Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Story behind the story: The Clinton myth

    Story behind the story: The Clinton myth

    By JIM VANDEHEI & MIKE ALLEN | 3/21/08 1:32 PM EST



    One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

    Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

    Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

    People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

    As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

    In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

    The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

    Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.

    One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media — including Politico — have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces.

    Avoiding predictions based on polls even before voters cast their ballots is wise policy. But that's not the same as drawing sober and well-grounded conclusions about the current state of a race after millions of voters have registered their preferences.

    The antidote to last winter's flawed predictions is not to promote a misleading narrative based on the desired but unlikely story line of one candidate.

    There are other forces also working to preserve the notion of a contest that is still up for grabs.

    One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business.

    The media are also enamored of the almost mystical ability of the Clintons to work their way out of tight jams, as they have done for 16 years at the national level. That explains why some reporters are inclined to believe the Clinton campaign when it talks about how she’s going to win on the third ballot at the Democratic National Convention in August.

    That’s certainly possible — and, to be clear, we’d love to see the race last that long — but it’s folly to write about this as if it is likely.

    It’s also hard to overstate the role the talented Clinton camp plays in shaping the campaign narrative, first by subtly lowering the bar for the performance necessary to remain in the race, and then by keeping the focus on Obama’s relationships with a political fixer and a controversial pastor in Illinois.

    But even some of Clinton’s own advisers now concede that she cannot win unless Obama is hit by a political meteor. Something that merely undermines him won't be enough. It would have to be some development that essentially disqualifies him.

    Simple number-crunching has shown the long odds against Clinton for some time.

    In the latest Associated Press delegate count, Obama leads with 1,406 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 1,249. Obama’s lead is likely to grow, as it did with county conventions last weekend in Iowa, as later rounds of delegates are apportioned from caucuses he has already won.

    The Democratic Party has 794 superdelegates, the party insiders who get to vote on the nomination in addition to the delegates chosen by voters. According to Politico's latest tally, Clinton has 250 and Obama has 212. That means 261 are uncommitted, and 71 have yet to be named.

    An analysis by Politico's Avi Zenilman shows that Clinton’s lead in superdelegates has shrunk by about 60 in the past month. And it found Clinton is roughly tied among House members, senators and governors — the party’s most powerful elite.

    Clinton had not announced a new superdelegate commitment since the March 4 primaries, until the drought was broken recently by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and West Virginia committeeman Pat Maroney.

    Clintonistas continue to talk tough. Phil Singer, the Clinton campaign’s deputy communications director, told reporters on a conference call Friday that the Obama campaign “is in hot waterâ€
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member gofer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,728
    According to a recent poll 19% of Obama voters will go to McCain if Hillary wins and 20% of dem voters will go to McCain if Obama wins! Either way McCain picks of 20% of dem votes.

    Obama is sinking fast. I think he's in the double-digits behind Clinton and not far behind on McCain. By convention time, if polls show him a sure loser against McCain, what will they do????????????? Will they knowingly forfeit out of political correctness?

    As we know, dems are not particulary repulsed by McCain, so it won't be such a stretch for them to switch.

  3. #3
    Expendable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    358
    I was surprised to see Bill Richardson endorse Obama over Clinton. The Clinton's have a long relationship with him, and all things being equal it doesn't seem right. It may be he's looking for the VP spot and thinks Obama will be the nominee.

  4. #4
    AE
    AE is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    3507+ ALIPAC Super Hero since 07/2005
    Posts
    2,311
    [quote]Is there something that makes him ultimately unelectable?â€
    “In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, Brave, Hated, and Scorned. When his cause succeeds however,the timid join him, For then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.â€

  5. #5
    Senior Member gofer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,728
    They all are endorsing Obama to PROVE they are NOT racist and suck of some of that "feel good" liberalese because of all the fuss over Obama.

    Forgetting his race, I cannot find ONE reason this man should be even running for president much less become president. A junior senator with a plain vanilla record of accomplishment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •