Hillary’s negative campaigning is becoming pernicious to the party. Yesterday when Obama was campaigning in WI, he gave a speech to the Auto workers in Janesville, a substantive speech outlining specific economic initiatives he wants to pass when president. After the speech, an auto worker was asked by an ABC news correspondent what he thought of the negative ads being run by the Hillary Campaign. His response: Obama is standing right here in front of me telling me what he wants to do for our future. Hillary is in another state. That in itself says alot. [paraphrased]
As the GOP wraps up, Huckabee tosses in the towel, and their national campaign begins to gain speed, the democrats are still without a nominee. Negative campaigning is further dividing the party, and is not helping us put up a united front. What is Hillary expecting from TX, OH, PA? Is she expecting Obama to simply lose speed and turn over and let her steam roll him? I would think if Hillary was doing so well as her campaign purports that she’d have at least won one of the last primaries.
When will this fiasco stop? Will it go all the way to June? There seemt o be so many questions and equations for superdelegate counts and percentages for or against who will be the nominee. When do people believe this whole thing will resolve itself? After close primaries in TX, OH and PA? I don’t see Clinton winning my landslides in any of those states, and the closer we get to her losing the closer we appear to be to snarky deals behind closed doors.
I do not believe the party will choose Clinton over Obama if Obama holds the popular vote and is ahead in delegates. I just don’t believe they will do that. WhatI do believe is that Clinton will fight to the bitter end, I just hope she doesn’t damage HER party to an extent that we cannot pull of the win in November.
I don’t think they would either, really. And I don’t think Hillary believes they would do that. I think she’s just trying to keep her troops from becoming demoralized by showing them a conceivable path to victory. So she holds out the idea of using superdelegates to achieve a majority.
Has Hillary continued her negative campaigning? The example offered in the first paragraph of the OP isn’t an example of negative campaigning. I was taken aback by much of what happened in South Carolina. But she seems to have learned her lesson and toned the rhetoric down quite a bit.
Bridget most Democratic leaders anyway fear that a bitter fight to the end would hurt whichever one actually won. They will work to avoid that.
As to the difference between the two - yes HRC’s support is more among the stable rank and file and are less likely to be negatively affected by such, and Obama’s is more among both the potential swing voters and newly energized but often stayed home before.
While Obama was in Wisconsin answering questions about what he would do for the people in that state, Hillary was in Texas wooing them, having her campaign issue statements about how they don’t expect to win any more states until March 4th, and running *this* ad in Wisconsin.
If Obama reaches 2025 delegates then he wins the nomination. If Clinton does then she wins.
I don’t think it’s realistic for either candidate to envision surrendering the nomination due to some public sentiment of ‘unfairness’ of the nomination process.
I do think that the nomination process could change for the next election cycle based based on what happens.
I would also hope that Iowa and New Hampshire’s favored early status will change if Michigan and Flordia delegates aren’t counted.
Further divide the Democratic party? Democratic voters have never been so united. It’s hilarious that this question is being asked with a straight face when it’s Republicans who are worried that a McCain nomination will actually scare away their base.
Really? So the fact that pulling something like this would split the party and make it impossible for Hillary to win the general election shouldn’t enter into her thinking at all?
The ad is negative, and I can’t see it doing much good for Clinton, but it’s hardly Willie Horton. I mean “Obama won’t debate me in Wisconsin” is hardly the kind of criticism that will carry over to the general election.
Philosphr, you seem to be suggesting that the honorable course for the Clinton campaign is to drop out now. I think that’s still premature and presumptuous. After March 4, perhaps you could say that her loss is inevitable, but not yet. If she wins big there, and you cannot yet say that she won’t, she can swing the momentum back her way.
This ad is hardly even putting on a token show of effort in Wisconsin. She knows she’s lost there and has placed all her hopes on winning both Texas and Ohio by large enough margins to keep her in the game. As others have pointed out this will work for her about as well as it worked for Rudy. You can’t have that long of a series of blow-away losses and expect to come back big in the big states.
She isn’t so stupid as to go too negative now, not after it failed so badly before and not when her only hope (even with her hoped for solid wins in both TX and OH) is the superdelegates or the DNC deciding to annoint her by giving her MI and FL. Mild negative like this … meh. Real attack ads this late would be too risky for her.
Has anyone seen any analysis or reaction to it? All I’ve seen was a Wall Street Journal piece griping that, if you pick out the “hope” messages, what’s left is a downer (which should seem obvious that if you pick all the tomatos out of your salad, you’re left with lettuce). But no reaction to the actual economic policies or plans laid forth.
The economy polls as the #1 concern for voters this year and it seems like we’re getting the perceived second-tier economic candidates from both sides of the aisle (as opposed to Clinton/Romney). McCain already gave us a couple “the economy isn’t really my forte” quotes which I think will haunt him regardless of their context or intent. But Obama is more of a blank slate on the economy compared to Senator Clinton’s “I was First Lady durin’ the rockin’ 90s” edge.
Let me clarify my thinking: I am wondering to what extent is the party already divided, those who think the party is thoroughly united please let me know how? If you mean that more democrats are coming to the polls this year then I agree. However, there seems to be [ever widening as it may be] a division on who to elect as the dem nominee. Obama is widening the gap and winning more states and delegates, but Hillary’s numbers shouldn’t be balked at. She’s not “winning” per se but she has a large following.
To that end, does anyone think the party in the process of dividing further apart or coming closer together?
I think if Obama wins, the party will largely unite behind him. Most of the “If not my candidate then no one” comes from the Obama camp.
If Clinton wins, I think the party will unite behind her but she’ll lose the young voters and independents who want Obama because he’s Obama, not because he’s a Democrat. That’s the reason I think she’d lose the general.
So I think the party and the proverbial card-carrying Democrats will unite behind whoever is wearing a blue shirt on Election Day. They won’t want to see a Republican controlled White House, Republican appointed Justices and know that a Democrat president will be favorable to the bills coming out of the Democratic Congress. I just don’t think those united Democrats alone will be enough.