About Last Night…
| Last night proved a couple of things: | |
- The media is weak, and when Hillary throws a fit about the media being unfair (even when they haven’t been) they try to compensate by dutifully throwing every bullshit attack they can at Obama, using talking points straight from the Hillary campaign.
- After last night’s wins for Hillary, the same media bias that allowed her to still be taken seriously after 11 straight loses (by big margins) kicked in again to make her small victories last night seem like a big deal. It is more true than ever that the media is PATHETIC at putting anything into its proper context and giving the public the full picture.
- Voters are idiots. They are easily manipulated by lies and deception, mostly because they don’t pay attention, so they don’t really know what is going on. This is nothing new, the Republicans have been exploiting ignorance like this for decades, and now Hillary has found that she has a knack for the same kind of lies and exploitation (to say nothing of blatant fearmongering).
- No one in the media or the Clinton campaign can count to 10.
- Hillary will keep on stabbing our party in the back, while continuing to distort reality, and in the end, all for nothing.
So first, the context. After his Super Tuesday wins, Obama won the next 11 states in a row. He won these by large margins, the smallest of which was 17% in Wisconsin. He won states all over the country, and even Democrats overseas. He expanded his existing pledged delegate lead to around 160, which doesn’t sound like much in the big scheme, but it is really huge given that getting a delegate advantage is hard because it takes big wins. So after all these defeats Hillary said defiantly, “Meet me in Texas!” and then a few days later when it became clear that her Texas firewall was not really a firewall anymore, she said defiantly “Meet me in Ohio!”. These were supposed to be her big comeback states, her impenetrable firewalls. Back just a few weeks ago, before Obama had set foot in either state, Hillary had big leads over Obama, 15-25% leads. In just a few weeks, despite Hillary throwing every dirty cheap shot and lie she had at him, Obama managed to cut those 15-25% leads down to the wire. As far as goals went, going into the March 4th contests Hillary needed huge 20+ blowouts in BOTH Texas and Ohio to even have a chance at turning it around (and even then the math didn’t favor her).
So now the results. Obama only lost Texas by four points, and that is just the primary, with the caucus added he is likely to win MORE delegates than Hillary in Texas. Texas was supposed to be a big comeback, a firewall, and she almost lost it. Obama lost Ohio by 10 points, which in context was very impressive given it is a populous state, tailor made for Hillary’s target demographics, and given that just a few weeks before he was more than 20% behind. So Obama won big in Vermont, pretty much canceling out Hillary’s less impressive win in Rhode Island. Texas is basically a draw in delegates, or even a net gain for Obama, so that doesn’t save Hillary from delegate oblivion. And her Ohio win will give her a small handful of delegates. At the end of the day, Hillary’s delegate gain is probably in the single digits. Assumptions are that she’ll end up about 150 behind Obama, and with the two biggest post-Super Tuesday states spent, she doesn’t have any more cash cows to try to milk. Essentially she is worse off than she was yesterday morning. Dylan Loewe recently summed it up nicely over at the Huffington Post:
But Hillary’s spin, and the media adoption of that spin, will do little to change an even starker reality this morning: Hillary Clinton cannot win the Democratic nomination. Barack Obama’s pledged delegate lead was substantial before Texas and Ohio and will remain materially unchanged in its aftermath. He has cut Clinton’s super delegate lead in half since February 5th, and is expected to roll-out as many as fifty more throughout the next few weeks.
So why is it I turn on the TV and hear nothing but pundits regurgitating Hillary campaign talking points like they are going out of style? This morning I heard almost nothing but talk of “Hillary’s big comeback”, how this “changes everything”, how it is now “anyone’s game”, how “the momentum is now with Hillary”, and how “Obama maintains he is still winning” (said exactly as if they were reporting that Mike Huckabee still maintains he is going to make a big comeback, despite the fact Obama is still obviously way ahead). So really, what the hell is going on? The math is even more against her today than it was yesterday. Three small cosmetic victories after 11 huge loses (none of her victories last night, even her easy win in Rhode Island were nearly as big as his smallest victory in that 11 win streak), with barely any measurable change in the numbers against her, and all of the sudden the media is playing this like Obama got his ass kicked, like voters are questioning Obama now, like voters have rejected Obama, even though he wasn’t even supposed to come close to beating her in these states just a few weeks ago! The media also likes to point out how Obama outspent Hillary 2-1 in these states, as if that somehow makes her wins in her firewalls somehow more impressive, and Obama’s defeat somehow more stinging. I wish they could use their flair for context by pointing out he had an uphill fight against her and Bill in two states that were strongly tilting for Hillary just weeks ago. But no, I’m sorry, that would show a huge media bias in favor of Obama. It is kind of the same way the media saying there are no WMDs in Iraq is liberal bias in favor of Democrats (and coincidentally anti-American and pro-terrorist). But the media is so afraid after Hillary’s tirades about bias and two stupid and ridiculous SNL skits, that they need to overcompensate some more by biasing everything ridiculously in Hillary’s favor. I’ve previous written about how the anti-Hillary media bias argument is total rubbish, and that if anything the media has been utterly submissive to her campaign by failing to so much as question her experience argument (the foundation of her entire campaign) at all. Now these complete and utter distortions of reality are further proof of those in the media tripping over each other to see who can do their job the least effectively. They have gotten to the point where they are doing little more than repeating words straight out of Hillary’s mouth.
Here is a fun example of something the media has been parroting today. Last night in Hillary’s 3/4 victory speech she said “We need a candidate who can win swing states”, and went on to list every state she won (of course, all important, and all swing states apparently — what happened to the 27 contests Obama has won, who knows?). Now I couldn’t agree more with Hillary, we DO need a candidate who can win swing states. However, I’m sorry to say Hillary, that isn’t you. While the media is hard at work making Hillary’s superior electability “conventional wisdom”, lets try a different approach and actually use our heads. So here is Hillary’s list of swing states (states that matter) according to Hillary:
- Florida – A swing state, yes. One that Hillary can win in November? Not according to the polls. But then neither can Obama according to the same polls. What is important here is that Obama hasn’t campaigned in Florida yet, so his numbers are likely to rise significantly in the general, whereas Hillary and McCain are already well known there. So it says something that even given all of the advantages in Florida that Hillary enjoys, she can’t do any better against McCain there than a lesser known Obama.
- Michigan – Even though Hillary “won” Michigan unopposed, she can only hope to tie (44%-44%) McCain there in the general, while Obama wins Michigan easily 47% to 39%. So much for primaries equaling general election chances.
- New Hampshire – Not what I’d call a swing state. But since she brought it up, according to the polls Hillary can only beat McCain there 43% to 41%, while Obama can easily beat McCain, 49% to 36%, not even close. Again, the data doesn’t back up Hillary’s ridiculous claims.
- Nevada – Not a swing state, that’s a red state, and neither Democrat needs to carry it. But for the record, Obama can, and Hillary can’t, once again. Obama beats McCain easily, 50% to 38%, while McCain easily deposes of Hillary, 49% to 40%. Again, Hillary is dead wrong.
- Arizona – I hate to break it to you Hillary, but Arizona is a red state, and home to John McCain, do you really think you are going to carry that in November? Don’t think so. And it isn’t a swing state anyway.
- Arkansas – Not a swing state, another red state. This is her home state, if she could carry it, great, if not, oh well, doesn’t really matter. I haven’t seen any polls on this, but it really doesn’t matter.
- California – Am I supposed to be impressed you can carry California in the general? Dennis Kucinich could carry California in the general. Just because you beat Obama by a not very big margin (especially considering her boost from the early voters), doesn’t mean Obama can’t easily win California. And for the record, Obama actually does better than you in California. Hillary beats McCain by 23%, Obama beats him by 27%.
- Massachusetts – Not a swing state, same as California, any Democrat could carry it so I’m equally not convinced it matters.
- New Jersey – Same as California and Massachusetts.
- New Mexico – Not a swing state, but for the record, even though Hillary barely won their primary, she loses the state bad to McCain (50% to 38%), while Obama actually has a decent chance of winning this state (tied, 44%-44%). Again, Hillary is trying to deceive voters by saying she is more electable because she won these primaries.
- New York – Definitely not a swing state, and even though Hillary won the primary here, and even though this is her “home” state, Obama actually does much better in NY than Hillary! Hillary only beats McCain by 11%, whereas Obama beats him by 21%. Ouch..
- Oklahoma – Not a swing state and there is no way in hell either Dem will carry Oklahoma in the general.
- Tennessee – Basically the same as Oklahoma.
- Ohio – An actual swing state, woo! But uh-oh, even though Hillary just won here, Obama actually does better in the general! According to the polls Obama narrowly beats McCain, 48% to 47% (I bet he can do better in the general though), while Hillary loses 51% to 47%. There goes that theory Hillary!
- Rhode Island – Not a swing state and either can easily win this.
- Texas – Not a swing state, it is red and neither need to win it, and neither probably can.
- What exactly about your “35 years of experience” is so superior to Obama’s experience? And be specific.
- When have you been tested in the sort of crisis situation you refer to in your “3am ad”? (and after she can’t come up with an answer) Then do you think it is unfair to attack Obama as being untested when he has been tested just as much as you?
- Why do you refuse to release your tax returns before you secure the nomination? Obama released his months ago, why do you refuse, especially considering you put $5 million of your money into your campaign?
- Nearly all of the general election polls have consistently shown you would have a hard time beating John McCain even in blue states, like Minnesota, the only state to vote against Reagan in 1984, whereas the same polls consistently show Obama easily beating McCain. Give this, how do you explain this contradiction with your claims of superior electability, and if you really had the best interests of the Democratic Party at heart, wouldn’t you want them to nominate the most electable candidate?
If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we’ll join that debate. We’ll do it on our terms and in our own way but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I’ve said before I don’t know why they’d want to go there, but I guess that’s where they’ll take the race.Uh-oh, the obvious response to her bullshit attacks against Obama: let’s take a look at what’s in the Clinton closet! Here, according to the Associated Press:
A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama’s team will respond to Tuesday’s results by going negative on Clinton — raising questions about her tax records and the source of donations to the Clinton presidential library, among skeletons in the Clintons’ past.Now I don’t like it being called “going negative”, because unlike Hillary, they aren’t seeking to make up issues, or distort facts, deceive the voters, or resort to the other types of underhanded negative tactics of the Clinton campaign, they are simply going to start pointing out the obvious facts that the media has failed to do, and that they have avoided doing up to this point for the most part. Asking her about the tax records isn’t negative, it is fair. Asking where their money is coming from since they are financing parts of their campaign with it isn’t negative, it is about transparency and accountability. Obama has also directly indicated that he intends to start pressing the obvious questions that Hillary has gotten a free pass on:
I hope people start asking, what exactly is this foreign experience she is claiming,” he said. “Was she handling crises during this period of time? I haven’t seen any evidence that she is more equipped to handle a crisis.I couldn’t agree more. Fired up! Ready to go!!
She made the experience argument and her ability to handle a crisis, so I think it is important to examine that claim and not just allow her to assert it,” he added. “She has made the argument that she is thoroughly vetted. If the suggestion is somehow that on issue of ethics or disclosure or transparency that she is somehow going to have a better record than I have or could (better) withstand Republican attack, then that should be tested.
