In this case, a split was not a draw.
In what early returns suggested would be a win for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Indiana but a loss for her in North Carolina, Tuesday’s results did not fundamentally improve her chances of securing the Democratic presidential nomination. If anything, Mrs. Clinton’s options for overtaking Senator Barack Obama may have dwindled further.
For Mr. Obama, the apparently divided outcome came after a brutal period in which he was on the defensive over the inflammatory comments of his former pastor. That he was able to hold his own under those circumstances should allow him to make a case that he has proved his resilience in the face of questions about race, values and patriotism ”” the very kinds of issues that the Clinton campaign has suggested would leave him vulnerable in the general election.
When paired with Mr. Obama’s comfortable victory in North Carolina, a bigger state, Mrs. Clinton’s performance in Indiana did not seem to be enough to cut into Mr. Obama’s lead in pledged delegates or in his overall lead in the popular vote. And because Mrs. Clinton did not appear to come particularly close in North Carolina, despite a substantial effort there, she lost an opportunity to sow new doubts among Democratic leaders about Mr. Obama’s general-election appeal.
Hmmm. A one or two percent ‘victory’ for Clinton in Indiana’s open primary (with Republicans eligible to vote) while Rush Limbaugh was reportedly suggesting that Republicans sabotage the primary by voting for Clinton. Ten percent of the voters in the Democratic primary there were not Democrats but Republicans.
Br’er R: Very good point.
As a registered independent who is not all that enthusiatic about any of the major candidates, I would characterize this round of the never ending Democratic primary as a poor showing for Clinton. If she gain momentum here, given the near state of crisis that the Obama campaign was in over the tempest in a teapot Rev. Wright/Gas Tax Holiday brouhaha, I would guess it is basically about over for the Senator Clinton.
Many of the so-called superdelegates have apparently already made up their minds, but were just waiting to see how the wind was blowing in last nights primaries in North Carolina and Indiana. I imagine there will be in-house pressure now for superdelegates to commit, get off the fence, and end this fiasco before the DNC further self destructs their 2008 White House bid.
But, as I said, who knows? The Clintons are not known for going down without a fight to the bitter end. The soap opera may continue on, at least until the final primary in South Dakota on June 3rd. I think that is probably the realistic worst case scenario for the Democrats right now.
It could go all the way to the August Convention, but I really do not see the powers-that-be in the Democratic party letting this fester until then, unless they are completely insane.
Personally, I think its a simple case of follow the money. Hillary announced that she had to loan herself 6.4 million dollars for her campaign. That does not bode well for the candidate that was well-and-away the frontrunner going into this race.
“If she *cannot* gain momentum here…”
Sorry, a typo.
The Democrats that matter (that is, the ones funding the campaigns) have spoken. No more money for the lady senator. She has just loaned herself $6.4 million to keep alive for another month.
The super delegates cannot be far behind.
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
The Limbaugh strategy is not only dishonest, but not too smart.
Hillary, in my opinion, is looking a lot stronger than Obama. I don’t care what the polls say, he’s looking like the inexperienced elitest left wing ideologue who can’t relate to the hoi polloi, while she’s looking tough and resiliant. Stretch his weaknesses out over the next 6 months of bright glare, and I think he’s gotta fade.
Of course, I said that about George W. – President Bush in 2000. 🙂
A few years ago, a certain Democratic candidate for president (who shall remain nameless) made a comment to the effect of having to reach out to white guys in pickup trucks with confederate flags. He got raked over the coals for the comment, but it was one of the few times that he said something I thought was right on. The Democrats in that election wrote off Southern White Male vote from that point on, and I knew at that point the GOP would win in the end because of the way the electoral college is. The New England/ Metro Chicago/Left coast axis is simply not to get to 270.
I agree with Words Matter. I think Hillary at this point is probably a better candidate to run against the Republicans. I have been crunching some electoral numbers since my previous post and about the best case scenario, given the current polls, for Obama is a stalemate in the electoral college with neither He nor McCain getting the magical 270 number, and that’s with giving him a few toss up states that are currently statistical ties.
Hillary on the other hand seemed to have a much easier time reaching the 270 mark, given it would be easier for her to get Florida/Ohio/Pennslyvania, maybe Missouri, and perhaps even a few Upper South States like North Carolina. As I look at the electoral college map, Obama is winning the primaries in urban areas that previous Democrats have claimed in prior Presidential electional while making little head way in rural areas. I think that should give the DNC some pause before giving Obama the nod because the 2000-2004 red state/blue state map is much more likely to play itself out with Obama than with Hillary it seems to be at this point.
[i] easier for her to get Florida/Ohio/Pennslyvania, maybe Missouri, and perhaps even a few Upper South States like North Carolina. [/i]
Given Obama’s victories in Missouri and North Carolina, I really don’t see the logic in that part of your statement. You assume that it will be harder for Obama to win states that Hillary carried (something I think is bogus), then turn around and argue that it would actually be easier for her to win states that Obama won in the primaries (if she has stronger support in these states, why did she lose them?).
Replace these states with say, Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee and I can see your point. If Hillary is the nominee, I can see her being competitive in those states in a way that Obama will probably not be.
However, I want to remind everyone that winter/springtime calculations got the Dems John Kerry in 2004…
There is an editorial in today’s paper that points out how reliably each candidate’s core groups have supported their candidate. Hillary has gotten the union voters, seniors, integrated blue collar whites, Jews and Hispanics. Obama has gotten the blacks, young voters, the wealthy, educated whites and racially segregated whites. If a couple of these groups stay home or go to the Republicans on Nov. the Democrats could very easily lose. The winner will have to steer to the middle to win as well as court those that might feel disenfranchised in the Democratic Party. I think this election year is going to be a good show. Pop corn anyone?
I don’t think people will stay home this year. One thing that is pretty clear is that George Bush’s popularity is in the dumps. Any Democratic candidate who capitalizes on that will be inspiring for the 70% who don’t buy the Republican brand.
Admittedly, I’m always confused when people call Obama elitist. His background is modest. Single parent. Compared to any candidate in recent history, the guy is pretty middle class. But he is really smart. After eight years, it owuld be nice to have someone who is smart in the white house. It would be nice to have someone who could speak in complete sentences.
Of course, that might be elitist, in itself. Perhaps, however, America is tired of someone who is truly from the elite, acting dumb to fool the American public.
This *might* be the first time I’ve ever agreed with John Wilkins on this board.
This is reminiscent of 1984, when G.H.W. Bush was billed as the rich elitist against Geraldine Ferraro’s common-touch. It turned out that the Ferraros had a lot more money than the Bushes, and we didn’t hear too much more about it.
But on to Obama: it might be the $2 million house. Even in Chicago, that’s a lot. The Bush’s home in north Dallas was worth something under $500,000 (if I have the right area). In fact, it was probably about $300,000.
It might be the bitter rural folks remark. Given that little faux pas (darn recorder!), perhaps Senator Obama should stop speaking in complete sentences. OTOH, maybe he and President Bush should compare notes on Harvard, from which both have earned degrees.
What, will we be back to the days with the candidate who had the silver foot in his mouth?
[size=1][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
Democrats who think Hillary is finished, or should drop out in order to save the party, should keep on dreaming. In 1980, Sen. Edward Kennedy had a smaller proportion of delegates than Mrs. Clinton has now. Kennedy went all the way to convention. Mrs. Clinton is much more stubborn. She cares much more about herself than she does about her party. She will not back down, even if she does not get nominated. Remember that she is going to Denver not just as a candidate, but as a Clinton. Both parties are pretty much screwed this year.