiting for $$ from her as were the art center and hy-vee) that she’s left high and dry.
i didn’t check the most recent filings to see if she’s settled up with the local folks here, but last time i looked, she hadn’t. and that was several months after the caucus.
sunhaws Wed 23 Apr 4:37 PM
agreed
The media has been nothing short of neglectful about the state of the race. Obama has an insurmountable delegate lead; Hillary picked up maybe 10-12 delegates in Pennsylvania yesterday, which doesn’t come anywhere close to catching him. She’s supposedly up in the popular vote now, but if I understand correctly that doesn’t include caucus states, and it includes Michigan and Florida (which the Clinton campaign itself last year said should be subject to DNC rules, despite that it was partially the fault of the state Republican parties), rendering it meaningless.
The Clintons certainly aren’t evil, but that Hillary stays in the race despite that she has nearly no chance of securing the nomination is clearly hurting the party. Bill’s ego knows no end, and she’s done far more negative campaigning because it’s the only thing she can do to bring Obama down. Which of course is hurting the Dems’ chances of defeating McCain in the fall.
Obviously, I don’t want Hillary to get the nomination, but I’m not completely gung ho on Obama either. But it’s going to be extremely difficult for Hillary to win the general if she takes the primary through the “superdelegate coup,” and it won’t be easy now for Obama to win either.
Which is all to say I believe there’s good reason for the divisiveness within the party, and I believe it’s primarily on Hillary’s shoulders at this point.
garonsen Wed 23 Apr 3:45 PM
not quite
He has an insurmountable pledged delegate lead.
However, neither Obama nor Clinton can get to the magic number without the superdelegates.
No matter how many times Obama supporters say superdelegates are obliged to support the pledged delegate leader, there is nothing in the DNC rules that requires them to do so. They can make up their minds based on anything, just like delegates pledged to Edwards can move to Clinton or Obama at the district conventions this weekend if they choose.
I should add that right now, I think Obama can make the stronger case to superdelegates as to why he should be the nominee. However, it would not be “cheating” or “stealing” for the superdelegates to support Clinton instead. I just think that is highly unlikely.
desmoinesdem Wed 23 Apr 4:24 PM
right
I understand that. But the fact that it’s highly unlikely should be enough for Hillary to drop out. If she were running an honorable campaign (a la Huckabee) it would be a different story, but she’s openly desperate and putting in jeopardy her party’s chances this fall in her own self-interest with her current strategies.
garonsen Wed 23 Apr 4:49 PM
if the situation were reversed
I am sure you would want Obama to soldier on.
We are seeing record voter registration and turnout in state after state. I just don’t understand the Obama fans who think it would have been better for Hillary to quit. You think the Republicans wouldn’t come up with Reverend Wright or this other stuff on their own?
I think Obama supporters are looking for an excuse in case he loses the general. It seems like you are saying that if he loses, it will all be the evil, selfish Hillary’s fault.
desmoinesdem Wed 23 Apr 5:04 PM
well
I certainly don’t approve of Hillary’s tactics or DLC connections, and Obama’s got much more potential in my mind that Hillary for progressive reform at the federal level. So it’s not an even comparison. That said, if Obama were as far behind as Clinton is now I think his staying in the race, especially if he turned negative (which he really hasn’t relative to Clinton), I think it would damage the party’s chances come November.
I’m not looking for excuses – McCain really shouldn’t be a difficult opponent – but I don’t see how Clinton’s doing anything but damage at this point. And after eight years of Bush, I’d personally prefer that she accept the reality of her situation for the good of the nation.
Neither candidate is ideal, and the Republicans will have plenty of BS to use on either of them. I’m just trying to summarize what I’m seeing in the race. She certainly has the right to stay in the race until the end, but I think Obama’s a much better candidate for progressives and I’d be disappointed to see her get the nomination.
garonsen Wed 23 Apr 6:09 PM
one more comment
I should probably stop getting so opinionated on blogs, it just gets me in trouble.
Your point about voter registration is a good one, and I could see it balancing out lingering hard feelings after the primary.
Also, I say Obama’s got more potential for progressives than Clinton despite his possible (probable?) stronger ties to Republican voters because I think he’d be viewed as less divisive and possibly reshape the Republican Party a bit. For example, he mentioned he’d be interested in having Chuck Hagel in his cabinet. Hagel’s very Republican, but at least has seen the light regarding Iraq and seems more principled than many in his party.
garonsen Wed 23 Apr 6:36 PM
well, I don't care for Hagel
and I wouldn’t want to see any Republican in a very senior cabinet position. Some moderate for a minor post is one thing, but making a Republican Sec of State or defense just reinforces the false right-wing stereotype that only Republicans can handle foreign policy and national security issues.
The things you mentioned in your post are exactly why I think Obama is not going to deliver for progressives. Look at the way his campaign tried to get peaceniks off their delegate list in California (before backtracking amid a public outcry). But has Obama fired the head of his Iraq working group, the guy who wants us to have 60K to 80K troops in Iraq at least through the end of 2010? This is the kind of thing that really worries me. Obama has more incentive to show the conventional DC wisdom types that he is not some wild-eyed liberal.
Regarding voter registration, keep in mind that Gore won PA by about 200,000 votes, but Kerry only won it by about 100,000 votes (and Kerry did a lot better among Catholics than Obama is likely to do against the Catholic McCain).
So the 150,000 or so newly registered Democrats in Pennsylvania, who only signed up because there was a contested primary, may make the difference for Obama in November.
desmoinesdem Wed 23 Apr 7:17 PM
i don't think mccain is catholic.
i think he was episcopalian, but now is a baptist…
sunhaws Wed 23 Apr 7:40 PM
you may be right about that
But I read somewhere, maybe in a diary by Meteor Blades, that McCain has never been baptized, which is surprising.
I still think McCain stands to do very well among white Catholics, perhaps better than Bush did in 2004.
desmoinesdem Wed 23 Apr 8:28 PM
and he very well may.
but at least he’ll hopefully have to explain to them why he actively sought out the endorsement of crazed catholic-basher john hagee.
sunhaws Thu 24 Apr 7:56 AM