Thanks - now I’ve got this image in my head of a whole bunch of Energizer bunnies at an Obama rally!
You mentioned Obama’s advantage in small-donor fundraising, which has apparently become an advantage in fundraising overall as Clinton exhausts the universe of potential $2300 donors. I think that’s gonna be a big factor the rest of the way, especially if Clinton runs short of money to pay for ads.
I think spin and perception and how wins and losses play in the media will be a lot less important, the rest of the way, than delegate totals. They’re going to be an incontrovertible fact the rest of the way that no expectations can spin away.
Clinton’s camp is admitting that they’ll be outspent in the coming weeks and that Obama is making more money than they are. This article also mentions the possibility of Hillary dipping into the Clinton’s personal kitty to make up the difference. It’s not saying that she is, just that it exists and she could.
Surprisingly, there is quite literally nothing in the way of primaries and caucuses in the six weeks between March 11 and April 22.
I’m sure the Dems won’t be this swift on the uptake, but if they had a clue, they’d get Michigan and Florida to hold caucuses during that period, to pick delegate slates that everyone could agree were legitimate.
The whole point of holding primaries early was to impact the nomination race. But if they held caucuses in that six-week gap (e.g. FL on 3/25, and MI on 4/8), they’d be the only game in town for a couple weeks apiece, and probably do more to determine the outcome than if they’d gone early. And all within the rules, too. It would seem like win-win for everybody, except maybe Hillary if she insists on trying to seat the delegate slates from the zeroed-out Dem primaries in MI and FL.
The ability of the MI and FL Dem parties to organize caucuses in 7-8 weeks. I expect it’s do-able, but it’s surely a ton of organizational work, plus it’ll take money. (Perhaps the DNC could meet them halfway on the funding.)
Getting the state parties to change their existing stances, and agree to hold caucuses. Degree of difficulty depends on how stubborn they are.
Getting the DNC to agree. I don’t think that’s a problem - that’s along the lines of what the DNC has been trying to get them to do all along.
There’s probably more obstacles I can’t see, but are still real obstacles. But if it’s feasible to do at all, it would solve a pile of problems for the Dems.
I think Obama needs to really play on Hillary’s experience:
“It is true, I have no experience operating a B&B for corporate doners out of the Lincoln bedroom of the white house.”
“It is true that I have no experience at facilitating a GOP takeover of both houses of congress.”
“It is true that I have no experience in auctioning presidential pardons to the highest bidder.”
“I have no experience at funding my campaigns via donations from the same foreign government that stole our nuclear weapons secrets, no experience granting that same government most favored nation trading status, and no experience at knowingly holding the wrong man in solitary confinement for over a year for the espionage.”
“It is true that I lack the experience of appointing, then having to dismiss for incompetence, two energy secretaries.”
“It is true that I never bungled a health care initiative so badly that nearly 20 years later 40 million Americans lack health insurance, and we can’t even talk about single payer with invoking the memory of that debacle.”
He also needs to point out that if experience is the most important thing, then folks should be supporting John McCain rather than Hillary.
Both states already held their primaries, though. I have trouble imagining everybody’s going to want to have a do-over - and the Clintons and their people would freak if those votes got thrown out.
I have been waiting for this to happen for a few debates now, or at least to see it from the stump. But it is negative, and Obama is positive to a fault. But I would like to see a little aggression in my future commander in chief, especially when he only has to tell the truth to do it.
Yeah, I don’t see (3) as an issue. I’d think the DNC might be able to cajole the state parties to solve (2), given their already hard-line stance thus far – i.e., “What, do you want your votes ignored?” (even if they ultimately wouldn’t do that, they might set it up as an acceptable way out of the current “Mexican standoff”).
Personally, I see (1) as the real issue, both in terms of effort and money.
Good points; I suspect that the second would be terribly difficult to overcome without very visible popular support/outcry.
The votes were thrown out before they were cast, on terms that the Clinton campaign agreed to.
For the Obama campaign, it wouldn’t be a do-over; it would be a do-for-the-first-time. (That’s theoretically true of the Clinton campaign.)
Both states have had a primary for a prize of zero delegates to the convention. That shouldn’t be an impediment to holding a caucus to select a slate of delegates.
Unless the nomination is resolved before the FL/MI question is resolved, there’s no other fair way to resolve the question that includes voter participation. It would frankly be unfair to the rest of us if the race were tipped by the inclusion of a whole bunch of Hillary delegates from FL and MI, thanks to Obama’s honoring his commitments while Hillary didn’t.
Hillary’s winning by such a means would be as harmful to the party as if Hillary got voted in by superdelegates, despite an Obama majority amongst the pledged delegates. A nontrivial number of Obama supporters would stay home in November, and Hillary’s 50%+1 approach needs all of them.
I hope he does. I don’t want people to vote for Hillary on the hope that Obama will coattail in (and personally, I’d lose a lot of respect for him if he were to jump at a VP spot).
That doesn’t mean I want him to insult her or anything. But I certainly don’t want him to ever overtly leave open the impression that it’s on the table. I hope deep down, he’s not considering it as a possibility.
He’s not. And if there were any talks about it it will be behind closed doors and not spoken of to the press. Either side doesn’t want that right at this juncture.
The Clinton camp has been baiting him a little in public with her senior politcal advisor saying, ‘it’s not totally out of the question or off the table’. This I think they do to sway the public opinion make it seem that Obama being second to her is the only way to get a dem in the white house.
I’m quite certain he’s not, as evidenced by how he described the person who would be his running mate at the debate in Los Angeles.
Does that sound at all how he would describe Hillary Clinton? Pshaw! Not in a million years.
Actually, the only person he’s really acknowledged as being on his short list is Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Now that would be the dream ticket in my book! Take a look at some of her ad campaigns from her 2006 run for re-election (particularly the 4th one down) and you’ll see what Obama might see in her as a running mate.
The votes weren’t thrown out, the delegates were withdrawn. I know what you are saying, and I’m not opposed to the idea, I’m just saying that ultimately, it would be a huge headache. It’d be a do-over, and Clinton supporters would see it as the DNC changing the rules in a way that was more favorable to Obama. If they fight about the way the election is being conducted, that could get very ugly.
Wow, video #4 is very nice. I could see her and Obama trouncing anyone. She’s sort of statuesque, honest, to the point and razor sharp. I see wh yyou think they would make a great ticket. I could see ads for the two of them running coast to coast getting her known a little more…Interesting.
