Advice to the Clinton campaign
February 6, 2008
When you lose the delegate count (845-836), the popular vote (50.2% - 49.8%), and the number of states (14-8), it’s preposterous to send your spokesmen out to claim “victory”.
On a broader level, when I hear Hillary Clinton speak for herself, answering question after question in town hall meetings with detail and precision and intelligence, I like her. When I hear Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, and the rest of her campaign staff, though, it just reminds me why I’m far more excited about the idea of an Obama presidency.
February 7th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Ben,
You misread, it is not the popular vote but the delegate count, those are not the same thing. As you know several times those who got the popular vote, ended up with less of the delegates.
I think Clinton could argue her support would be more beneficial come November than Obama’s. Winning a whole bunch of states that will go Republican really does not mean much.
I do agree with you that when she answers questions, she has a likable quality to her. I did notice that Obama has started airing a new Pepsi commercial.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
This whole thing is freaking me out. While the republicans will remain split on John McCain, when they see Hillary on the dem ticket you can bet they are going to rally behind him. And while Rush and those other lunatics in the republican hate machine are not fans of McCain, you can be sure they’ll be happy to lay into Hillary. I mean, it’s not like they are particularly good at advocating for candidates anyway, but they excel at tearing them down. In a race of Hill vs Mac, I honestly don’t think the dems can win. With Obama, at least they have a shot.
As an aside, while I am not a Hillary fan, she did win in swing states. From an electoral point of view, it doesn’t really matter who wins in Georgia and Alabama, because the democrats are never going to win those states. She “won” Florida, she’s set up to win Ohio, I refuse to give her any credit for Michigan, she squeaked out a win in New Mexico, and won in Nevada. I know Obama took a few swings, but she seems to do better in those states.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Winning a Democratic primary in a state is not indicative of an ability to compete there in a general election. The Democratic electorate of deep-red North Dakota is not that different from the Democratic electorate of solid-blue Oregon. It’s just that, in North Dakota, there aren’t as many of them.
If Democratic voters in Arizona like Clinton a little bit better, and if Democratic voters in Missouri like Obama a little better, it doesn’t mean that both (or neither) of them won’t win those states in the fall. The exit polls from everywhere — red states, blue states, swing states — suggest that most Democrats like both candidates a whole lot, and will vote for whomever we nominate.
The ability to bring independents into a coalition, or to increase Democratic identification and turnout, is a separate thing. While my instincts tell me that Obama is better at this, I couldn’t really prove it with much evidence, and I could make an almost-as-convincing (and equally evidence-free) argument for Clinton’s ability to win a working Democratic majority.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:51 am
What’s better than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House for 8 years?
Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama in the White House for 16 years!
http://www.16yearplan.com
February 14th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=1&oref=slogin