That is not the popular impression and for good reason. Most of the criticism of the Clintons came from politicians who were not affiliated to Obama.
Are you sure that you are not just threatened by the fact that the “establishment candidate” is being seriously challenged by a relative newcomer who hasn’t put in the hard work of building up a network within the Democratic party over the last 15 years. Are you sure you aren’t just frustrated by the fact that the electorate isn’t following marching orders and voting for the inevitable candidate?
So I’ve been looking at delegate allocation in more depth.
According to the Times:
That seems to change the math considerably doesn’t it? Assuming Obama and Clinton both reach 30% in most districts, the proportional division of the statewide vote is all that really matters. That and districts with an odd number of delegates, but then we’re talking pocket change. It seems like this system favors Obama considerably (on the dual assumptions that he will get at least 30% in most CD’s, and that Clinton will do slightly better than him in most states–either of which could be false).
I think the possibility exists that the New Hampshire vote was an aberration. Going into the vote, all the polls showed Obama with a comfortable lead. Many New Hampshire independents thought the Democratic race was decided, leaving them free to join the Republican fray. Thus, many voters who favored Obama thought he didn’t need their votes and voted for McCain instead. Combine this with the boo-hoo-hoo from Hillary and she picks up sympathy votes. So her two wins came in New Hampshire and Nevada (though she got fewer delegates) where she had an impressive organization in place. So the “Hillary momentum” may have been a mirage all along.
From here, there is the beauty contest in Florida where Hillary is the only one campaigning. Accusing Obama of campaigning there because he placed a 50 state cable ad where he could not place a 49 state ad is just one more futile attempt of the Clintons to have it both ways.
On Super Tuesday, I think the Kennedy endorsements will help Obama in MA as well as pull in some Hispanic voters nationwide. It will likely be a split decision as Hillary wins some, Obama wins some, and they split some. Edwards drops out and endorses Obama. Hillary’s superdelegate firewall starts to leak and Obama squeaks out just enough delegates in the remaining states to put him over the top.
If she does, the odds are that nobody who matters will get on her case over it. IMHO, it was a backlash to the overly harsh reaction to her tears on the part of MSM types and fellow pols (Edwards) that put her over the top.
No. Stop this. Stuff like this? This is why Obama lost New Hampshire.
I’m really turned off by the behavior of the Clintons’ in the last couple of weeks, so I really want to see Obama win, and I take no small amount of comfort in the SC victory and the virtual torrent of important endorsements coming his way. But we (and by “we” I mean anyone who wants to see Obama win, or even just Clinton lose) must remember the following:
Though momentum seems to be turning towards Obama, there’s still a lot of work to be done. Clinton’s lead is not insurmountable, but it is large. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.
Never appear misogynist. No one denies that there are valid reasons to prefer Obama or oppose Clinton, but there’s a lot of misogyny out there too. Whenever you attack Clinton’s personality, instead of on specific issues, you risk being confused with them. And that pisses women off and drive them to her side.
Don’t gloat on Obama’s behalf or take glee in Clinton’s defeat. See above.
Clinton is a smart, capable woman who has some good ideas not too different from Obama’s. Her supporters have their reasons for backing her. Never fail to respect and honor that.
Many of us like Obama because he’s an optimistic choice promising a new brighter kind if politics. Let’s live up to his example.
I think Clinton’s tears in New Hampshire were real and unscripted, though likely born more from fatigue than genuine emotion, and that the shamefully gleefully cynical media reaction to them contributed to her victory. Let’s not repeat that.
Me, too (as I said at the time). My question goes to whether, having seen that genuine tears helped her at the polls once before, Hillary might treat us to a staged version between now and next Tuesday.
From where I stand, Obama appears to be the establishment candidate. My frustration has nothing to do with how voters will behave. They can do whatever crazy thing they want. It’s when lies are used to persuade them - that’s when I tend to get a bit miffed. Considering that this is the Straight Dope, I expected more factual criticisms / analysis of both candidates. Sadly, too many here have swallowed the narrative of the MSM without looking at the bare facts. It’s intellectual laziness that is ultimately driving Obama support. Hillary supporters, I find, are much more interested in looking at the facts than swallowing the pre-digested narrative.
No one recognizes all the Obama lies and defends all the Clinton truths. So sad. The voters think Obama is running a cleaner campaign, the media thinks Obama is running a cleaner campaign, the Democratic establishment thinks Obama is running a cleaner campaign, and the Straight Dope thinks Obama is running a cleaner campaign…where will your truth find refuge from these onslaughts of the intellectually lazy?
Cite? Heck, cites? I’ve been reading this thread. You’ve said that Obama has clearly been playing the race card and running a dirty campaign. Now you’re saying that Barack is more the establishment candidate than Hillary, and that Obama supporters are intellectually lazy for not seeing it. Lots of opinions. Little evidence. Start posting some information for the less lazy of us to peruse or admit to your attempts to bamboozle us.
My sense is that there is an underlying modus to Anduril’s dislike of Obama, I’d like to know what it is that he/she thinks makes Obama so bad. I wouldn’t doubt a personal disdain for either his race or his greeness. But I doubt **Anduril ** will come clean on either front, I think he/she will simply just keep slinging away.
Race may indeed not have anything to do with it, perhaps he doesn’t like change I don’t know - however, Andruil is not an American or so he says, so why the disdain of a man who is running arguable a very clean campaign?
Because just running a clean campaign doesn’t mean that everyone is going to like him.
Six months ago I would have said I didn’t like Hillary Clinton though she was running arguably a very clean campaign. I started liking her a bit more. Now I’m back to disliking her. I would be dismayed if someone said I didn’t like her because I’m a sexist.
I understand that - I do. And I’ve really tried to keep a level head about this campaign, tho I may not be doing as good a job as I thought, I’m not immune to my own folly. I mean no ill will towards Andruil, not at all. I’d just like to hear some substance behind his words - maybe some of his motivations, instead of the seemingly blind blegth we’ve been seeing as of late.
California is now polling closer and closer. At one time Obama was down by 37 points. This poll narrows the gap to 11. And this guy’s analysis of that polling data shows it’s more likely almost a statistical dead heat!
*One of my tenants is Hispanic (naturalized citizen from Mexico). She was in my office today and I asked outright if she’d vote for Barack Obama, and she said, “Isn’t Hillary going to win?”, as if it were simply a given. In fact, it turns out, she’d never even heard of Barack Obama!