Hillary, inexorably on the wane
Behold these case studies of clinical denial...
Britney Spears, last December: "My sister's not pregnant."
John McCain, in January: "Any recession is psychological."
Hillary Clinton, last night:
Hillary, inexorably on the wane
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Behold these case studies of clinical denial...
Britney Spears, last December: "My sister's not pregnant."
John McCain, in January: "Any recession is psychological."
Hillary Clinton, last night: "I win, he wins. I win, he wins. It's so close!"
Some of Hillary's spinners embarrassed themselves even more, talking in public about how they were "delighted" and "happy" with the latest primary results that, at least by the measurements of empirical reality, put her candidacy on life support. Hillary herself insisted on talking about the future - "these next primaries are another test" - as if she really has the ability to breathe on her own, but it's quite conceivable that the unpledged superdelegates and Clinton donors could essentially pull the plug once they have fully digested these Tuesday night tidbits:
1. By slaughtering Clinton in North Carolina and neary beating her in the wee hours in Indiana, Barack Obama racked up an overall net gain of 215,000 popular votes. That tally erases her Pennsylvania victory margin, and restores the roughly 700,000-vote deficit that she was stuck with prior to the April 22 primary. Her odds of emerging in June as the overall popular-vote winner (a bragging-rights measurement that she dearly needed) have now gone from improbable to virtually nil.
2. Her squeaker win in Indiana, combined with her landslide loss in the more populous North Carolina, means that she will slip farther behind in the overall pledged-delegate competition. Combining both states, the early indicators are that Obama has netted roughly 12 more pledgees. The Clinton people, while wooing superdelegates, had been vowing to cut their pledged deficit to less than 100 by the end of the primary season. But now Obama has dug them a deeper hole at two minutes to midnight.
3. On the psychology/perception front, Obama's performance last night foiled the Clinton argument that she owned the momentum and that the frontrunner was inexorably fading. In the midst of his worst campaign weeks, with the Jeremiah Wright flapdoodle still fresh, he actually improved his overall standing among white voters. The exit polls indicate that he got 40 percent of the white vote in red-state Indiana, which was three points higher than his showing in Pennsylvania, and six points higher than in Ohio. His North Carolina white percentage (37) matched Pennsylvania, and was three points higher than Ohio. And winning North Carolina erases the Clinton argument that Obama can't notch a big state (NC ranks 10th in U.S. population).
4. Unpledged superdelegates want to see some clear evidence that voters view Clinton as the more electable and more appealing candidate, despite Obama's frontunner status. Neither race last night supplied that kind of evidence. In the North Carolina exits, Obama was deemed more electable in November by a margin of 16 percentage points; in Indiana, he prevailed on that question by five points. Meanwhile, on the key issue of character baggage, Clinton lost again. In Indiana, only 53 percent of the voters said she is trustworthy; Obama got the nod from 68 percent. In North Carolina, only 49 percent said she is trustworthy; Obama was deemed trustworthy by 71 percent. And in both states, more voters said that Obama, not Clinton, was the Democratic candidate who best shares their values - a finding that, again, suggests he has weathered the Wright episode.
The way things now stand, Obama could well clinch first place, among all pledged delegates nationwide, with his expected win in Oregon 13 days from now. At this point, it strains credulity to believe that Democratic donors will be stoked to finance Hillary's onward trudge this week into West Virginia (where no doubt she will support a summer tax holiday for miners).
It also strains credulity to believe that Democratic party apparatchiks will agree to give Clinton an artificial boost by awarding her pledged delegates in Michigan, where Obama had removed his name from the ballot of a meaningless primary. Most importantly, it strains credulity to believe that the fence-sitting superdelegates are going to deny the nomination to the candidate who, barring a documented revelation that he is an alien from a hostile planet, is now demonstrably poised to finish out the primary season with the most pledgees and popular votes.
I suspect that the Clintons know all this, despite her display of public denial. Never mind her rhetoric last night about soldiering on ("It's full speed onto the White House"). What mattered most was her elegiac tone. Having hoped for a blowout Indiana win and a squeaker loss (or even upset win) in North Carolina, she knew that the night had gone badly.
And her husband clearly recognizes the lay of the land. He stood behind Hillary last night looking as if he'd been smacked with a two-by-four. The visual of Bill meant more than anything she had to say. The end of an era was in his eyes.
Dick, I had to laugh at your description of Bill - I went and looked at the picture the NY Times is using from last night's rally in Indy, and you are right, he does look totally gobsmacked - much in contrast to the Energizer Bunny, who looks like she's ready for a steel cage death match with Satan any time he wants...— Rich LeBlanc- good to have you on the job.— Blinq
What's going to happen with Michigan and Florida voters? If Obama fights to have their votes not count, does he stand a chance to win those states in the General Election? ----- Any way that doesn't turn into the biggest election story of the year? As opposed to focusing on who Tom Hanks thinks is neato? ----- Doesn't Hillary stick around until the end of the month, with her wins in the next three primaries, then the party has some really difficult decisions to make about Michigan and Florida at the end of May. ----- If I'm the Michigan or Florida parties, why wouldn't you propose to hold a new primary, and make it winner-take-all? Make yourself relevant?— Mr. Smith- Mr. Smith, they tried to make themselves relevant by moving up the dates of their primaries, against party warnings (talk about a backfire). Regardless of what you think of the rules, it would probably be a bad precedant to allow states to change their primary dates whenever they wanted. It is a shame that their voices aren't being heard, but the candidates are not to blame.— RG
- When Hillary pushes to have their voices heard, is there any way that Obama can argue against it? If he does argue for the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters, is there any way he can win those states in the general election? I understand that Obama's not to blame, but there's such a simple solution (re-vote), why would they not do it?— Mr. Smith
- There are multiple criticisms with the ideas of a revote, and anyone with clear eyes and a search engine can see that Hil is just pushing this because its her only hope. It may be a stretch to assume that they will both go to McCain because of this. Florida's been red the past 2 elections, right?— RG
- Is there any way that Obama will take a public position on the issue? Hillary obviously wants it, because it's her best hope. Obama obviously doesn't want it because it's Hillary's best hope. Obama wants the issue to go away quietly, because if he has to advocate for the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters, that message will be broadcast in those states from August through November every night on every television, and Obama will lose the election. It is a mess that is the product of disastrous leadership and management in the Democratic party. It's going to have to be addressed at some point. The only question is, can Obama hide from the issue from now until the convention, so as to minimize the ammunition handed to the Republican message machine....? And is hiding from a controversy such as this a mark of great leadership? It's the most interesting political mechanics since the Florida 2000 controversy, especially if Hillary can hang around a little longer.— Mr. Smith
- Reality has it this is Hillary's once in a life time shot at the White House. She will bet the store. My wife declares the Clintons have a pact with the devil and expect anything to happen. The Clinton's are the best at political caculation and be sure they will do what ever it takes (including destroying the Dem Party) accomplish their ends. Dick you miss one critical element. Obama has no chance at beating McCain.— vc bear
- Like RG said, its not the candidates' fault, but rather the politicians of those states (in the case of FL, I think the decision was primarily made by the state Republicans). Once Obama clears the 2025 faultline, FL & MI will definitely be seated. Why wouldn't they?— yobill626
- Mr. Smith --- Your points have been discussed already. The result was no one could/would pay for the re-voting. It will soon be moot anyway. I agree that some major smoke-blowing will be needed (especially in FL).— yobill626
- I'm sure if the money were the only stumbling block, there would be thousands of people willing to pony up the cash to pay for a re-vote. Yobie's dismissal of the issue is exactly what I'm talking about -- pray, pray, pray that the issue goes away. ----------------- If they are going to seat Michigan and Florida delegates, which delegates will they seat? Are they going to re-vote? ----------------------- If Obama were confident, he would be leading the charge to find a resolution and getting their votes counted. Instead his proxies have been trying to undermine the effort to get those delegates seated. (He won't come out and make the case himself for the obvious reasons.) As a republican, I admit I'm enjoying the train wreck here, but I am fascinated to see how this mess will get resolved, and to see if there is any true leadership on the left, or if they are all just petty vote-grubbers.— Mr. Smith
- It was Clinton's henchman Terry McAuliffe who warned Carl Levin in 2004 that if MI moved up its primary, the was no way in heck that the delegates would be seated. "Rules are rules", he said. Obama did a good job of staying above the fray. I still don't get how the candidates are responsible for the states' decisions.— SteveMG
- MI and FL will be seated by Obama. Sorry Smith, down goes Clinton.— Markus ur Alias
- Everyone knew FL and MI wouldn't be counted before the first primary. So if you're so offended, I ask where were you four months ago? If FL could get its act together regarding its elections, this would never have been an issue. People don't trust that election outcomes are fair in FL.— p-diddy
- The candidates are not responsible for the states decisions. However, as is our history, people usually hold a person responsible who is associated with the group/party. Obama will be in Florida constantly being asked about disenfranchising the voters...how can he then say their votes are important to him? Yes, "Rules are rules". However, just as in 2000 Democrats pushed to have a persons vote count based on interpreting their intent, they can now argue that the votes in Florida are too important to not count since the race is close. By the end of May the popular vote will be closer (based on projections). How can a 300,000 vote swing in one state be left out? How can Obama argue he won the popular vote without counting Florida? Maybe Obama does not need to count them, but Superdelegates can and some may. It is funny. Superdelegates were created to insure the party would not have another McGovern disaster. Now everybody wants them to enable another McGovern disaster.— tom - wilmington, de
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
