home

Why Hillary's Florida Gambit Worked

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:01:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Josh Marshall argued it did not:

Just in terms of managing the news cycle I think what the Clinton folks would have been looking for are two things -- big pictures of Hillary smiling, preferably above the fold, thus suggesting victory and some mention of her margin. But I don't see either anywhere. Perhaps the print front pages will play this differently. But on balance I suspect they didn't get as much juice out of this as they wanted or expected.

This seems pretty blinded analysis to me. What was the purpose of the Florida gambit? I would say principally it was to change the headline away from Obama's Big Mo/Kennedy talk. Can Josh HONESTLY say this did not change it? Of course it did. But I think it succeeded in a larger way, much more so than I expected. I will explain on the flip.

First, Hillary Clinton was on television last night. Barack Obama was not. Hillary Clinton got to have her stump speech covered then did interviews where she got to restate the rationale of her campaign. She changed the subject from South Carolina and the Kennedys and got the story to be about her.

Second, the hostility of the Media towards her was again manifested in petty ways. This always has a backlash favorable to the Clintons. Josh is a Big Media blogger so he seems blinded to this. And indeed, he is very hostile to the Clintons now so, in a way, he is part of that effect.

Third, and this is something you will likely hear for the next few days - the Florida results, delegates or no, reveal that Obama still has a problem breaking into key demographics. Indeed, his share of the white, African American and Latino vote was similar to his shares in South Carolina. The difference was the makeup of the electorate. The rest of the country is more like Florida than South Carolina.

What I am saying is Obama has a lot of work to do if he is going to win this race.

But the bottom line is this - the headlines about the Democratic race were changed last night. No South Carolina. No Ted Kennedy. No Jesse Jackson. Heck, no Bill Clinton. And that was the most important goal for the Clinton campaign last night.

The Clinton campaign's Florida gambit worked.

< Rudy Strikes Out | John Edwards Dropping Out >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why Hillary's Florida Gambit Worked | 178 comments (178 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Thought I was alone out here (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:08:18 AM EST
    I listened to what little of the gasbags on MSNBC
    had to say about the Clinton win last night as I could tolerate. Love Keith Olbermann but once they pair him with Pin-headed Matthews, I don't watch, or just pop in for a moment to see what inanity Matthews is serving up as news.

    Media and most of the blogs are treating the fact that over a million Democrats went to the polls and voted as if it was a joke. Over a million voters, that knew their vote wouldn't count still bothered to vote. I find that amazing!

    I also find it amazing that Pundits and Pundidiots have the audacity to make fun of voters a good example of how out of touch and arrogant they are.

    We the people and our silly insistance on voting for the person we support don't count in their world. Their opinions, no matter how trite, wrong, silly and false are all that counts. Wonder when enough peope will have had enough of this garbage to just turn the television off or just slip in a DVD. Any DVD is better than this crap.

    bubble media (none / 0) (#73)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:43:19 AM EST
    I couldn't agree with you more. I do think there's getting to be a backlash against the media.

    [ Parent ]
    The arrogant, elitist media. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:18:29 AM EST
    You're right that it succeeded at least in the sense that, in the context of the Democratic race, Obama and Kennedy were not mentioned. Although not much of anything was mentioned.

    What struck me is the arrogance and elitism of the media. here is a poo-poo piece by Dana Milbank of the WaPo on Clinton's rally in Florida.

    Yes, there will most likely be no delegates from Florida who will have a say in who the nominee will be.

    Yes, it was a media event staged to get attention.

    And so what?

    Apparently, holding a rally because 2 people from a famous political family supporting a candidate must be covered and swooned over for an entire day.

    But holding a rally because a majority of 1.5 million Democratic voters in the 3rd largest state of the nation support you is just "not done".

    Talk about elitist.

    Dana Milbank dissing Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:48:34 AM EST
    It is really ironic. I have noticed how snarky Milbank is about Clinton. Weirdly, he actually admitted to Howard Kurtz that the media hates her and that it is personal. Our media is very professional.
    How weird is it that these guys who obsess over polls like they are the holy grail and hold the caucus results in such high esteem even though them come from small, unrepresentative states and don't even have private ballots are now dismissing the votes of over a million Dems who turned out in record numbers yesterday? David Brooks threw in the explanation that votes don't count if candidates don't campaign in a state. Guess my vote never counts because I live in a state where candidates are rarely seen.
    What fools. Ditto for all the people who are taken in by their garbage.

    [ Parent ]
    Hadn't thought of that: the oft-ignored states (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:21:15 AM EST
    have empathy for Florida and Michigan in this.  

    And not for the media spin that some states don't matter.  Thanks for the insight on that!

    (From someone in a state that used to have the first primary and now doesn't get that much attention -- but still is a swing state, the most purple of states, so gets too much attention as general elections near.  It's not always a blessing.:-)

    [ Parent ]

    Take heart (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:24:19 AM EST
    as a Clinton supporter, you should be pleased that the DC Elite hates the Clintons. It is a great electoral strength for Hillary among Democrats.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:46:39 AM EST
    One of the major, major reasons I am considering voting for Hillary rather than my guy, Edwards, on Super Tuesday, is simply that I cannot tolerate the thought of the media dictating our nominee.  I'd probably like Obama more if they liked him less.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:51:17 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    liking obama (none / 0) (#78)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:56:17 AM EST
    And if he wasn't such an arrogant twerp.

    Press conference in Tampa: "I just did this for you guys (the reporters), but if it's a problem we won't do it again."

    [ Parent ]

    Hopefully that is the arrogance of youth (none / 0) (#109)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    and will pass as he matures, unlike our current president who will never be mature.

    [ Parent ]
    Not young (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by carolyn13 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:22:09 AM EST
    Obama is hardly a youth at 46. I think personalities are pretty well formed by that age.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm the same age as Obama and I'm not young (none / 0) (#155)
    by Xeno on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:45:41 PM EST
    I'm not old, either, but claims of youth are definitely in the past for me.

    At 46, we're what used to be called "middle-aged" back in the day. All the talk of Obama being a "young man" reminds me of how Henry Hyde (and a few others) referred to things they did in their forties as "youthful indiscretions." Made me laugh when they tried it, too.

    [ Parent ]

    florida (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:38:48 AM EST
    It is sad that there's no headline coverage of Hillary's win, it seems to me this huge win shows that she is the Democrat who can take the South, how can Obama win in the South when he can't get the white vote?

    I read a good article yesterday that state the American people are really fed up with the media's skewed coverage and Democrats are tired of the D. C. Dems trying to control the election. After all, aren't we rejecting Bush because he's taken our rights and choices away, now the Democrats are trying to do the same thing. You'd think after BO won SC the Democrats were already planning his inauguration. Can you imagine if Hillary had held a press conference with the media in Florida?

    why should we let the dc dems control (none / 0) (#153)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:04:49 PM EST
    the election. hell, they are so pitiful they can't even controll congress.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary is on a roll (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:57:03 AM EST
    I can tell you that FL made a difference.... I went from depressed on Monday to elated on Tuesday.

    On Monday I wondered if she would be able to put up a good fight against OLD DEMS (all those OLD DEMS supporting Sen Obama). The mood at the SOTU I felt was the spoiled child running around with Daddy's approval.

    Now, Hillary just proved to me that the will of the Dem people are behind her. That gives me hope.

    Actually no... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by sterno on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:21:26 AM EST
    Is there media coverage of her "win" in Florida?  Of course.  But look at the nature of the coverage and a great deal of it is, on some level, poking fun at her.  I just did a google news search for "Hillary" "Florida" and I got:

    • Did Hillary Clinton really win in Florida? Salon (subscription)
    • Hillary Clinton trumpets win in Florida despite lack of delegates CNN
    • Hillary Clinton wins Florida primary The Age

    So 2 out of 3 point out the non-win of her win just in the headline.  The lead in paragraph from that third article:

    Hillary Rodham Clinton has won the Florida Democratic primary, an event that drew no campaigning by any of her presidential rivals and awarded no delegates to the winner.

    The New York senator, fresh off her lopsided loss to Barack Obama in last weekend's South Carolina primary, arranged a rally in the state as the polls were closing, an evident attempt to gain campaign momentum.

    So we have a mention of her win not really being a win and that it was an attempt to gain momentum after Barack's lopsided victory in South Carolina.    So while I guess there's the "no such thing as bad press" rule playing here, she's not getting much truly positive coverage.

    Worse, I think that all of this plays into a notion that she's trying to game the system.  That she's unable to win this election on her merits and so is having to rely on various tricks.  I grant, I'm an Obama supporter so I'm bound to see it that way, but I don't see this as being any huge benefit to Hillary.  It's at best, transient, and will be ignored by most of the electorate anyway.      

    Changed the subject though (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:56:25 AM EST
    And headlines are headlines.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, as we said in the nooz biz (none / 0) (#133)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:07:37 AM EST
    . . . as long as they spell yer name right, it's nooz.  

    (Of course, not always so, if it's bad nooz . . . but studies show an amazing number of readers -- print and now online -- treat headlines as sort of a news digest and don't read much more than that.  So especially with such a nuanced story as this, the words "Clinton wins" register more than the "but. . . .")

    News really works for creating awareness, and that's just a first step in the process of persuasion.  

    [ Parent ]

    My point... (none / 0) (#160)
    by sterno on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:35:53 PM EST
    The thing is headlines are headlines, sure, but at the end of the day if they don't either sway people to vote for her or prevent people from being swayed to Obama, it does her no good.  My suggestion is that the nature of the coverage may actually be doing her harm because it looks more like she's trying to game the system than actually achieving a victory.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, heds or soundbytes do generally (none / 0) (#172)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:47:53 PM EST
    only strengthen preconceptions; they don't challenge them.  So Clinton's win may not change anyone's mind -- but it can help to maintain support from those already for her or leaning that way.

    Maintaining support also is incredibly important, too -- while candidates necessarily focus on the latents, they can't lose those already with them.  

    [ Parent ]

    BTD - this post (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    is wonderful and persuasive.  You creamed Josh and I am glad to see it.

    I cant tell you how saddened I am by TPM's slippage.  It used to be fun, but fairminded and they tried to do new stories ahead of the MSM...now they are joining the noise.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:01:03 AM EST
    Josh is no longer fair minded.  

    He called Hillary's attempt to highlight Obama's 'present" votes as "crap" and "garbage", instead just explaining the issue itself.

    [ Parent ]

    No kidding (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    Same for Keith Olbermann.
    You can tell the bias on TPM by the headings they give their posts and by what they are omitting.
    I am surprised that someone who has paid such close attention to politics as Josh has seems so naive. Bob Somerby has been hammering at dailyhowler.com for a long time for not grasping what the media does to Democrats. I get his point now. Josh really gets sucked in by the conventional wisdom when it comes to Democrats.

    [ Parent ]
    Looking for how belief is suspended (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:02:40 AM EST
    Great analysis BTD you really connect a lot of dots. There is a circular argument that is being made that is confounding me, but you seem to have a great grasp. Kudos particularly because you are being analytical and not partisan.

    CA (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by xjt on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:31:33 PM EST
    About half of California voters vote by mail. So a number of ballots for Edwards have already been cast here.

    But I think Latinos will put Hillary over the top in California. She has a long and positive relationship with them, and Latinos have traditionally been willing to cast their votes for strong women leaders.

    I see the San Francisco Chronicle is supporting Obama, the trendy candidate. No big surprise, although it's hard for me to believe that the gay community is thrilled with it, given McClurkin.

    If Over A Million Voters Are Ignored . . . (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by john horse on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:06:28 PM EST
    Lets put the Florida Democratic primary in perspective.

    Hillary Clinton won Florida with over 857,000 votes.  Obama lost Florida with 569,000 votes.

    Obama won the South Carolina primary with almost 300,000 votes.

    Clinton won the New Hampshire primary with 112,000 votes.

    My rough guess is that Florida provided both candidates with over half their total number of votes thus far.

    Yet in ignoring the Florida Democratic primary the mainstream media has dismissed the votes of over 1 million voters.  That is why the primary results were important even if there were no delegates.

    If over a million voters are ignored by the mainstream media do their voices make a sound?

    Tim Russert on Today (2.00 / 1) (#5)
    by LadyDiofCT on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:31:34 AM EST
    Tim Russert on Today implies that the numbers in FL somehow don't matter, and there was this pledge not to campaign so she must have cheated.  Imho this FL win is a rout, a landslide!

    NBC is not a news organization anymore (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:34:12 AM EST
    and frankly, fast reaching irrelevance.

    I think most people think of them as a Fox type organization on this.

    And I think honest Obama supporters know this.

    A big mistake by MSNBC from the marketing perspective imo because UNLESS Obama wins the nomination, what are they gonna do?

    [ Parent ]

    Contact NBC (none / 0) (#54)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:39:18 AM EST
    NBC execs are all ready very nervous after the massive number of complaints they got after New Hampshire. They really do notice if they get hear from a lot of people. I have been trying to get Democrats to wake up to this fact. The Republicans have been using this tactic for years which is one big reason they get treated with kid gloves. I have heard journalists talk about how intimidating it is to get an avalanche of calls, letters and emails criticising them. That it also why they think Americans are a lot more conservative than they in fact are.
    So many conservatives used to the phone lines at CSPAN they had to designate separate lines for calls so other people could have a chance.
    Media Matters had all the contacts for NBC under their article about Chris Matthews disgraceful behavior.

    [ Parent ]
    How (none / 0) (#70)
    by Saul on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:05:29 AM EST
    do you contact the biggies at MSNBC.

    [ Parent ]
    biggies at MSNBC (none / 0) (#175)
    by delandjim on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:55:10 AM EST
    that would be the numbers in Media Matters for Chris Matthews, he is on MSNBC.

    [ Parent ]
    She looked ridiculous! (2.00 / 1) (#88)
    by burnedoutdem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:19:54 AM EST
    I'm sorry, but she looked ridiculous at the "victory" rally last night!  It wasn't a declaration of a victory, but a desperate attempt to get the news cycle off of her loss in Florida and Bill's nasty remarks.  Did you see that on the night of the SOTU she did an interview with NBC(?) where all he asked her was about Bill and dirty SC tactics, and she got a little flustered and angry.  She was then supposed to do an interview with CNN, but apparently her aides pulled it without a reason.  Anderson Cooper was downright stumped.  Clearly, the Florida event was just so she could change the news cycle, even though it was completely hollow and lame.  She looked desperate and pathetic on that stage...CNN was RIGHT to cut the speech off because it was insignificant.  First time in my life I was willing to watch all of Rudy's remarks if it meant less time with that pathetic woman.  Seriously, if you can't win without your husband, then you shouldn't run!

    How can you (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:37:42 AM EST
    worry about Bill's nasty remarks when you make a statment like this?

    First time in my life I was willing to watch all of Rudy's remarks if it meant less time with that pathetic woman.  Seriously, if you can't win without your husband, then you shouldn't run!

    This is the real reason why Hillary has so much support from women. This type of attitude is a subtle way of being sexist. The "man candidate" looks good but the supports are women bashers.

    ..it just rallies the support for Hillary.


    [ Parent ]

    Did you hear her speech? (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:40:45 AM EST
    She said " I thank you for the vote of confidence" when almost 800,000 people vote for you when they did not have to, you thank them. I thought she was sharp.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:57:28 AM EST
    I thought she held herself well. Let's face she has had a rough road the past couple of days. I think whe need this for her own spirit, as well as, her supporters. That is something the media is not taking into account.

    [ Parent ]
    where can I hear it? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:25:39 AM EST
    I cant find it online....

    Please help if you get a chance.
    Thx

    [ Parent ]

    CNN showed it (none / 0) (#150)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:57:07 AM EST
    but today it seems to be a widely held secret... I can't find it on the Internet.

    [ Parent ]
    the transcript (none / 0) (#151)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:25:14 PM EST
    ia it.

    [ Parent ]
    She IS pathetic (1.00 / 3) (#111)
    by burnedoutdem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:11:11 AM EST
    Listen, I'd love to be able to vote for a woman candidate, but this particular woman makes us all look bad.  She's allowing a convicted perjurer to speak on her behalf.  She stood by that same perjurer and lied for him and defended him while he cheated on her and committed sexual assault.  All the big scandals of the 90's - Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, cattle futures, health care, Vince Foster's lost memos - all had her fingerprints all over them.  All of this because someday she wanted a man to help her get the white house.  I read an article today talking about Bill's latest speech, and a woman in the crowd said, "I love Bill, so I'm voting for Hillary."  That is the dumbest, most pathetic reason to vote for anyone unless your reason is simply because she's a woman.  Both the Clintons are dirty and obnoxious.  I don't think anyone with a brain saw Florida as a real victory - it's a news cycle diversion and hasn't quite done the job of canceling out Obama's SC press, Bill's dirty tactics press, and the Kennedys' endorsements.  So, yes, it's a hollow, lame victory.  If Hillary supporters to see that voting for her is the same as voting for GW yet again, then they can't be mad when a Republican wins the White House.  I know I'm not alone when I say - if she wins the nomination, I'm voting for McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Only RightWing automatons (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:18:22 AM EST
    repeat the untrue "convicted perjurer" meme.

    [ Parent ]
    He committed perjury (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by burnedoutdem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:25:30 AM EST
    and then plead guilty and surrendered his law license.  Sorry...does that make him a person prone to honesty?  Does that give him any kind of credibility when he starts making blanket accusations against someone who has spent his whole life trying to improve the situations of others (while Clinton was doing God knows what with a cigar)?  I'll say it again - Democrats who want a Republican president in 08 should nominate Hillary.  I'm going to nominate Obama, and if he doesn't get the nomination, I'll vote for McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Dude (none / 0) (#127)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:56:45 AM EST
    Stop lying.

    OR I will delete your comments.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay...Impeached Liar? Is that better? (none / 0) (#115)
    by burnedoutdem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:20:24 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Not at this web site (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:21:46 AM EST
    You need to take this crap somewhere else.

    [ Parent ]
    Birds of a feather (none / 0) (#117)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:22:21 AM EST
    flock together...

    I know I'm not alone when I say - if she wins the nomination, I'm voting for McCain.

    Not valid logic... I also know voter that will vot McCain if Sen Obama gets the nomination. The I know more people than you do id judt not sound.

    As far as....

    She's allowing a convicted perjurer to speak on her behalf.  She stood by that same perjurer and lied for him and defended him while he cheated on her and committed sexual assault.

    I have to admire a women who is so dedicated to her marriage that she is willing to work things out when the partnership hits a rocky road. It shows she CAN UNITE during rough times.

    And... let's not go into purjurer, unfaithfulness of spouse when it comes to Presidents. That is one you will loose hands down. History of Presidents will go against you.

    [ Parent ]

    If she gets the infidelity vote in this country (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:16:06 AM EST
    she wins, boyo.  Infidelity complicates two-thirds of marriages, and most of us are forgiving sorts.  

    And above all, people avoid cognitive dissonance.  To be forgiving of our own spouses and not hers -- cognitive dissonance.  To congratulate ourselves for moving on and rebuilding a relationship and not admire her for doing so -- cognitive dissonance.

    To see our own strength in her and vote for that -- self-affirmation.  Presidents deal with lots of betrayals -- and the best of 'em have the . . . um, experience (campaign code word for MATURITY) . . . to not let that stop them.  She is showing that she's unstoppable, and that is admired.

    I think her campaign song could be the old "Sadder But Wiser Girl," a theme song for many women -- but I can see why they don't use it, even if we do hum it for her.:-)

    [ Parent ]

    Just saying it points to a lack of credibility (none / 0) (#119)
    by burnedoutdem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:26:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So does (none / 0) (#121)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:37:57 AM EST
    that make a lie the truth... or the truth a lie when spoken of written?

    Saying something does not make something credible.

    [ Parent ]

    how credible is paying parking tickets from (none / 0) (#156)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:02:47 PM EST
    college years after ignoring them just to clean up your record a bit to run for office....that smacks of hypocrisy and points to "willing to bend the rules when it suits me"....

    [ Parent ]
    Who did that (none / 0) (#159)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:31:48 PM EST
    one? And where did you find the info?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama did it (none / 0) (#163)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    right before he ran for president....Very hypocritical of him....

    [ Parent ]
    Yep. Add another (none / 0) (#164)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:16:16 PM EST
    nail to the coffin. Thanks for the link.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#168)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:37:25 PM EST
    but his voting cohort thinks it's cool to get parking tickets.

    [ Parent ]
    Now here is (none / 0) (#167)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:02:59 PM EST
    actual stats....I thought I had heard these stats after SC.....

    And despite media coverage of a racial undercurrent - and the racial vote divide -- in last Saturday's South Carolina Democratic primary, more than three in four voters there -- 77 percent - still said they would be satisfied if Hillary Clinton won their party's nomination, while only a few percent more -- 83 percent -- said they would be satisfied if Barack Obama won.

    This is much better than an "I know more than you do" argument.

    Although I beleive he is no longer on the blog.

    [ Parent ]

    I for one LOVE Hilary (none / 0) (#166)
    by mexboy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:53:34 PM EST
    And will be voting for her. I could care less what you think of her. The woman is brilliant, highly articulate, loved around the world and has a grasp of the issues that Obama can only dream of. She whoops his behind at every single debate, you know when he's not scripted.

    Your post is infected with venom and very personal. I don't see any logic to it.

    When 50% of people vote for you, it matters. it's called the will of the people.

    Most Obama supporters are blinded with hate for Hilary and cult-like devotion to Obama.

    So vote for McCain, that's your right. HIlary has the rest of us who will support her.

    [ Parent ]

    i even (none / 0) (#169)
    by athyrio on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:40:06 PM EST
    know several Indies that are voting for her as they dont like Obama's pettiness and lack of experience...

    [ Parent ]
    A desperate attempt that succeeded (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:57:12 AM EST
    Ridculousness is in the eye of the beholder.

    I thought the Media was ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]

    Not quite... (none / 0) (#112)
    by burnedoutdem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:12:53 AM EST
    ...the coverage was below the fold, pointed out it was hollow and then returned to the Kennedy endorsements and how, wow, Bill is suddenly keeping his mouth shut.  Not really the most successful diversion.

    [ Parent ]
    Strong disagree (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:17:39 AM EST
    Especially now that the Edwards dropping out story is the dominant story.

    I think Obama has been blunted here.

    The debate is tomorrow. South Carolina is a memory now.

    [ Parent ]

    Oops...typo...I meant "loss in SC" (none / 0) (#92)
    by burnedoutdem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:27:38 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Seriously, if you can't win without your husband.. (none / 0) (#176)
    by delandjim on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:57:51 AM EST
    Seriously, if you can't win without your husband, then you shouldn't run?

    How about changing that to:Seriously, if you can't win without your wife, then you shouldn't run.


    [ Parent ]

    BTD, ready to make a prediction? (none / 0) (#4)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:28:34 AM EST
    I've never thought Obama had a real chance to beat Hillary, but I'm not politically savvy like you.  After SC, you wanted to wait for some polls.

    Florida Straw Poll results are in.  Two netwoks said that Obama won or tied among voters that dcided in the last month or the last week, supposedly indicating that he might have a real chance on Feb 5th and that SC and Ted Kennedy may havee given him a bump.

    Any validity to this?

    No (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:32:34 AM EST
    It is the stupidest thing I heard.

    Hillary won those who decided the last day, and tied for those who decided in the last 3 days.

    But who cares? That is always the minority of voters anyway.

    What strikes me from Florida is how the demographic breakdown was so similar to South Carolina.

    At this point, I wonder if anything is going to break through for Obama.

    I have to make Hillary a solid favorite to win the nomination at this point.

    [ Parent ]

    Demographic analysis on a state where (none / 0) (#9)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:35:55 AM EST
    no one campaigned is rather silly.

    What Florida showed is that, with no candidates asking for their vote, Clinton as the quasi-incumbent outperformed someone who is significantly less well-known there.

    You can't extrapolate numbers from where there is no campaigning, no debate, no campaign literature, and no voter outreach to states where that exists.

    [ Parent ]

    Ridiculous comment (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:39:36 AM EST
    You think the fact that the demographic brerakdown of South Carolina and Florida were almost mirror images means nothing?

    Heck it proves something important imo - that "campaigning" is not changing that many minds.

    IT is MY point - I am not sure what Obama is going to do that will shake this seemingly immovable breakdown.

    He can't pull an Iowa and live in all the states for a month.

    That is the KEY point.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has been winning by drawing (none / 0) (#17)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:51:10 AM EST
    non-traditional voters to the polls.

    This IS a key stat:  Republicans in Florida outdrew Democrats.  That didn't happen in the four states where Obama campaigned.

    Note also that Obama has field operations in all 22 February 5 states.

    Obama will do better in New York than in Florida.

    [ Parent ]

    There number of Dem and GOP voters was close (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:54:59 AM EST
    in Florida. In a nonevent with no GOTV efforts.

    The fact is the turnout was pretty remarkable.

    But of course the point was that Obama did that IN Iowa. In NH, it is clear that Obama did not do something extraordinary on turnout.

    He has no time to do anymore Iowas.

    [ Parent ]

    Democrats have been greatly outrdrawing (none / 0) (#26)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:00:05 AM EST
    Republicans in other states.  

    We outdrew them in heavily Republican South Carolina, for instance.  

    He did do a good job of turning out votes in New Hampshire.  It's just that Clinton did an even better job.

    Seriously, I can't believe you're arguing that campaigns don't matter.

    [ Parent ]

    It is not that campaigns don't matter (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    It is just that the vast majority of Americans they go to a rally or meet a candidate because they don't live in a contested state or a state with an early primary. Their experience of campaigns is all through the national media. If you have any interest at all in politics, you are likely to be as well informed as people from states where there is a lot of campaigning. As I pointed out before, I lived for years in northern Ohio which was a huge battle ground. Candidates showed up on a regular basis during the general election. Now I live in a state which gets virtually no action, yet people are every bit as informed (or misinformed in the case of my Republican friends who watch Fox News) as they were in Ohio.

    [ Parent ]
    Campaigns don't matter? (none / 0) (#32)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:06:26 AM EST
    Who argued that position again???

    [ Parent ]
    Due to a surge in A-A votes (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:07:20 AM EST
    South Carolina is NOT sui generis but almost.

    I am not arguing that campaigns do not matter. I am arguing that perhaps at this point, they do not matter much in the Dem race.

    We'll see next week.


    [ Parent ]

    National primary is too early (none / 0) (#36)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:11:23 AM EST
    There's always a Super Tuesday, but this national primary next week is ridiculous.  Anyone trying to draw out the primary season again in the future?

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:14:59 AM EST
    I hope it is decisive next week, one way or the other.

    This fight has reached the point of diminsihing returns.

    The Clinton Hate is pervasive and damaging.

    [ Parent ]

    The Clinton hate (none / 0) (#64)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:54:25 AM EST
    Will be much worse in the fall.

    [ Parent ]
    Protectionism? (none / 0) (#86)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:17:55 AM EST
    I agree with this, but only from a Democratic rotectionist point of view.  Otherwise, I'd have more respect for the winer and loser if they fough out their differences like traditional democrats. In other words, I think it wuld be good for Bill to admit his JJJr comment was out of line but not racist and apologize and I'd like Obama to admit that Hillary is the strongest candidate for the Democrats now and certainly not racist in anyway.  Like I say, I'm not politically savvy but perhps honesty from both sides is the only way to break through the media narratives.  

    [ Parent ]
    Illinois crossover mattered in Iowa (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:34:42 AM EST
    . . . crossing over the Mississippi, that is.  A lot of Illinoisans go to Iowa colleges.  And it was over semester break, when students had time to give.

    That may help him in other states bordering Iowa -- especially Minnesota and Wisconsin, the others in the "Superstate" of Minnewisowa (ugh), as it has been called, combining three swing states for as many popular/delegate/electoral votes as the big states.  But only along the borders, the big cities -- the Twin Cities, Milwaukee -- although that does mean most of the population of those states.

    It's just too costly in time and money, and not worth it, to try to reach the strongly Republican up-north areas of the Boundary Waters, the North Woods, the Yoopers who might as well be in Wisconsin, etc.  And the next stop is Canada.

    So once away from Iowa by a state or so, Obama didn't and doesn't have the benefit of Illinoisans crossing over the borders for college -- for volunteering for campaigns, for attending rallies before going back over the bridge, etc.  The anomaly of Iowa going first gave him a great bounce at the start of the game, but it's heading to halftime now.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh -- and Iowa's very loose registration rules (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:36:52 AM EST
    allowing students to just declare themselves Iowans, even if only there for a couple of months, boosted Obama's numbers a lot there as well.  Other states such as Wisconsin, although an open primary and with same-day registration, require evidence of at least six months' residency.  And Minnesota's caucus is by secret ballot, which makes a big difference, too. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    There are a lot of states with no campaigning (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:52:18 AM EST
    Do you really think that those of us who live in states where candidates do little or no campaigning are incapable of finding out about them? Believe it or not, we have national TV networks, magazine and newspapers and even access to the internet. The retail campaigning that you feel is so necessary is something which only happens in a very few states.
    As for advertising, Obama did advertise in FLorida and he still lost.
    With all the attention that is being paid to this election, people are more tuned in and informed than in most elections - at least Democrats are.

    [ Parent ]
    People do not get engaged at nearly the same level (none / 0) (#27)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:02:39 AM EST
    When candidates aren't allowed to ask for your vote, hell yes it matters.

    When they can't even hold a press conference in your state, hell yes it matters.

    When they don't even look at the voter rolls and make even a single phone call, hell yes it matters.

    Sure, people CAN look stuff up on the Internet and catch a minute or two of news coverage here and there on the national race, but without campaigning you don't get the local coverage and interest.

    [ Parent ]

    How much does it matter (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:04:50 AM EST
    is the key question and does it redound to Obama's favor exclusively?

    Nevada it did not. New Hampshire it did not.

    Only in Iowa. TO get back to my point on that.

    [ Parent ]

    Then I guess my vote never counts (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:32:19 AM EST
    I used to live in Ohio which was hugely contested. I now live in a state where candidates are rarely seen except for an occasional fundraiser because our primaries are late and the state is reliable Republican in the genral election. I do not see a difference in either my or my friends level of interest.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Kathy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:55:45 AM EST
    campaigning matters, but you are assuming (1) Edwards and Hillary folks will not be doing the same thing and (2) all folks need to do is go to a rally with Obama and they will vote for him in droves.

    Very big assumptions, and it ignores Edwards all together, as he is by all means nationally known.  How do you explain his low turnout?  If I'm looking at a ballot and the only two names I recognize are Edwards and Clinton, and I don't want to vote for Clinton, then I will vote for Edwards.

    Or Biden, bless his heart.  Joe pulled in some folks, didn't he?

    [ Parent ]

    no campaigning (none / 0) (#81)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:59:42 AM EST
    Interestingly, Clinton has won 3 out of 5 primaries/caucuses. Your argument is that if Obama could have made stump speeches he would have won Florida, but the FACTS indicate that when both candidates make stump appearances, Hillary wins. She lost SC because 90% of the Democrats are black. That will be a problem with Obama throughout the South. He cannot win in a general election, he'll lose the entire South.

    [ Parent ]
    None of us watch TV down here. We have never heard (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:34:27 AM EST
    of this Obama fellow down here in Florida. Tell us about him.

    For what it is worth, one of Leo's clients, a male carpenter was very excited about Obama. Excited enough to register to vote. Mind you he is feeling the economic pinch and is anti-Iraq and will vote the GOP out, because he wants, in his words, "change".

    Don't kid yourself. Floridians  know who Obama is, we have seen and heard him.

    [ Parent ]

    texas has over 200 delegates. (none / 0) (#154)
    by hellothere on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 02:10:21 PM EST
    but our primary is in march. of course, the repubs have been in control here for awhile.

    [ Parent ]
    No one campaigned in Michigan either, (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:57:06 AM EST
    but somehow the call to cross over and vote Uncommitted was heeded.

    [ Parent ]
    MI (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:03:12 AM EST
    And Hillary won anyway, even though MoveOn.org urged Republicans to register as Democrats and vote against her, the same thing Obama's people did in Nevada.

    Keep your eyes peeled for the Obama campaign to announce that they have filed official papers to force a recount in Florida! What a joke.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, I won't donate to Move.on again (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:26:52 AM EST
    after seeing it was involved in that.  John Conyers' campaign ads for the "uncommitted," anti-Clinton vote . . . well, he has earned the right to fight.


    [ Parent ]
    Was there ever any real doubt? (none / 0) (#28)
    by robrecht on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:04:41 AM EST
    I have to make Hillary a solid favorite to win the nomination at this point.

    Was there ever any real doubt?  Or were you just trying to make it as interesting as possible?  Sure Obama could have run a more partisan, Democratic inspired fighter campaign, but do you think he might have done better if he had?  I think he's done about as well or better than most people ever could expect.  The VP spot is practically his, which is pretty damn good for a 1st term senator that has not used his position to distinguish himself on the most important issue of our time.  I have a hard time imagining how he could have realistically done any better than this, but as I say, I'm not that politically savvy.

    [ Parent ]

    Some doubt (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:05:35 AM EST
    Indeed we do not know necessarily what is going to happen next week.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD (none / 0) (#60)
    by Kathy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:46:49 AM EST
    that is very fair of you.  I wish I could be more convinced.  I fear that the media will create something awful.  I am no statistician, but that one report on CNN backs you up.  Demographically, Obama's numbers work against him now.

    On a personal note, I wish folks would stop this "beauty contest" stuff.  It smacks as anti-woman to me, and seeks to lessen the win even more.  No one called Michigan a beauty contest.  No one called the caucuses a beauty contest.  Can you imagine the cries of racism that would go up if SC was called a beauty contest???  And the way the news is treating the win this morning is just so annoying, because they are getting away with this crap ONLY because HIllary is a woman.  If Obama had pulled this out, do you think they would call it a beauty contest?  All of this is so polarizing and so wrong, and not counting Florida is just wrong because they had no choice.  This will split the party apart, if nothing else.

    And, on an even more personal note, my cousin wrote an email to TPM, which she has adored and donated to for a while, and asked them to protest the suppression of votes.  I told her not to bother, and sure enough, she got back a nasty email implying she was a blinded Clinton supporter, and saying she had insulted them (if you met her, you would laugh; she doesn't even kill flies.  Really.  And she lives in Florida where the state bird is the black fly).  Anyway, she was a firm Obama supporter, which made for interesting phone conversations, but now she is switching to Edwards based on the response she got from TPM as well as the slanted coverage.   And she says she's just now noticed that there are Obama ads all over TPM (did I mention she's blind, too?)

    [ Parent ]

    beauty contest (3.50 / 2) (#84)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:12:40 AM EST
    Younger people may not realize it, but I've been following politics in this country since the "Student Revolution" in the '60s. The huge media smear against Hillary--and the D. C. Democrats' shameless promotion of Barack Obama--  has nothing to do the Clintons' record or any wrongdoing on the part of Hillary of Bill. It's all because they DO NOT WANT a woman in the WH. They say "not this woman," but that's a lie. They don't want any woman, especially not one who is a capable and tough as Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    I've read and heard that a lot lately (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:24:39 AM EST
    I wonder if between the MSM madness and Obama suddenly surrounding himself with all these older white male DC types if there won't be some sort of backlash among women, at least older women.  

    [ Parent ]
    I Think It Would Be Fair To Think (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:08:12 AM EST
    that there will be some backlash amoung women.

    [ Parent ]
    UGH (none / 0) (#157)
    by Kathy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:03:30 PM EST
    "Not this woman" just annoys the crap out of me.  Can you imagine the response if people said, "I'd vote for a black man, but not this black man."

    It's a rhetorical trick.  "I'm not sexist/racist/whatever.  I'd vote for a woman/black/mormon, just not the strongest one we've ever had in a national election in the history of our country."

    BITE ME.

    [ Parent ]

    Depends On The Question (none / 0) (#158)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:23:02 PM EST
    If the question is:

    Don't you want to see a woman in the white house?

    Or the accusation:

    You just don't want a woman in the WH.

    The answer is hardly sexist. There are many anti-Clinton people  who are strong supporters of women's rights. They just hate Bill, and by association Hillary for not dumping him, among other things.  

    [ Parent ]

    The media is deeply sexist (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:03:45 AM EST
    Have you ever noticed that many pundits mock all Democrats as too feminine? They derided John Edwards as the Breck girl and as "too pretty". Bill Clinton was always mocked for feeling our pain. John Kerry was "too French" and not macho enough. His windsurfing was seen as an effete sport compared to more manly occupations.  Heck, Arnold even used the term "girlie men" to describe Democrats. There is a lot of talk among analysts about how Republicans are the "daddy party" in contrast to the Democrats being the "mommy party".
    Look at who the media generally swoons over. Macho guys like McCain, or faux macho guys like Guiliani and Bush are always preferred to our panty waists.
    These men are clearly threatened by anything feminine, let alone a woman in power, because they are insecure about their own manliness. Chris Matthews is exhibit one for this kind of behavior and he is anything but manly. He idolizes men he perceives as macho because he wishes he were more like them. (He has said that he was in the band in high school. Bet bullies stole his lunch money, too.)
    This country has suffered through eight years of a disastrous presidency largely because of the media's obsession with manliness. They admittedly hated the more qualified Gore and fawned over the "manly" Bush so much that they were willing to overlook his glaring inadequacies. Their sexism runs deep and wide.

    [ Parent ]
    well said BernieO (none / 0) (#146)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:32:06 AM EST
    your postis persuasive.

    So many of these guys back the war and swooned over all those cool war toys we were going to use. Not all, of course, but they were and are tying to appeal to the base nature of people.  I think the bad economy is going to put paid to their fantasy reporting.  People are scared.

    [ Parent ]

    late decisions (none / 0) (#177)
    by delandjim on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:00:15 AM EST
    Where did you hear Hillary won those who decided the last day, and tied for those who decided in the last 3 days?

    Because I had also hear they broke for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    800,000 people did vote for her yesterday (none / 0) (#7)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:33:37 AM EST
    so she was going to get some bounce out of it.

    The question is whether she did more harm to herself than good by trying to overreach and claim 'victory' in a battle that was never fought.

    Florida's result, essentially, was like one of those June 2007 national polls.

    Harm to herself with whom? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:37:08 AM EST
    The people that hate her already?

    This is the lesson the Obama camp seems incapable of learning - there are people who will NOT vote for you no matter what.

    One emotional part of me wants Hillary to win to stick it in the face of the Media.

    Another emotional part of me want Obama to win so that I can say "I told you so" to all of you when Obama has to get tough.

    The rational part of me wants Obama because he has the best chance of governing successfully because he is a Media darling.

    [ Parent ]

    media darling (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:15:28 AM EST
    And when he runs against McCain and the media switch to the Republicans because they are, after all, owned by big corporations, will Ted Kennedy and John Kerry tell McCain to just stop criticizing Obama because they don't want him battered? Get real.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama will be a media darling (4.50 / 4) (#75)
    by Grandmother on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:46:06 AM EST
    only as long as HRC is in the race.  If he wins the nomination, he will be sliced and diced just as any other Democrat standing there alone.  They have done it to every democratic nominee since 1980.  Anyone who doubts needs to do some simple research on presidential politics since that time.

    The Clinton presidency coincided with the beginning and rise of the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys in the media and talk radio.  They hated the Clintons and helped frame the discussion regarding his presidency and personal life.

    There is no doubt that the republican, right wing media will do the same to Obama.  They cannot and will not tolerate a win by a Democrat.  At least HRC has been there and done that - and continues through this long primary season to remain standing despite all of the hate of the media.

    [ Parent ]

    You left out Gore and Kerry (4.50 / 2) (#128)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:56:57 AM EST
    People are so focused on the hatred of Clinton that they forget the despicable treatment that both Gore and Kerry got. Weirdly, Gore got hammered more by the media than by the right wing attack machine. All they did was put out spin and the media became a huge echo chamber for them.
    By the time Kerry came around the media was less enamored of Bush so the right wingers had to pony up more money to create the Swiftboat lies. The media did little to counteract this and gave the Swiftboaters equal time even though the media knew they were lying.
    How did Democrats, both leaders and rank and file respond to this? By waiting for someone else to fight it. Whenever Bush got criticised, Republicans came out of the woodwork to scream about how unfair the liberal media or mean ol' Gore or Kerry were being. Democrats sat on their hands trying to stay above the fray and hanging their candidates out to dry.

    [ Parent ]
    Reinforcing the narrative that she is less (none / 0) (#13)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:44:57 AM EST
    than authentic.

    Claiming victory in a state that you didn't campaign in and that will play no role in determining the nominee reinforces that narrative.

    Also, trying to play calvinball and change the rules for self-aggrandizement, well I've diaried that at Dkos.  

    I do find it ironic that Clinton enjoys such love amongst Democratic rank and file, when the national party did worse under Bill than under any other President, Republican or Democrat, since World War I.

    [ Parent ]

    Dude (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:52:30 AM EST
    The narrative that the Clinton Haters ALREADY believe. They can not not vote for her twice.

    You make my point.

    As for the rest of your analysis, losing the rest of the boll weevil Dems and then winning seat consistently after 1994 has been GOOD for the Party.

    The 1990s were bad for Democrats is your argument. That is some spin considering the three elections that Dems have gotten more votes in a Presidential election were 1992, 1996 and 2000.

    [ Parent ]

    Under 50% each time. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:57:33 AM EST
    And, the state parties withered on the vine and died,  We lost literally dozens of statehouses and legislatures under Clinton.

    When did the party start regaining an ideological identity?  When Clinton, McAwful, and Penn were taken away from the levers of power and when Howard Dean took over after 2004.

    Well, I hope folks enjoy DNC head Harold Ford if Clinton gets the nomination.  

    [ Parent ]

    Why did the party statesmen (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:51:16 AM EST
    just sit and do nothing? Why did they not feed and strengthen the party? What were they doing? Sitting around till a perceived ready made prince was created.

    [ Parent ]
    Ted Kennedy already was the party leader (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:52:52 AM EST
    and, much as I admire him for many good stands -- his problems crippled the party's ability to fight back at many crucial points . . . such as the Hill-Thomas hearings, when Kennedy couldn't make a peep because of his own problems with women -- and then in the attacks on Bill Clinton, from 1992 on, because of his similar inability to keep it zipped.

    [ Parent ]
    That's the big question (none / 0) (#125)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:50:00 AM EST
    I have been wondering about this for years. It seems to me that Democrats like to appear above the fray and do not like to fight for what they believe in the way Republicans do. They prefer to seem lofty. Hence the appeal of Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    The state partiies in (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:59:12 AM EST
    REPUBLICAN states!

    This is just silly analysis.

    Indeed one could argue that Clinton retarded the decimation of Dems in the South.

    [ Parent ]

    They became Republican states under Clinton. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:10:22 AM EST
    Just like Congress became a Republican Congress under Clinton.

    Sorry, but if you're going to sit there and pretend that the Democratic party thrived under Bill Clinton as opposed to Bill Clinton thriving himself, oy.

    [ Parent ]

    They did not thrive (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:13:08 AM EST
    because they were REPUBLICAN! The South! MY gawd, you are pretending that Dems suffered in say New Jersey?

    No, they suffered in Alabama. Please do not be silly on this.

    And I have to say, when you have the Unity Schtick candidate, do not tell me that one of the selling points is how he is going to sell the Democratic Party.

    Let me repeat, this is NOT daily kos. We have brains here.

    [ Parent ]

    No, they lost in BLUE states! (none / 0) (#45)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:30:12 AM EST
    Incumbents defeated

    Every Republican incumbent seeking re-election won. 34 incumbent Democrats were defeated in 1994, with Democrats from Washington losing the most seats (5):

    • Karan English (Arizona 6, elected in 1992)

    • Dan Hamburg (California 1, elected in 1992)

    • Richard H. Lehman (California 19, elected in 1982)

    • Lynn Schenk (California 49, elected in 1992)

    • George "Buddy" Darden (Georgia 7, elected in 1982)

    • Clete Donald Johnson, Jr. (Georgia 10, elected in 1992)

    • Larry LaRocco (Idaho 1, elected in 1990)

    • Dan Rostenkowski (Illinois 5, elected in 1958) - a major upset as Rostenkowski was a veteran and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and his Chicago district was heavily Democratic, though it didn't help that he was under felony indictment.

    • Jill Long (Indiana 4, elected in 1988)

    • Frank McCloskey (Indiana 8, elected in 1982)

    • Neal Edward Smith (Iowa 4, elected in 1958) - also a major upset due to Smith's seniority

    • Dan Glickman (Kansas 4, elected in 1976)

    • Thomas Barlow (Kentucky 1, elected in 1992)

    • Peter Hoagland (Nebraska 2, elected in 1988)

    • James Bilbray (Nevada 1, elected in 1986)

    • Dick Swett (New Hampshire 2, elected in 1990)

    • Herb Klein (New Jersey 8, elected in 1992)

    • George Hochbrueckner (New York 1, elected in 1986)

    • Martin Lancaster (North Carolina 3, elected in 1986)

    • David Price (North Carolina 4, elected in 1986)

    • David S. Mann (Ohio 1, elected in 1992)

    • Ted Strickland (Ohio 6, elected in 1992)

    • Eric Fingerhut (Ohio 19, elected in 1992)

    • Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (Pennsylvania 13, elected in 1992)

    • Jack Brooks (Texas 9, elected in 1952) - a huge upset due to Brooks' seniority and chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee

    • Bill Sarpalius (Texas 13, elected in 1988)

    • Karen Shepherd (Utah 2, elected in 1992)

    • Leslie Byrne (Virginia 11, elected in 1992)

    • Maria Cantwell (Washington 1, elected in 1992)

    • Jolene Unsoeld (Washington 3, elected in 1988)

    • Jay Inslee (Washington 4, elected in 1992)

    • Tom Foley (Washington 5, elected in 1964) - one of the most historic defeats in congressional history; Foley had not only represented the Spokane area for thirty years, but was Speaker of the House, one of the most powerful men in D.C., so his defeat was symbolic of the entire 1994 election

    • Mike Kreidler (Washington 9, elected in 1992)

    • Peter Barca (Wisconsin 1, elected in 1993) - Barca's tight win in a 1993 special election in this "safely Democratic" district was a sign of things to come

    History matters.

    [ Parent ]

    It does (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:35:04 AM EST
    But mosdt of the losses were in Red States.

    And do you know WHY?

    Because Clinton fought for a Democratic agenda.

    Health care, balancing the budget by raising taxes on the rich. For lowering taxes for the working class. For gay rights.

    BTW you got some results for 1996, 1998 and 2000?

    You conveniently ignore those results.

    [ Parent ]

    Too many Dems are ignorant (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:44:47 AM EST
    of what went on in the nineties. That was when the Republican attack/propaganda machine became so powerful. The process began in the 80's with Rush Limbaugh, and the growth of the Religious Right, but Republicans came into their own in the 90's. Reagan did away with the fairness doctrine so the media did not have to be balanced in its coverage. Rupert Murdoch got Newt to get him citizenship so he could create right wing newsoutlets like Fox. Wealthy Republicans funded right wing think tanks like the Hoover Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and the Cato Institute and dressed them up with scholarly credentials in order to legitimize their ideas (read ideology) with the mainstream media. The rank and file intimidated the media by flooding journalists with complaints whenever they took the side of Democrats on issues.
    These people were - and are - extremely well funded and have a lot of influence over our political discourse. They have managed to dominate our political dialogue ever since. People seem to forget that they managed to sink both Gore and Kerry who were both much more qualified than Bush. Only  in the last couple of years is the public beginning to wake up to this, but a lot of Democrats still don't get it. If you look at polls the American public is left of center, yet they keep voting for conservatives who do not represent their issues. This is no accident.
    Democrats deserve blame for passively standing by and allowing this to go on, but there is no way the Clintons are to blame.

    [ Parent ]
    Illinois, California, New York, and (none / 0) (#57)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:45:34 AM EST
    Massachusetts all elected Republican governors in 1994.  So, it was a national disaster for the party.

    435 seats are up in every Congressional election.  Democrats lost a majority of those seats in every election while Bill Clinton was President.

    Clinton never campaigned for a Democratic agenda, and never had that mandate.

    In 1996, he dropped the idea of being a Democrat completely and ran as a moderate Republican.

    [ Parent ]

    Finally we agree (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:49:33 AM EST
    Clinton did not campaign for a Dem agenda in 1992. He ran a Unity Schitck campaign.

    Then we he tried to ENACT a Dem agenda, he got whollopped.

    Sound familiar? Who is running Clinton's 1992 campaign this year?

    [ Parent ]

    He got whalloped because he was a coward (none / 0) (#82)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:00:37 AM EST
    Right off the bat with gays in the military he announced loudly and clearly he didn't have the courage to fight for something that could EASILY have been won.  The Unity Schtick got him elected, from there on in it was his own cowardice that failed him.  I fear his wife has the same personality defect.  When push comes to shove, she will fold on any number of important mattters.

    [ Parent ]
    Just like (none / 0) (#89)
    by magisterludi on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:20:35 AM EST
    Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    I live in one of those Southern states (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by RalphB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:25:51 AM EST
    and you're just talking out your butt on that.  The states that turned red had been trending there since the '60s and most were already fully republican before Clinton came along.

    Those boll weevil democrats who lost were more conservative than the democratic party and it didn't hurt me to see them gone.  Your historical analysis is way off here.

    Further information, the democrats in congress who actually supported Clinton's proposals actually won in '94, with a few exceptions.  The losers were mostly people who actually campaigned on how far they were from his proposals.  Examples: Dave McCurdie and Jack Brooks.


    [ Parent ]

    Tom Foley was a Boll Weevil? (none / 0) (#46)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:31:20 AM EST
    Washington state lost 5 Democrats in the House all by itself.

    [ Parent ]
    So you criticize Clinton for fighting for (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:33:06 AM EST
    health care? Gay rights? Balancing the budget?

    You do realize that is what caused the 1994 disaster right?

    You are bringing your dkos personna here and I for one do not like it.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton was more interested in getting NAFTA (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:42:09 AM EST
    passed than enacting health care reform or campaign finance reform.  That was the one fight where he really put it on the line.

    Also, are you saying that the country just rejected Democratic values and policies?  Because that seems to imply that Bill Clinton never really made the case for those policies.

    Bill ran as a centrist, and thus never had a mandate to do anything but centrist stuff.

    [ Parent ]

    That is simply ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:47:39 AM EST
    NAFTA won with GOP votes and much fewer Dems.

    Clinton invested his all in health care and balancing the budget.

    NAFTA was a pretty easy win.

    You are bringing the Daily Kos Geek todsay and I do not like it.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama voted for the Peru trade act (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:47:25 AM EST
    which is just like NAFTA. He says that the difference is that it has environmental and labor standards, but NAFTA did,too. The Republicans just have not enforced them.

    [ Parent ]
    The Clintons bungled health care (none / 0) (#67)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:58:05 AM EST
    in an extraordinary way.  Hillary Clinton admits she bungled that one, but won't admit that she bungled her IWR vote, to put the scope of that disaster in perspective.  She made it easy for Phil Gramm and Newt Gingrich to torpedo her plan.

    And NAFTA was not an 'easy' win.'  It was a collaboration between Clinton and Gingrich, with each twisting enough arms to get the thing approved.  

    [ Parent ]

    Tom Foley forgot to tend (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:40:57 PM EST
    the home fires in a verrrry Republican district and he (and Heather...grrr) let the Dems in the House get into a lot of trouble...scandal after scandal.  It gave Gingrich the ammunition he needed everywhere...for a while.  Yes we lost 5 house seats but since then we took back a senate seat and 4 house seats.

    You really need to do a little more research on the 90s...not to mention the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

    [ Parent ]

    Was Mario Cuomo a Boll Weevil? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:38:31 AM EST
    Republicans won the statehouse in:

    California
    New York
    Illinois, and
    Massachusetts

    Yeah, Bill was just great for the party.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you know why Cuomo lost? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:45:58 AM EST
    Clinton had nothing to do with it.

    He turned his back on A-As and Latinos.

    California was a pretty Republican state BEFORE Clinton. Clinton made Calfiornia blue. Bad example by you.

    Illinois was Michel Republican. In a way, Clinton made Illinois blue.

    I am not familiar with what happened in MAssachusetts.

    [ Parent ]

    The point was that the party in general (none / 0) (#68)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:59:46 AM EST
    was not healthy and did not thrive.

    [ Parent ]
    Right and democrats in Congress (none / 0) (#76)
    by RalphB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:51:49 AM EST
    then suffered from the same disease as lots do now, the fear of actually standing up for something. There's an old saying that "If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything" and the sad truth is too many democrats in congress are just too timid in their own beliefs.

    If Iraq were Clinton's war, and republicans controlled congress, they would have cut off funding last year on the first attempt.  It wouldn't have been a close vote because some democrats would have went along to get along.   fwiw

    [ Parent ]

    South turning red (none / 0) (#178)
    by delandjim on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:08:05 AM EST
    They start turning red after LBJ got the civil rights bill passed?

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:37:39 AM EST
    Clinton must've had, like more power, than any other president ever.  In office less than three years and all those Congress members' districts turn on them?  Even the Dems' Leader?  

    I'm not saying Clinton helped Democrats in 1994, but Congressional Democrats had their own problems as well, including some corruption cases.  It's just very convenient for Democrats not named Clinton to remember things like this the fall of Dan Rostenkowski and the Congressional Post Office scandal which broke before the election in 1994.  And, what do you know, it also turns out Tom Foley had gotten a report on it in 1992 and sat on it.   And there were other things.  

    Again, I'm not saying Clinton's unpopularity played no role, but the depth and scope of Democratic defeats was because of unhappiness with Congress and the Members themselves.  Just as Congressional Republicans played a key role in their own defeat in 2006.  Certainly George Bush hurt them, but the number one issue voters listed for their vote was, IIRC, corruption.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep. And one more thing... (none / 0) (#162)
    by oldpro on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 03:45:22 PM EST
    Bill Clinton raised taxes with NO R votes...like many Dems in '94, Cantwell lost her House seat over that vote...sweet revenge when we drafted her and took out Gorton.

    [ Parent ]
    And this mistake (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:50:16 PM EST
    is one Obama is on the verge of repeating.  He had initially called for a bipartisan commission on social security.  Hillary did, too.  This makes perfect sense because to the extent social security needs to be dealt with, it needs to be dealt with in a true bipartisan way so that neither party gets blamed for any unpopular parts.  I believe Hillary has referred to it as holding hands and jumping off the bridge together.  If you're going to touch the third rail of American politics, better to be holding onto a Republican as you do it.

    You'd think this kind of approach would appeal to Mr. Unity.  Instead, sensing an opportunity to attack Hillary, he started talking about what a crisis social security is in (right-wing framing) and argued to lift the cap on FICA taxes (arguably a progressive idea).  This is the worst of both worlds - he's agreeing that social security is in a crisis and so must be fixed, thus inviting Republicans to mess with it only a few years after Dems saved it.  And then offers a solution that is essentially a tax increase.  Now, I'm not against tax increases per se, but this is just politically stupid since there's no reason for any Democrat to take sole responsibility for any pain associated with "fixing" social security.  It's one of the few areas where Democrats truly have Republicans over a barrel.  They will no more permit Social Security to fail then they will nominate Hillary Clinton for president.

    And then when Clinton called him on it (unfortunately with a bit of right-wing framing from her, too, on taxes), Obama retreated to saying social security wasn't in a crisis.  So now he's a flip-flopper who wants to raise taxes.  Great.  (And, yes, that's hyperbole, but that's my point.)

    One of the things that worries me the most as this campaign has worn on is how little Obama and his supporters seem to know or understand the last fifty years of U.S. political history.  Have they not heard the phrase "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."  

    [ Parent ]

    Did you watch her? (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:43:09 AM EST
    She said vote of confidence, but Clinton hate blinds people to everything she does.

    [ Parent ]
    Pawns of the right wing media (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:05:37 AM EST
    and their puppets in the mainstream media. WAKE UP FOLKS. Most of what you believe about the Clintons is right wing spin.
    As I keep saying go get a copy of "The Hunting of a President" by Gene Lyons and Joe Conason.
    Or read some of the archives from the 90's from Salon.com
    Try this on to get a taste of what went on.
    http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/cov_12news.html

    Until Democrats understand what we are up against, we will continue to lose and right wing ideas like supply side economics will continue to drag our country down.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, no. (none / 0) (#12)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:43:18 AM EST
    You can't reasonably claim that the exposure of voters in a state such as Florida to the candidates is the same now as it was in June last year.


    [ Parent ]
    Sure you can. (2.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:46:33 AM EST
    No campaigning, no outreach, no campaign organization in state, not even a public rally, no addressing of Florida concerns.

    Nobody sought votes from Floridians, which is why this whole claiming 'victory' thing is phony.  If you never sought their votes, it doesn't make sense to claim victory when they vote for you out of inertia.

    [ Parent ]

    Because they do not have TVs in Florida (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:50:05 AM EST
    You pretty much eviscerate the importance of early primaries.

    Geek, you are better than this. Seriously, save this schtick for Daily Kos. There are smart people at this blog.

    [ Parent ]

    You ignore the importance of having a field (none / 0) (#20)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:54:50 AM EST
    operation going in a state.

    A key to Obama's successes has been turning people out.  If there was no campaigning and field work, he would have lost Iowa.  And South Carolina would have been much, much closer.  Clinton was ahead there two months ago.

    When you're going up against a quasi-incumbent, it's absolutely necessary to be able to compete to overcome the information deficit.

    [ Parent ]

    You ignore that Hillary did not (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:57:37 AM EST
    have a field operation either.

    Look I do not know what Obama can try but he needs something more.

    I do not know what it is. Right now he is not breaking onto the key demos.

    He did NOT in South Carolina either.

    Only in Iowa. And he can not replicate Iowa for Super Tuesday.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure, and she wins that arrangement (none / 0) (#30)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:04:55 AM EST
    by default.

    Just like she was romping national polls in August and September.

    Because she's the most famous woman in the world, the most famous Democrat in the world eligible for the office, and a symbolic link to the previous administration--a quasi-incumbent in the mold of Mondale or Gore.

    OF COURSE when a challenger can't campaign against her in a state, she's going to win it.  Everyone knew months ago she was going to win FL and MI easily.

    [ Parent ]

    Now you are being ridiculous (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:09:17 AM EST
    Obama is a Media Darling with HUGE name recognition. IT is not September anymore.

    Obama is not lacking for news coverage or name recogntion.

    Yesterday was WALL to WALL Obama and Kennedy.

    That dog won't hunt anymore.

    [ Parent ]

    Some people still think he's a Muslim, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:11:50 AM EST
    for crying out loud.

    Name recognition and familiarity are two vastly different things.  People have heard of Barack Obama.  They know all about Hillary Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Some people (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:16:39 AM EST
    think Hilary is a lesbian.

    8 years after Obama is President, some people will think he is a Muslim.

    In FACT I be by this November, if Obama is the nominee, MORE people will think he is a Muslim than do so now.

    Can you guess why?

    [ Parent ]

    Are you seriously going to argue that (none / 0) (#42)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:21:54 AM EST
    voters are no more familiar with Clinton's record and story as they are with Obama's?

    Because that is simply not true.  The Clinton campaign itself has made that claim.

    [ Parent ]

    They are very familiar with Obama's campaign (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:24:36 AM EST
    I have never seen a Dem get better coverage.

    I can not seriously believe you do not see that.

    Look, it was a hard roe for Obama against Hillary Clinton. And he has run a great campaign. Maybe there is nothing he can do .

    But I wonder if he had made more of a partisan anti-GOP pitch if it might not have served him better.

    [ Parent ]

    They know the media figure, not the candidate (none / 0) (#48)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:32:36 AM EST
    or his record.

    Clinton has Bill's record to run on.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:36:15 AM EST
    Obama has no record at the federal level.

    You can't be new and experienced at the same time.

    [ Parent ]

    No federal record, no. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Geekesque on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:01:17 AM EST
    He has not been in the public eye as long, and he needs to play catch up in that regard.

    Without the ability to make his case, Florida turns out to be a referendum on Clinton herself, not a statement about her opponents.

    [ Parent ]

    Then he should have waited (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:48:03 AM EST
    his turn.

    [ Parent ]
    Some people still (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:46:40 AM EST
    think Hillary is Satan. These are the fringes.

    [ Parent ]
    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#171)
    by BDB on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:52:19 PM EST
    I was pretty sure Bill Clinton was Satan and Hillary was just Satan's consort. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Turn out broke all records (none / 0) (#129)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:59:09 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No tv (none / 0) (#99)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    no radio, no newspapers and no internet. Someone yesterday not here claimed, that Obama voters were better read and educated, they did not go because they knew the vote would not count. Watch this logic start popping up.

    [ Parent ]
    CLINTON TROUNCES OBAMA IN FLA (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ginness2050 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:57:45 AM EST
    If you can't stand the heat, stay away from the kitchen.  If Obama did not wish to compete in the Florida Democratic Primary all he had to do was remove his name from the ballot as he did in Michigan.

    1.6 million enthisiastic Democratic voters turned out and slightly more than 800,000 voted for Hillary Clinton.

    Some say it was a meaningless exercise in futility because the Democratic Headquarters will never allow any Florida delegates to be seated at the convention.  I believe they will re-think that decision and reverse it.  Otherwise they run the risk of a November election where some hostile Democrats may cross party lines if Clinton is not on the ballot and others may stay home for the same reason.

    Slice it anyway you choose, a win is a win and Hillery won big in Florida.

    actually the only way under Florida rules (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:42:22 AM EST
    to remove himself from the ballot would be to quit running. I don't think he is going to do that.

    [ Parent ]
    Then he should not have advertised (none / 0) (#132)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:06:17 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The numbers (none / 0) (#41)
    by koshembos on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:20:30 AM EST
    The numbers in SC were against Obama, except that the Obama herd, including Josh and Matt and HuffPo, didn't see it. Obama got the same percentage of white voters that Clinton got of the black vote. If this persists over Feb 5, Obama will be distant second.

    Florida showed these numbers clearly. So for Hillary, Florida is reaffirmation of that breakdown. Furthermore, Obama started the "race" issue with the "fairy tale" is a racist comment, only with our MSM and Netroots this can be acceptable, in order to win SC; well, he did. Unless the numbers change, Obama caused his own demise.

    Wait for Feb 5 to see whether the numbers change.

    He got slightly less (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:07:43 AM EST
    of the white vote than she got of the black vote. That is being completely ignored in the media.


    [ Parent ]
    CA (none / 0) (#72)
    by tek on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:41:32 AM EST
    Hillary will also have a huge win in CA. It's hard to see how she won't be ahead in delegates if she wins all the Feb. 5 states where she's running way ahead.

    Barack Obama is so petty and arrogant, I keep hoping it will catch up with him.

    Actually... (4.00 / 0) (#93)
    by sterno on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:32:05 AM EST
    The reality is that most of the states that go on 2/5 have proportional representations of the delegates.  So if Hillary wins in California and New York (at this moment appearing to be likely possibilities) she may win a lot of delegates, but so would Obama if he finishes relatively close.

    The way I see it now, the momentum in this race will come down to California.  Even if the delegate count doesn't give Obama a big advantage, Hillary was way ahead here and to have that lead evaporate bodes ill for her.  If Obama narrowly loses (2-5%) then he gets a good number of delegates and we are pretty much going down to the wire, fighting out over the next couple months with Texas being the biggest remaining prize. If Hillary wins by more than 5%, it will be a solid victory for her and though the delegate advantage may not be big for her, it will give her some momentum.

    If it was winner take all, the story would be different, but because of the proportional representation it gets rather a bit funky.  

    [ Parent ]

    "Non-event"? (none / 0) (#74)
    by recreant on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:43:34 AM EST
    It's no surprise that many Florida Democrats voted, and it's also no surprise that Democratic turnout was low.

    The Florida ballot included a significant amendment to the state constitution cutting property taxes, a proposal heavily supported by the Republicans.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSB45577320080130

    Politics does exist outside of the presidential race, you know.

    Dem turnout broke records (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:56:37 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Dem turnout broke records (4.00 / 0) (#87)
    by recreant on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:18:15 AM EST
    Sorry.  "low" meaning "lower than Republicans."

    The amendment was a huge state issue, and it brought out lots of voters, especially older people.  I was against it but knew it was likely to pass, so I almost stayed home.  I voted anyway because I felt like it and had the time.

    In the general election I'll wade through hellfire to vote for any Democrat, and I know I'm not alone.

    [ Parent ]

    in 2004 (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:53:56 AM EST
    Approximately 700k dems voted in the primary.  This year over a million.  In the GE in 2004 almost 3.4 demos voted.  Being that Florida has 3% more registered dems than repubs and extrapolating from this turnout, we should expect higher GE results on the dem side and a victory in florida????

    Almost 400k more votes without campaigning there, maybe that should tell us something lol.

    Florida and the general election (none / 0) (#122)
    by independent voter on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:44:38 AM EST
    Just would like to point out, no independents can vote in the Florida primary. I do believe the results on the Dem side would have been DRASTICALLY different had we gauged the entire electorate rather than just registered Dems and Reps.
    If Hillary is so concerned about every vote counting, maybe she should push for the parties to open their primaries to independent voters in every state! Whoever the nominee is come Novemebr, they need independents to vote for them.

    Why should indies get a say in deciding (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:55:24 AM EST
    the Dem nominee. I am bitterly opposed to open primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    Bitterly opposed, why? (4.00 / 1) (#130)
    by independent voter on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:01:05 AM EST
    Don't you agree that the eventual nominee has to have support of the independents to win?
    Again, if you TRULY believe every vote should be counted, you would support open primaries. I should not have to say I am with this party or that party. I do not vote based on party.

    [ Parent ]
    Indies (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:11:18 AM EST
    If you choose to be independent you dont get to come to my party and dabble. Wait your turn. Like Bob Dylan said: You gotta serve somebody.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#165)
    by blueaura on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:20:59 PM EST
    I am for open primaries. I think the two party system here is one of the many things wrong with politics in the US. There are more than two viewpoints on every topic, and when you combine topics together you get an infinite number of opinions. Trying to divide people in two is a big problem. Yet the two party system is firmly entrenched, and locking independents out of primaries is wrong. Saying, in essence, "We don't want your vote because you refuse to affiliate yourself with one of two flawed groups" does not  make much sense to me.

    [ Parent ]
    There is a big debate about this right now (none / 0) (#137)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:15:45 AM EST
    at talkleft.com. There is a very spirited, intelligent debate about Florida going on right this very minute. Check it out.
    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/30/65738/2635#136

    Heh (none / 0) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:19:58 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    OK Weird (none / 0) (#142)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    I was trying to post at No quarters but it showed up here.

    [ Parent ]
    Open primaries (none / 0) (#145)
    by BernieO on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 11:29:22 AM EST
    I have mixed feelings about open primaries. I have actually taken advantage of this, though. I live in a very Republican district (Dems in my neighborhood get teased for being subversives) so I keep my affiliation listed as independent so that I can vote in off year Republican primaries. Otherwise I have no say so over who my city councilman or county rep are because the Republican always wins.
    I do wonder if closed primaries up party participation by forcing people to choose. If it did, I would think most primaries would be open, though.
    Also open primaries allow people to try to sink the opposition's candidate. I have to confess I did this once when I voted in the primaries for Gerald Ford against Ronald Reagan. I then voted Democratic in the general election.

    lincoln chafee (none / 0) (#173)
    by javaman on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:22:16 PM EST
    go to the providence Journal and read what it says about Hillary's vote on Iraq. what a profile in courage she represents

    Why Hillary's Florida Gambit Worked | 178 comments (178 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment