Observations After Mini-Tuesday
Well, after a late night of following election returns (1:30 am) from Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the surprising thing to me is that...there is no real net change in where things are.
Yes, Senator Clinton did her best Bill Clinton-Comeback-Kid imitation, and pulled off sure victories in Ohio, and Rhode Island. Obama won big in Vermont. And Texas? Well, after 4.14 million votes counted (as of about 1pm today), the difference for Senator Clinton was about 60,000 votes. The rub is that Obama was cleaning up in the Caucuses in Texas, so what net gain Senator Clinton was hoping for in Texas is gone.
So, what have we learned after all this:
There's cause to worry, though, about how things are going to proceed:
Looks like the fun is really just beginning. Blood sport.
Yes, Senator Clinton did her best Bill Clinton-Comeback-Kid imitation, and pulled off sure victories in Ohio, and Rhode Island. Obama won big in Vermont. And Texas? Well, after 4.14 million votes counted (as of about 1pm today), the difference for Senator Clinton was about 60,000 votes. The rub is that Obama was cleaning up in the Caucuses in Texas, so what net gain Senator Clinton was hoping for in Texas is gone.
So, what have we learned after all this:
- Senator Obama didn't deliver the death blow to Senator Clinton. But, he still leads in the delegate count -- by something like 120 delegates, which might be mathematically insurmountable. And that's the best thing he can say, since delegate count is what should determine the nominee, according to party rules, although the former President and First Lady "reserve the right" to call on the superdelegates -- where Hillary leads by about 35 delegates -- to decide the race.
- At the end of the day, the victories for Hill were a big pyschological boost to her and her campaign. Where she goes from here, well that's the next big challenge.
- Senator Clinton showed a hell of a lot of spunk, winning when she had to. She'll be in the race, at least through Pennsylvania, scheduled to vote April 22nd. Her victories provided her the lift she needed to keep fighting
- The campaign will get decidedly more negative. The now-infamous "3am ringing phone" commercial, "kitchen sink" (as in throw everything at Obama including the...) strategy devised by Senator Clinton's people, and some insinuation that Obama is in fact Muslim, coming from the junior Senator from New York have infuriated the Obama side. You can be sure that the Obama folks are priming to deluge Clinton with everything they can muster
- Hillary regained her base in Ohio: white women, working class folks, and rural voters. Obama won 5 of six major metropolitan areas in Ohio, but Clinton (as expected) cleaned his clock in the rural areas of the state, many of those residents, not having college degrees, and being blue-collar. And, they also remember fondly the economic expansion during the eight years of Mr. Clinton's presidency.
- Texas was a toss-up. Hispanics came out big for Clinton, but in a national race, Obama will do better with Latinos. Texas Latinos are very "brand-loyal" and the Clinton's have great name-recognition in southern Texas, which helped Hillary immensely. In the big urban areas, Obama did his thing. And he's winning the caucuses convincingly. Basically, it was a tie.
- On the morning shows, Senator Clinton, for the first time, hinted that a ticket with both front-runners on it would be the solution to the Democrat's developing issues. Many Dems, are salivating at that possibility. Question is, who's going to be the nominee. Right now, a top-two ticket would have to have Obama on top, but Clinton, at 60 years old, might not want to wait to become president, should Obama have two terms. She'd be nearly 68, in 2017, when she'd stand for the oath of office, and that might not sit well with her.
There's cause to worry, though, about how things are going to proceed:
- Clinton's use of the "3am call" ad may come back to bite her and the party in the butt. By alleging Obama isn't trustworthy in a crisis, she's given John McCain ammo to use in the general election. Can we say Pyrrhic victory?
- Obama must not assume that he's going to get the nod, even with the delegate count in his favor. Those superdelegates are a problem for him, and could give Hillary the nomination. Plus, there's the issue of Michigan and Florida delegates to deal with.
- Speaking of superdelegates, if Obama goes in to Denver with a lead, and doesn't get the nomination, Black voters may abandon the party, in droves. That virtually assures a McCain victory in November. Howard Dean needs to be coming up with a plan to deal with this developing issue, or Dems will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
- While 90% of Dems want to see the race go on, the nominee needs time to pivot and face John McCain, who is going to be the GOP nominee. True, another few weeks of coverage is good for Dems, and takes news cycles from McCain, there still needs to be closure. Soon.
Looks like the fun is really just beginning. Blood sport.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Observations After Mini-Tuesday.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.obsidianhustle.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/151
"Right now, a top-two ticket would have to have Obama on top"... hmm, why is that? Hill not good enough to lead?
Nope, "good enough" isn't in this equation. It's simple math, my dear. Right now, Obama is ahead in the delegate count. The rules they (the Democratic candidates) all agreed to at the outset, was that the winner of the delegate count would get the nomination.
End of story.
That's what the parties agreed to, and I expect that to be the case.
Bottom line is this: If Hillary overtakes Obama and gets the top delegate count, I'll be happy as all get-out to have Obama be her #2 on the ticket. Hell, that means we'll likely have sixteen years of Democratic presidents, and that would suit me just fine. :) I've said it before, I would love to see that ticket anyway.
But until then...
Hillary has NO ONE to blame but her campaign staff (and to an extent, herself) for her predicament. She's playing catchup, under the rules she agreed to. That's why she fired her campaign director, Patti Solis Doyle, or rather she "resigned." And that's why Mark Penn, her chief strategist, is in the hot seat.
I like Hillary as a person, and as a senator. As president, I just don't think it's her time, honestly.
when is her time, when she's 80?
Hillary's time will be when she wins the majority of the delegates. The only thing keeping her from doing that is Obama's stronger than expected (from her camp) showing, and her poor campaign strategy of ignoring states. In retrospect, she surely realizes that she shouldn't have arrogantly ignored the majority of the United States that she supposedly wants to represent.
Has she learned the lesson? No, she is looking forward to the end of April and Pennsylvannia, completely ignoring the other primaries, small so be it. If she wanted to win, she would campaign everywhere, as much as possible. With such a small and precarious lead, a proper candidate would be in those states stumping as if they were Texas.
Her arrogance from the get go is part of the litany of reasons why she will not get my vote. Even if she wins, she may not even get my vote this fall. Not without some serious healing.
Unfortunately for her, 68 might be the ticket.
But knowing that you won't like that answer, what would you suggest we do? Just give her the nomination or something else? And if you DO think that, why does she deserve to be president any more than Mr. Obama?
Her arrogance from the get go is part of the litany of reasons why she will not get my vote. Even if she wins, she may not even get my vote this fall.
Damn, that's hardcore... While I agree, in substance, I'd certainly have to cast my ballot for her in the fall if she won the primaries.
I can't see John McCain and his 100-year-long Iraq war as president.
Although, if Senator Clinton says one more time, that she and John McCain are better positioned to govern than is Obama, I might have to reconsider...
just give her the nomination? no. i think she needs to earn it. but i think, i know she is JUST as qualified as obama to do just that.
I don't disagree with you that she is as qualified as Obama. That's been my point all along! That Hillary is NO MORE and NO LESS qualified to be POTUS than Barack Obama.
That being said, here are the reasons why she isn't my preferred candidate:
I think Hillary's arrogance and then displays of desperation make her less of a role model for women in America. Frankly, I have been embarrassed by her sarcasm, inconsistent temperament and pettiness. How does that set an example that works to close the gender gap? Did she campaign with dignity and class? Isn't it all about the journey and not the destination? Or do we perpetuate a win-at-all-costs mentality?