This is a recent theme from HRC - that Obama can’t shut her out in Pennsylvania, he can’t “close the deal”, so how’s he ever going to win a general election?
So, if the candidate who’s way out in front, in popular vote and deligates and states and number of contributors and cash in hand, isn’t good enough, where is this theme taking us? Surely not to the candidate who’s behind in all these things, whom most consider dishonest, whose own campaign is a study in mismanagement, who careens from disaster to disaster. Is she proposing the Democrats give up, not even try to win their own primary, like in the Onion article?
Nobody can close the deal because of the nature of Democratic primaries. Barring an overwhelmingly popular candidate, the proportional system tends to make it difficult to close the deal.
Her rhetoric is effective because she said it first. Now, if he points out the obvious, he’s going negative. It’s roughly equivalent to guilt being decided by whoever tattles to Mommy first.
She can’t possibly believe it, though. If she does she’s a moron, because she doesn’t have any hope of closing the deal without cronyism and disenfranchisement of her own party members’ preference.
What’s annoying is the media’s propensity to pick up on Hillary’s talking points and parrot them. I must have heard half a dozen commentators today repeat the “can’t close the deal” meme.
Obi Wan Wolfson is having a field day with these weak-minded fools.
She doesn’t have to be inspirational. She just has to sow enough doubt in the minds of those who matter to successfully cast Obama as unelectable, which seems to be her goal.
There is now serious damage being done to the Dem’s chances of winning in November. There is no math that gives Clinton a realistic chance at getting the nomination at this point. She’s not going to win all the remaining contests, and those she does win won’t be by the margins she needs. She has to realize this, yet, illogically, she continues on.
Clinton’s role now is spoiler. Staying in the race with what’s ahead of her, regardless of how folks feel about her, will do no good to the party, but will help the republicans.
It’s time for her to stop. Refusing to do so, in my opinion, means she feels it’s more important to destroy Obama than for the dems to win in November.
If Obama was running against second term New York Senator Hillary Rodham, I think he would have by now. The spouse of a popular former president has a lot of political muscle. Hillary has had money problems, but still has fundraising resources. Any other candidate at this point would have run completely out of money with no hope of raising enough to continue the fight.
When was the last time a Democrat was in a position to even try to close the deal against a candidate as strong as Hillary - one who started off with a huge war chest, almost universal name recognition, and the support of most of the party establishment?
Usually, a candidate starting off with those advantages (e.g. Gore 2000, Mondale 1984) eventually overpowers his challenger. Obama is succeeding far beyond the dreams of Hart or Bradley.
Other Dem nominees (Kerry 2004, Clinton 1992, Dukakis 1988, Carter 1976) won out over divided fields with no particularly strong favorite.
The only arguably similar situation I can think of was McGovern’s win in 1972, since Muskie looked to be the heir apparent in the fall of 1971. But McGovern didn’t beat Muskie; Muskie’s weepy response to the Canuck Letter beat Muskie. After that, McGovern won out over a divided field.
Obama isn’t “way out in front”. It’s still a fairly close race, although Obama is leading by almost any measure. Hillary is desperately “clinging” to the hope that she can persuade the superdelegates to go her way. It’s her only hope at this point.
They didn’t run against an egotistical bitch who values her own ascension over the interests of her party and the country. Has anyone before refused to step down at this point in the process?
It’s funny that the media is asking why Obama can’t close the deal. Perhaps it’s because you dumb shits are creating the image that Clinton can win because you like the ratings the nomination is bringing you…
They ran against her husband,whose motivations and behavior are roughly equivalent. Why can’t Obama close the deal against his co-President?
That’s the point - ‘at this point in the process’ one candidate usually has the nom sewn up. Why is this not the case?
Well, that’s possible, but the nomination is by no means a done deal, despite the fond wishes of the Obamaniacs. (I am not necessarily talking about you.) But Obama is not getting the nearly unanimous support in the US that he gets on the SDMB. This is possibly due to a number of reasons -[ul][li]The SDMB is well to the left of the American mainstream, and would tend to gravitate to whoever is furthest out there []the self-reinforcing nature of the groupthink here - “Hilary sux” has succeeded “Bush sux” as the meme here (and will be replaced with "McCain sux’ as soon as the Democratic nominee is selected, regardless of who it is []Hilary’s very high negatives are not merely due to Republican shenanigans, but are based on factors that are only now becoming perceptible to the yellow dog Democrats here[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
I haven’t been following the Dem election that closely, but when I was eating breakfast Sunday, there was this guy on one of the morning shows that said that even with a strong showing in PA, HRC has to win at least 65% of the vote in the rest of the primaries, which he said it wasn’t going to happen. I was in a restaurant, so I couldn’t hear the full details.
As for the OP, if I was a hardliner for either candidate I would be worried about not having sewing up the nom at this point.
I think the question being asked is ‘why doesn’t Obama have the nomination wrapped up in the same way that previous Democratic candidates did?’
Would you agree that Obama can afford to stop campaigning and assume he will be the nominee in the same way that previous Democratic candidates were able to, at this point? If you do, then Obama has closed the deal. If not…
For much of the race Obama was playing catch-up. Before this all started HRC was heir-apparent. She had the machine, the money, the political favors sharply in her favor. That Obama has managed to catch and surpass HRC is remarkable. Why would you expect him to be miles ahead and have it sewn up under those circumstances?
If you use the nifty delegate calculator HRC needs to win 66% of the remaining vote to win the popular election (this ignores superdelegates). Only in Arkansas has she won by a margin that beats that…everywhere else has been by less than 60%. (cite)
How you expect HRC to remotely expect to achieve that is beyond me barring Obama dropping dead or getting caught in bed with a dead hooker or live boy.
[quote]
But Obama is not getting the nearly unanimous support in the US that he gets on the SDMB. This is possibly due to a number of reasons -[ul][li]The SDMB is well to the left of the American mainstream, and would tend to gravitate to whoever is furthest out there []the self-reinforcing nature of the groupthink here - “Hilary sux” has succeeded “Bush sux” as the meme here (and will be replaced with "McCain sux’ as soon as the Democratic nominee is selected, regardless of who it is []Hilary’s very high negatives are not merely due to Republican shenanigans, but are based on factors that are only now becoming perceptible to the yellow dog Democrats here[/ul] [/li][/QUOTE]
I think the SDMB support for Obama is more due to a somewhat more savvy than average group of participants. Clinton’s and Obama’s proposed policies are not all that sharply different. What they do see is Clinton’s appalling shenanigans that are hurting everyone and the Democratic party more than anything possibly opening the door to a McCain win. We see her consequences-be-damned-I’m-gonna-win-at-any-cost style loathsome.
As for switching from Bush to HRC bashing we have had 8 years of Bush bashing. His flaws are manifest. We are looking forward to the day of getting him the hell out and hope for something better and view HRC as damaging that effort.
There’s an article in the Wall Street Journal today saying the leadership is going to try and quietly put and end to the squabbling in Obama’s favor before the convention.