The problem is Pennsylvania is being spun for psychological reasons as a must win, so if Obama loses [by any margin] would seem bad.
In reality, I doubt Obama blows Clinton out of the water, but if it is close, it’ll be a wash anyway. So we’ll be in the same position. What Obama has to do is continue winning his expected states by large margins to put Clinton even further behind than she already is. This will put her futher away and thus make it easier for Obama to convince supers to stay with him, regardless of what happens in PA.
BTW - that is how I see this whole thing going ultimately in the end. Obama continues to win “smaller” states by large margins in a wider area across the nation and the supers ultimately side with him because he continues to hold a broader appeal. It’s how it has gone through this whole campaign, Obama’s appeal is wider and more vast than Hillary’s, and it’s what will ultimately win him the nod.
But that’s not the way they’re spinning it. There spinning it (just as the Clinton camp wants) that Pennsylvania is THE primary. Well, no it isn’t. It’s A primary. It’s somewhat larger than North Carolina, but it hardly dwarfs NC. If Hillary wins PA, so what? Obama will easily offset that (and then some) with wins in Mississippi and North Carolina.
But the media seem to be happily following the Clinton spin that if she wins PA she somehow has a good argument for the nomination. No she doesn’t.
This is not a compelling argument for any superdelegate. “Broad appeal” in states you are probably going to lose is pretty worthless.
The supers will decide how badly they want to keep their jobs and will vote accordingly. It is possible to chart this out based on district-wide primary results today and predictions of results for the future primaries.
Regardless of “wide appeal” or “good for the party” rhetoric, superdelegates will vote to stay in office.
No it isn’t. It’s an indicator that Obama has a strong appeal to independent voters and crossover Republican voters. And those are the types of voters you need to win swing states like Missouri and Virginia.
Yeah, that’s kind of the flaw in the Clinton camp’s strategy in a nutshell.
Yeah, that’s the root of my occasional complaint that the press always buys into the Clinton campaign’s version of what is happening. If they downplay big losses in Wisconsin and Virginia and say that a ten-delegate win in Ohio keeps her alive, that’s what gets reported.
I would have agreed with you yesterday, then I heard two supers on NPR’s “On Point” and they were saying that the boader the appeal, and the one who more people are leaning towards is the one the supers will go with. They will vote with the people - So I guess you sort of just said that ayway.
And I should add that “broad appeal” is also an indicator of coattails. Obama has long ones, Clinton has none at all. Obama at the top of the ticket could mean that a lot of down-ticket Democrats ride his wave of support into office, even in “red states.”
This gets back to the debate within the Democratic Party over the past few years over whether it should retreat into the blue states and become a regional party, or whether it should continue to be a national party. Clinton is strictly a blue-state candidate.
Obama is letting her team define the media narrative. Just like she was ill-prepared for this to beyond Super Tuesday and didn’t find a consistent tactic until now, he was expecting to finish it this last Tuesday and is ill-prepared for how to proceed when he’s won it on points already but he can’t quite finish her off. He needs to take the media initiative and define the terms of the debate. And what his Presidency will be. In strong terms. No "uh"s allowed.
He needs to get out there turning Hillary’s McCain and I both have experience and Obama doesn’t on her as a weapon:
“Yes, that both have experience at making the bad choices. That’s why were are in this ditch called Iraq. Yes, they both have the experience of being part of politics as usual. That’s why so little ever gets done. The question is - is this the experience you want? Is this the judgment you want? We need to move on beyond this ineffectual sort of experience, the experience of saying one thing one day and then something else when it becomes useful to do so, the experience at doing things wrong, and start doing things right - from day one.”
“When that phone call comes I for one won’t just let it ring, what was it 10 times? We need someone who knows how answer the damn phone! And will give the right answer the first time to the question being asked.”
“Hillary Clinton’s election strategy has been simple. Most of this country does not matter. Only Ohio Texas and Pennsylvania do. Well they matter. They do. And I am happy to have brought it as close as I did in Ohio and to have gotten Texas to a virtual tie. I tip my hat to her. And I will fight hard to win the votes of those in Pennsylvania. The difference is that I do not believe that the voters of Wisconsin do not matter, that all these other states do not matter. Unlike Hillary Clinton I am trying to become President of all of the United States of America, not just the biggest ones. I am trying to to represent all of the citizens of this great land, and not dividing our country into various demographic stereotypes. We need a President who be a President all of us. It is time to move on from these politics of division.”
“Broad appeal” and “appeal in a few key swing states” are two very different things. It is not clear to me that either candidate dominates important swing states, hence the idea of broad appeal is still not very compelling.
If the republicans were not so vulnerable this cycle almost, well, everywhere, I would also find the coattails argument more compelling. It also seems odd to back a candidate for any other reason whatsoever than his probability of winning. You don’t back a candidate with longer coattails if you think he is less likely to win. I have to believe that ownership of the executive is more important than a few incremental congressmen.
Out of all the remaining undeclared superdelegates (according to this site), 111 of them are elected officials and 234 are DNC members and other non-elected officials not beholden to any constituency.
And dudes on a message board are so much more in the know, eh? :rolleyes: Especially those heavily biased towards one candidate. :dubious: At least I have held Public Office, and been a Delegate.
That only means their opinions are worth no more than ours. What *absolute * level of worth that is probably is best left unexplored.
I am so impressed by your credentials, and the superior knowledge and judgment that they obviously prove, DD. I want to have your baby. :snort:
