Jon Chait of TNR explores Hilary's chances and exhorts her to leave, but leaves us scratching our heads with this:
The spin now is that Obama's delegate lead is "small but almost insurmountable"... These beliefs reflect the mathematical illiteracy that has allowed the press corps to be routinely duped by economic flim-flammery. A lead that's insurmountable is, by definition, not small.
Really? Only yesterday I watched the Yankees play the Tampa Bay Rays. The Yankees led 2-0 but Tampa Bay had men on first and third with no one out in the seventh. At that moment, most observers would have had good reason to describe the Yankee lead as "small".
However, after Joba Chamberlain entered the game and struck out the hapless Ray hitter with a 79 MPH curve, a 101 MPH fastball, and a 90MPH slider in the dirt, that small lead looked insurmountable, especially with the Mighty Mariano waiting in the wings. And so it was. But that does not persuade me that the lead was something other than small. Words have meaning - a "small" 2-0 lead may look insurmountable, but it is not a "large" 10-0 lead.
Whatev. My creative suggestion for Team Hillary, in their quest to remain on stage - instead of bashing Obama, they should redirect their dark powers towards McCain. The goal would be to create a competition with the Obama group in which both sides offer Dem voters a choice as to who can run more forcefully against the Republican. That should please donors, who will see their money spent for Blue on Red attack ads, instead of the current Blue on Blue. The force of competition might also result in more creative attacks than either side would have conjured during a placid springtime of non-campaigning and the eventual winner (OK, Obama) can use the best material come the fall.
The other notion - Hillary presenting positive ads extolling her own candidacy and agenda - I dismiss as utterly unrealistic.
It's starting to feel like the end for Hill. She needs a new Reverend Wright tape to surface or some evidence that Obama committed treason on his college trip to Pakistan. Perhaps Michelle could tell us again what she thinks of us. That might help. Otherwise it feels like it's all over save the laughing.
Posted by: Jane | April 07, 2008 at 02:44 PM
An article someone cited on the fale it thread indicating a large number of the King COunty Dem delegates for Obama were not registered Dems or were from precincts other than the ones from which they were elected. Never say "unsurmountable" when it's Dems running an operation.Their rules suck, their procedures suck, they have no notion of what they are doing and Hill is not giving up.
Posted by: clarice | April 07, 2008 at 03:11 PM
The assertion that, "by definition," an insurmountable lead cannot be small is simply false.
To cite one of millions of possible examples, a golfer who is up by two holes in match play can be said to have a small lead. If he maintains that lead until there is one hole to play, his lead hasn't increased in size, but it has become insurmountable, and the match is called off.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 07, 2008 at 03:13 PM
This wouldn't be the same King County in Washington state that stole the 2004 governor's race from Rossi by finding 500 some votes in a closet by any chance..oh no it couldn't be those irresponsible clowns again...
Posted by: maryrose | April 07, 2008 at 03:15 PM
Weird analogy Tom. That's the same Chamberlain who gave up the tying run in the 8th in game 3 of the 2007 AL DS, right?
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore?gid=271005105&page=plays
So it's safe to say that the lead was not insurmountable even if Tampa was unable to make a comeback.
Posted by: RK | April 07, 2008 at 03:48 PM
The Petraeus/Crocker testimony tomorrow will be must-see tv. All three candidates will be on display. Biden even found a way to spotlight Obama.
Posted by: DebinNC | April 07, 2008 at 04:06 PM
What gets me is the notion that "having a lead" means that Obama gets the nomination. Isn't this exactly the kind of situation that the superdelegates were designed to handle, where one candidate has a lead, but has not clinched it, and yet is also perceived as a potential disaster waiting to happen?
Posted by: Brainster | April 07, 2008 at 04:23 PM
Basically Obama's crew got to the folks to jam the caucuses in WA state which has created chaos in delegate selection for the state convention in May. Ten per cent or more were either not registered to vote or at the wrong precinct caucus.
Hillary's supporters may have some luck when things sort out.
Here is the first link to the stupid D's and here is the link to the article the blog comment referred.
Posted by: glasater | April 07, 2008 at 04:24 PM
Please don't tell those yo-yos (B&H)to start talking about McCain. It is so much more entertaining when they go after each other.
Posted by: colanut22 | April 07, 2008 at 04:26 PM
Michael Barone described Hillary's strength and Obama's weakness among Jacksonians.
"Clinton's support from Jacksonians gives her, as I have argued, a chance to overtake Obama in the popular vote and an opportunity to argue to the superdelegates that she should be the Democratic nominee. They're a significant bloc of voters in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Kentucky.."
It makes sense, even if just to soothe her battered ego, that Hillary will stay in through KY and WV in order to close the popular vote gap and make the case for her electability v. BO's in Nov.
Posted by: DebinNC | April 07, 2008 at 04:36 PM
Isn't this exactly the kind of situation that the superdelegates were designed to handle
The Democratic position on superdelegates appears to be that they must be either redundant or illegitimate.
Posted by: bgates | April 07, 2008 at 04:38 PM
Although it does seem like RW's campaign bus is hitting a few potholes along I-80 in PA, what incentive does she have to cave now? Have the senior Dems offered her a more powerful perch than being junior Senator from NY? She and Bubba bow out now and their loss of power and intimidation will be immediate. Her campaign still has ... hope...and opportunity for BO to blow it. Who's to say that between now and mid-summer that more Wright or Rezko revelations won't appear? There are also going to be opportunities for BO to demonstrate his utter lack of qualifications, like his recent comment that he is looking for a VP who knows a "bunch of stuff" on foreign policy. Oh no, RW should keep her guns pointed at BO. To use the baseball analogy, we may be in the 7th or 8th inning, but there's no limit on how many innings we can play as long as we are tied!
Posted by: LindaK | April 07, 2008 at 04:45 PM
Anyone who thinks the superdelegates will give the nomination to Clinton even though Obama enters the convention with the lead in elected delegates is dreaming. I would dearly love to see it happen, but those folks simply aren't that stupid.
The cold, hard and inescapable fact is that this nomination absolutely must go to the black candidate--that is all there is to it. No Democrat, or group of Democrats, would ever dream of being responsible for denying it to him after what he has done thus far. Her chance of being the nominee is not 20% or 10%, it is zero. Would that it were otherwise.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 07, 2008 at 05:03 PM
absent a "disqualifying event" you may well be right, blue river of thought. But the unknown candidate in the race has plenty of time to either make a major gaffe or simply have another sleazy past ooze onto the stage. At this point in time it looks like Allison Davis is the connecting point to Rezko and Gov Blag's corruption and as a bonus William Ayers is in the mix as well.
If she can raise 20 million a month and has 50 million or more of her own stash in reserve, she has no reason to get out. She knows that likely her best shot is this year, and if that is not to be having Obama weakened enough that she can do a Play it again Sam in 2012.
If she had an ounce of loyal soldier sentiment in her being, she might consider the good of the Party. On this point I am sure that you and I agree. That is not even part of the calculus.
Posted by: GMax | April 07, 2008 at 05:14 PM
bgates, would a succinct and brilliant observation on the super delegates.
Posted by: clarice | April 07, 2008 at 05:14 PM
**WHAT a succinct...*
Posted by: clarice | April 07, 2008 at 05:15 PM
Remember, Rendell promised that we only know half the story on BHO. Red Witch will do whatever is necessary to make sure we hear the other half. BHO may have a ten yard lead with five yards to go in a hundred yard dash but Red Witch has "by any means possible" on her side.
I agree with DoT about what would happen without further revelations concerning BHO's total lack of character but that's only on the basis of what we know today. We will know a lot more before long.
The Red Witch guarantees it.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 07, 2008 at 05:31 PM
Where the contest is for a supermajority (as in the Dem primary, which requires more than 50% of the delegates to secure the nomination), the only way a lead can be truly insurmountable is if it is large.
In other contexts, a small lead may indeed be insurmountable, but not in this context.
It is conceivable (dare I say: likely?) that Obama will have more delegates than Hillary in the first round of voting, and still not be the eventual nominee.
Posted by: Daryl Herbert | April 07, 2008 at 05:35 PM
The track analogy is better when you remember that if you step out of the lane in a race you are disqualified even if you get to the tape first. That is why has a chance, pointed out some lane violation that will make Obama unelectable and put some superdelegates in danger of being dragged out too.
Posted by: GMax | April 07, 2008 at 05:35 PM
Hillary immediately accepted CBS's offer to debate in NC. As far as I've seen, BO has ducked the offer. His reliance on an ad "air war" funded by his huge donor base and his preference for questioning by The View ladies and the leg-thrilled Chris Matthews makes him look weak. Can he run out the nomination clock without facing hard questions?
Bill Kristol has a piece today on what's coming:
"It’s going to be a summer of love for Obama, and a tough few months for McCain.
McCain’s comeback should begin just after Labor Day, on Sept. 4, with a strong acceptance speech at the Republican convention. The presidential debates will also provide an opportunity. Expectations for Obama will be too high, people will forget he isn’t as good a debater as he is a speaker — and McCain could well rise to the occasion. More fundamental will be the question of the discrepancy between the image of Obama the uniter and the reality of Obama the liberal. That hasn’t been much of a problem for Obama in the Democratic contest, since Clinton hasn’t attacked from the right or even the center. But Republicans will."
Posted by: DebinNC | April 07, 2008 at 05:41 PM
I sure do understand your thinking, GMax, and I certainly don't expect Hillary to drop out--probably for the very reasons you have cited. But it seems to me that there simply isn't any conceivable event that would be so devastating to Obama's candidacy that it would cause the African-American bloc to acquiesce in the supers giving it to Clinton. I suspect they would rather risk defeat in the general election (which they may get with Hillary anyway) than accept the certainty of alienating the blacks, without whom they could never win another presidential election.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 07, 2008 at 06:04 PM
Except the dimorats have already pulled so many stunts that should prevent them from ever winning a presidential election or congress majority yet they always get away with them.
The Republican party fought slavery and broke the Dixiecrat filibuster on civil rights yet blacks remain 90% dimorat based on what? How is that going to change?
Posted by: boris | April 07, 2008 at 06:47 PM
I just found out today that unaffiliated voters can vote for either party in the NC primary next month. Who will provide the massive moral support necessary for me to vote for RW to keep the fun going? You can hold your nose, and you can hold your friends, but you can't hold your friend's nose.
Posted by: Ralph L | April 07, 2008 at 06:56 PM
Ralph
Buck up pilgrim. Lots of folks have had to sacrifice more to help this great country, dont fail when your country calls on you.
The sting of wearing the scarlet letter fades a bit, and I should know, I have been wearing it since the Texas primary.
If all else fails, lose your voter ID card in a match induced fire and they will issue a new one with the offensive word expunged.
Posted by: GMax | April 07, 2008 at 07:10 PM
I'm registered as Unaffiliated in NC, but I don't know who to vote for at this point. Despite her weaknesses, I still see Hillary as more electable nationwide.
Posted by: DebinNC | April 07, 2008 at 07:13 PM
I think a football analogy is in order here. Why did the NY Giants even bother with playing in the post season? They lost their final regular season game to the Patriots, so even if they made it to the Superbowl, they were just going to play a team that had already beaten them convincingly just a few weeks before. Why did the Giants even bother to show up for the game, they should have just given up at the end of the regular season... except that they won and kept on winning in the post season and they rode that momentum and they learned from their game with the Patriots and they put together a game plan that gave them a chance to win. Just sayin.
Posted by: Ranger | April 07, 2008 at 07:24 PM
Despite her weaknesses, I still see Hillary as more electable nationwide.
DebinNC,
I vacillate on the electability question. However, in support of your view, I think the only thing Dick Morris may have been right about this election season is that Hillary not only would win the support of female voters overwhelmingly in the general election, but also would motivate many other women, who wouldn't vote were she not a candidate, to go to the polls.
BTW, thank you so much for all the excellent material you've been providing for us of late.
Posted by: Elliott | April 07, 2008 at 07:38 PM
"...blacks remain 90% dimorat based on what? How is that going to change?"
That's pretty much my point. The only thing I can imagine changing it would be the perception that a bunch of unelected white folks stole the nomination from their man.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 07, 2008 at 07:44 PM
Thank you, Elliott. Are you in NC? After watching Easley over the several years I've lived here, it's so important to me that we have a Republican governor next time. If cross-overs vote Dem on May 6, they/I can't vote Rep in any run-offs, which might be crucial.
Posted by: DebinNC | April 07, 2008 at 07:48 PM
That would make black people vote Republican? Listen if you think that the CIA is pushing crack cocaine in the ghetto to eliminate black people, you will likely find some reason to blame this whole thing on the Republicans too. Its a not logic that is in play here.
Posted by: GMax | April 07, 2008 at 07:50 PM
No, I'm not in that particular area of JOM overrepresentation.
Posted by: Elliott | April 07, 2008 at 08:23 PM
Elliott: I didn't realize that there were so many people that were from NC. I thought most were from Texas and California and of course our one and only Jane from Mass.
Jane; How about those Celtics? Breaking all kind of records!
Posted by: maryrose | April 07, 2008 at 08:55 PM
"That would make black people vote Republican?" Not many of them. But I think they have proven themselves awfully adept at staying home if they're not enthusiastic about a candidate.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 07, 2008 at 09:07 PM
DoT,
If RW sinks BHO it will cost her, (IMO), PA, MO, MI, WI and put OH out of reach for precisely the reason you state. Even if the overseers whip the whole plantation to the polls they won't get them to vote for RW.
The kicker is the female support for RW though - would a higher female turnout obviate the loss of the black bloc? That's one I really can't call.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | April 07, 2008 at 09:38 PM
I still see Hillary as more electable nationwide.
I believe you're right, if she could win the nomin. fair & square (did I say that in connection with a Clinton?), but the idea is to steer them to the maximum train wreck.
I've never voted in a primary here--I couldn't vote in the Dem presidential *and* Rep governor primary?
Posted by: Ralph L | April 07, 2008 at 09:51 PM
How many of you Yankees would guess that the state of Jesse Helms has the highest taxes and regulations and centralization in the South, and subsidized abortion? The blacks haven't figured out why the white Democrats (and others) like the last one--calling Rev. Wright!
Posted by: Ralph L | April 07, 2008 at 10:00 PM
"Remember, Rendell promised that we only know "
IMO it is wrong to depend on the Democrats to air the dirty laundry of their party leaders, if we want to stop Obama and/or Hilliary. In 2004, we were very fortunate that the Swift Boat Vets stepped up and with the help of others stopped John Kerry. In 2008, we need to all step up and do our part.
One example is the Subprime mess, lots of articles telling us Obama/Hillary have plans to fix it, but not nearly as many telling us that both Obama and Hillary have top staff that have strong ties to the Mess.
Link
"The CFR, through its agents, primarily Sanford Weill, Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin repealed the Glass Steagall Act.
The repeal was the foundation, that is the keystone, that provided for non transparent financial manipulation and use of leverage to revolutionize the activities of investment beginning in 1999, to amass huge fortunes for the investment bankers who designed, marketed and oversaw the use of leveraged investments, and to generate awesomely speculative endeavors at hedge funds, which have gone unregulated by government oversight."
Here's 1 article that touches on both Hillary and Obama's direct ties to the mess.
Link
"I have wrote extensively on the Obama / Penny Pritzker relationship and now it appears Hillary Clinton also has a subprime “maven” on her campaign staff. Both Pritzker and Williams have been accused of taking advantage of low income borrowers.
In other words, predatory lending."
Meanwhile if you read the latest at Politico, Link
The only mention of subprime problems by staff is (You guessed it) McCain.
"Republican presidential hopeful John McCain’s campaign is led by current and former lobbyists, some of whom are connected to such political boogiemen as subprime lenders."
If America is going to learn the truth in time to prevent Obama/Hillary from taking over the Oval office, it is not going to be from information put out by the Democrats.
Posted by: pagar | April 07, 2008 at 10:26 PM
No, not really, but it does take a special skill to venerate the distributors who did
so much to ravage the African American community; I speak of gangster rap. in particular the local example of 'Rick Ross'
the supposed victim of the CIA; boo hoo. They oppose the cops, but they support the
drug dealers; one can go further theyrationalize the crime as something good.
Like the idealization of "Frank Lucas" in last years 'American Gangster,
Posted by: narciso | April 07, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Danube of Thought | April 07, 2008 at 05:03 PM,
d'accord.
Obama is the Wookie in this race. And you know the rule when playing a Wookie - the Wookie wins.
Think of Denver. The ant-wars will be out in force. The anarchist will be well represented. Do they want to face a bunch of Angry Black Men as well?
I don't think so. Are the Dems interested in re-creating in toto the summer of '68? I'm taking bets.
Even if Hillary surges. The Wookie wins.
No one is going to STEAL the nomination from the Wookie. It is too late for that.
Hill will go on because she has to inflame her partisans enough to vote for McCain or stay home.
BTW Jamal Hates the Race Baiters.
Obie has lost the Jewish vote. Despite Richards He will loose the Hispanic vote - those folks want to work hard and study hard and win the American prize.
My mate works at the public schools. I used to pick her up after school some times. The black kids came out sullen, no books. The Spanish kids came out happy with books. Now some of the books were in Spanish, and what were they studying in Spanish? The American Constitution.
Who is going to get ahead do you think?
Th Spanish community has zero respect for black race hustlers. McCain could take California against Obie.
But the Dems are stuck with their Wookie. To us he looks like a mouse. Which just goes to show you what shape the Ds are in.
Posted by: M. Simon | April 08, 2008 at 06:38 AM
DebinNC,
The Dems will give us a big boost with their concention demos. Denver and St. Paul.
Posted by: M. Simon | April 08, 2008 at 06:43 AM
convention demos.
Posted by: M. Simon | April 08, 2008 at 06:53 AM
Since this started with a sports theme, I want to remind everyone that late August is usually pretty quiet and if the BO/RW contest is still unsettled, August 25-28 could be quite entertaining. Their potentially chaotic convention ends just as the 2nd round in the US Open starts on August 29. Pretty good timing. Keep hope alive, vote RW!
Posted by: LindaK | April 08, 2008 at 03:35 PM
"The Dems will give us a big boost with their concention demos. Denver and St. Paul.
What will be happening between the PR primary in June and the August Dem convention though? If HC manages the Michael Barone scenario and pulls slightly ahead in popular votes, it should be interesting. But if she only closes the vote gap and remains behind in delegates, Bill Kristol's summer MSM lovefest-for-Obama scenario will be on display.
Meanwhile, McCain will be under assault by the 527s, not to mention: The Union Agenda. This is the most frightening thing I've read about the coming campaign.
Posted by: DebinNC | April 08, 2008 at 04:06 PM
So who will be Hillary's Mario Chalmers?
=====================
Posted by: kim | April 10, 2008 at 07:16 AM