Hillary in Hot Water
With runaway wins in the Maryland, Virginia, and District of Columbia primaries, Barack Obama has now won 8 Democratic nominating contests in a row and is considered the odds on favorite to win the Democratic nomination for president.
Obama destroyed Clinton in all three races, winning by 3-1 margins in Maryland and Virginia and 4-1 in Washington, D.C. With those kind of defeats, is there any way forward for Hillary Clinton that leads to victory?
She will almost certainly maintain contact with Obama with regards to total delegates won. The Democratic primary process of divvying up delegates through a system of proportional awards assures that outcome. That and her still substantial lead in the number of Super Delegates pledged to her means that Obama will leap ahead by only a couple of dozen delegates – hardly an insurmountable lead especially since nearly 400 Super Delegates have yet to declare a preference.
But I suspect that beginning this week, the calls will start coming for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race in the name of party unity. Obama is creating an aura of inevitability about him by winning every single contest since Super Tuesday. Those victories have come all over the country and have been by huge margins. He has won 80%-90% of the black vote. He has consistently won among white males – an astonishing achievement for a black man. He is carving up the Democratic base and winning among all income groups, all levels of education, union households, and every age group except those over 60.
And perhaps most significantly, Obama is drawing new voters into the process. In Virginia, 31% of all voters had never voted in a primary before. Obama won 64% of them along with 71% of those who had never voted before in their lives.
All of this points to a very steep hill that Senator Clinton needs to climb in order for her to make a claim on the hearts and minds of those Super Delegates she and Obama will need to get them over the top at the convention. Her only avenue left is to win a small number of big states that have yet to hold their primaries; specifically, Wisconsin next week, Texas and Ohio on March 4, and the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.
If Obama has a knock against him during this brilliant run of victories beginning on Super Tuesday when he won 13 states to Clinton’s 8, and continuing on through his last 8 straight wins since then, it is that the Illinois senator has failed to win any of the 10 largest states in the union save his home state of Illinois. This is significant because traditional Democratic general election strategy relies on the huge electoral vote harvest available in those states to be competitive with Republicans on election day.
Clinton’s argument to Super Delegates is that since she is more capable of taking those large states, she should be the nominee. Most of Obama’s victories have come in states that will probably not go Democratic in the fall. The true test, Clinton will plead, of who is most electable — and that will be the criteria most of the Super Delegates will be weighing — comes in those states where most Democratic voters are concentrated; the large states on both coasts.
It is a compelling argument and probably the only one she has left. But Obama will have his own counter-argument. It is he who will have won the large majority of primaries and primary votes. It would be undemocratic, he will say, to choose a candidate who finished second when the people spoke but was handed the nomination by a quirk in party rules.
The most recent poll from Wisconsin shows Obama with an 11 point lead. But a week has proved to be an eternity in this race and that poll was taken before Obama’s big sweep of the Potomac primaries. Another blowout for Obama could be in the offing in which case, Hillary Clinton will have to spend the two weeks until the contests in Ohio and Texas listening to a rising drumbeat of calls for her to drop out of the race.
If she cannot be competitive in Wisconsin, the questions about her electability will become more insistent. And there is a very real possibility that a big loss in Wisconsin could trigger some of her more visible Super Delegates to switch sides and join the Obama camp. Such a turn of events would be a huge blow to her campaign and would almost certainly mark the beginning of the end.
Hillary Clinton has been running for President since at least 1992. As First Lady, she was widely seen as someone who would eventually enter electoral politics and run for president some day. Many observers felt at the beginning of the campaign season that the race was hers to lose. She led in the polls against all Democratic comers by double digits until a little more than a month ago.
And then came Obama’s historic win in the Iowa Caucuses and the juggernaut began to roll. There have been times over the last 6 weeks that the Clinton campaign seemed unsure of how to regain their advantage. They tried playing the race card and got slapped down by the press, the African American community, and the Obama campaign. They tried using Bill Clinton as a surrogate attack dog and were roundly chastised for negative campaigning. They have used surrogates to attack Obama, several of whom went overboard in their criticism causing a backlash.
Despite raising more than $100 million dollars and fielding a first class organization, Hillary Clinton has failed to make her case to a majority of Democrats. It is true she has excited and energized women in America, bringing them to the polls in record numbers. But in what must be considered a sign that her campaign is faltering, Barack Obama won the women’s vote in both Virginia and Maryland by wide margins.
With much of her base abandoning her, the stark reality of defeat is staring Hillary Clinton in the face. Her options from her on out are few and not very palatable. She can stay in the race and hope for a turnaround in Texas and Ohio, playing her electability card for all that it’s worth with no guarantees that it will sway enough Super Delegates to overcome Obama’s clear lead. Or she can concede the race and perhaps try again — 2012 if John McCain wins or 2016 if Obama were to prevail.
Given what we know about the Clintons, it would seem unlikely that Hillary would quit before every delegate possible was wrung out of the process. Only the mathematical certainty of defeat may cause her to exit the race. If so, the Democrats will be in turmoil until enough Super Delegates weigh in to give the decision to one candidate or the other.
Rick Moran blogs at Right Wing Nut House.
“Obama is drawing new voters into the process.”
Barack “Barry” Obama is drawing the pseudoeducated into the process. These are people who are extremely anti-intellectual. Many of them are incapable of reading a serious book or discussing the important issues of the day in a rational and coherent manner. The middle-of-the-road voters are starting to sense that Obama and his worshippers do not have their act together.
I agree with David. Whenever I hear Obamaspeak I hear nothing but platitudes about hope and change with no substance. Only the dull witted wouldn’t be able to recognize this and the dull witted are easily led by charismatic rhetoric. His policy ideas should stick out like a sore thumb to a critical thinker. His naive understanding of the world should be enough for anyone to give him the thumbs down. His strong following only proves that America is full of dumbed down blind sheep.
Something very serious is going on at LGF. At aboualmost the exact same time last night, LGF went down, as did http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm , a link to an Obama bio, that was very actively clicked (#2) at LGF. The problems at both sites are continuing today. The freedomsenemies.com post is extremely damaging to Obama detailing his broad muslim family affiliations and less than authenticate Christian commitment. This link had the potential to go viral and suddenly both sites were down. Allegations have already been made that the Obama campaign is scrubbing the web of unflattering Obama content. This may be the case here.
So, if “Most of Obama’s victories have come in states that will probably not go Democratic in the fall” and most (if not all) of McCain’s victories have come in states that will probably not go Republican in the fall, then there’s been a whole lot of money spent on promoting candidates that are incompatible with the respective parties. If “Republican States” won’t vote for the Republican nominee and “Democratic States” won’t vote for the Democratic nominee then what’s the point of the exercise (besides the obvious ego trip for the MSM)?
We have every intellectual and moral right to make fun of “Barry” Obama and his worshippers. The man has overtly adopted a policy of saying virtually nothing about the important issues of the day. He is indulging in anti-intellectualism. Obama richly deserves ridicule. A high number of his followers possess advanced degrees behind their name. Sadly, though, they represent the type of individuals Allan Bloom wrote about in The Closing of the American Mind.
Firstly, Hillary is fine. She has the big three of Texas, Ohio and PA coming up. Obama has not won any state of meaning. He wins where the blacks and rich white libs are: DC, MD, VA, CT, MN, WA, etc. Hillary won NY, CA, MA, FL, MI, TN and NJ. Those are real states representing America. I deplore them both, but the media is running with Obamamania, in typically lazy fashion.
As to the Empty Suit of Platitudes (Obama), a friend put it best to me in email form this morning. He’s 26, so apparently not all young folks arte as dumb as they seem:
It’s just strange and creepy……I’m waiting to see when they’ll pass the spiked Kool-Aid around. He sounds like a dictator with all this “I will do this for you” stuff.
I’ve been trying to keep calm about the situation, hoping that Obama’s surging popularity is just an illusion perpetuated by some wings of the media. But it’s getting harder and harder.
Change for what? HOW will Obama bring change? How has he brought about change in the past? The only leadership position he has ever held is as some “community organizer” in Chicago. It’s almost like a 7th grade class president election…where the candidates tell the other kids
that they will get longer lunch periods and soda machines in the halls. Damn their credentials – it SOUNDS good. Give me a break.
And these atheist liberals calling him their “savior” and the “messiah.” Foolish.
Does anyone really think Hillary is saying much of substance? Obama and Clinton’s actual positions are relatively similar on issues like health care, education, environmental policy, fiscal policy, Iraq, etc. The main difference between the candidates is that Obama has the leadership and populist appeal to inspire entire generations to start working together to solve our own problems, and Hillary just doesn’t have that. This ties heavily into Obama’s service platform, which would expand civil service and volunteer programs like Americorp and the Peace Corp and use those volunteers to rebuild our country. We have been tied up in Iraq rebuilding for years, and yet our own infrastructure, economy, and ecosystems are disintegrating. It’s time for the baby boomers to recognize in our generation the same kind of inspiration and activism that they themselves once had, working to end the Vietnam War, protect civil rights, and improve environmental protections in the 1960′s. Now it’s our turn.
So say what you will about platitudes and kool-aid, your train has left the station, my friend. Have fun watching the movement on You Tube.
Obama’s policy positions are spelled out in detail on his website as are Clinton’s in most cases with as much or more detail than are McCain’s.
Obama has given several speeches that give details of his health care, energy, and foreign policy; though his victory speeches (the ones you have most likely heard) do not have policy specifics, neither do McCain’s.
You may disagree with Obama’s policy positions, but to say that he does not have specific policy positions exposes your ignorance. Nice try with the new meme though.
Jeb, I have looked at Obama’s website and have read quite a bit of his policy prescriptions.
Just halfway through, I lost count of how many new bureacracies he is planning to form and how much he is planning on spending.
His source for all this money is, of course, “the rich”. But you can only milk that cow so much. “The rich” have accountants and tax lawyers who will manipulate their money into non-”income” forms and go on their way.
People are not going to continue doing things that cost them money.
Obama seems to think that he can wave some kind of wand and make people behave how he would like. He seems to take an even more expansive view on the powers of the Presidency than GW Bush. No one, not even Democrats, are going to roll over for him.
Either he has no idea of what he is talking about, or he is very deluded. In this country we have Presidents, not Kings.
Two things are for sure: 1) Hillary! won’t quit. She is so convinced of the inevitability of her coronation that to quit would be to admit that her entitlement to the presidency was bogus in the first place, and that cannot happen. 2) The Clinton slime machine has not yet started on Obama. When they are fully turned loose, he will learn a thing or two about “the politics of personal destruction”, which the Clintons invented.
John D,
Congrats on being the first one here to correctly concede that Obama does have detailed policy positions.
Really? You lost count?
I did a quick read of the entire list and come up with:
- civil rights none
- disabilities none
- economy none
- education none
- energy and environment none, see poverty
- ethics - an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations
- faith none
- family none
- fiscal none
- foreign policy none
- healthcare - one, possibly two, but one of them quite large
- homeland security none
- immigration none
- iraq none
- poverty - a Green Jobs Corp
- rural none
- service none, but expand Americorp and Peace Corp
- seniors and ss none
- technology none
- veterans none
By my count that is 3 (possibly 4), 2 quite small and 1 very large. Please point out any bureaucracies you feel I missed.
He proposes several new programs and open databases that would easily fit within the existing bureaucratic framework.
None of his proposals require expanded presidential power and he actually proposes some contraction of currently claimed presidential power.
Disagree with him and his policy prescriptions if you will (and most here do), but stick to what his positions actually are.
“‘the politics of personal destruction,’ which the Clintons invented”
You couldn’t possibly be more wrong. The phrase “politics of personal destruction” was indeed coined by Bill Clinton, but it refers to the nonstop smear campaign waged against him by Drudge, the Goldbergs, and the rest of the right-wing élite. Remember that little episode?
Name one – just one – accomplishment that Hussein Obama has ever accomplished in his whole one year in politics.
Please, just one teensy-tiny, itsy-bitsy, little-bitty accomplishment…
Come on, not even one?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. He represents “change” alright.
You know, there a still a number of states that would like their voice HEARD in this race. How about we allow them their right to do so?
In addition, Clinton is not that far behind so she has every right to stay in the race until it’s obvious either she’s not going to catch up or until it’s decided.
If you want someone to blame, blame the DNC for allowing states to have their primaries/caucuses so far into the summer. They should have had them schedule them all within a few months and then it would be done and decided by now.