Corzine on Clinton's PA victory

Yes, count me annoyed (4.00 / 2)

not only because of the false calculus of the so-called popular vote ... but this whole notion that winning a given state in a Primary (or a caucus, for that matter) against a fellow Democrat with very similar policy positions is in any way predictive of which candidate would have a better shot of winning that state in November against a conservative Republican who promises 4 more years of Bush policies.

The primary electorates have been mainly composed of Democrats (depends on the state, some are closed, others allow varying degrees of crossover by Republicans or participation by "independents" or undeclared voters). This is a small subset of the electorate that will determine the winner of each state in November. Obama's greater ability to draw independents and even some Republicans make him a stronger candidate   in November than Hillary in many states - even those that she won in the nominating contests.

The idea that Obama won't win New York or California because Hillary won those primaries is a silly as thinking Hillary wouldn't win Illinois because Obama clobbered her there. Yet the TV pundits keep echoing this nonsense.

Finally, a point that is almost always overlooked is the fact that the Democratic party machine in most of the big states won by Hillary was solidly behind Hillary for the Primary - the State of New Jersey being a prime example ... Pennsylvania likewise. The fact that Obama has been able to fare so well against the entrenched party machines in these states deserves a lot more credit. And once he's the nominee with the party machinery lined up behind him - in alliance with the broad grassroots network that has propelled him this far - an Obama candidacy in November will be formidable indeed.

---

by: danpreston @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:29:46 PM CDT

Annoyed Doesn't Begin To Cover it.. (0.00 / 0)

This kind of irrational "drunk the Kool Aid" spin from someone as intelligent as Jon Corzine just gives me one more reason to have less respect for him.

It's a cliche' at this point, but clearly 100% true, the Clinton spin machine will say ANYTHING to distort the factual reality of this situation.

She has a legal right to run until the convention and to make an ugly floor fight out of it if she chooses.   No one can stop her (except maybe for the superdelegates if they find the courage).

If McCain beats Obama in November using the same bullshit lies and ugliness that Clinton has been flinging....the deaths of the millions of people who will die as a result of a McCain presidency and the consequences of a totally right wing fanatical supreme court will be on the head of Hillary Clinton.

This is transparently all about her pride, ego and powerlust; nothing more.   She ceased being a mathematically viable candidate a long time ago.

It's a shame that she has divided our party in this way.

I'll vote for her in November if she somehow "succeeds"; but if McCain gets in; it's third party time.

Four years will be enough time to get it together for a 2012 election......if there is an election in 2012, which under a McCain presidency, seems somewhat uncertain.

Lord have mercy.

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 13:58:31 PM CDT

It's NASCAR :-) (0.00 / 0)

The season isn't over until you are out.  If the leading driver got hurt in a crash and couldn't race the rest of the way, then others have a chance to catch up.  However, you are looked upon as mud if YOU are the one who knocks the leader into the wall in order to move up.

Seriously, the only strategy for the Clinton campaign is to hope/help Obama's campaign is destroyed.  The Governor of Oklahoma (which Hillary carried) endorsed Obama today.  When you are behind in delegates, states won and the popular vote, then you need to change the subject.  Obama supporters just have to expect that the media will be scribes rather than journalists in this.  At best, it is because they want a race to cover.  But, they should be called on it and embarrassed repeatedly.  :-)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 14:30:04 PM CDT

good question (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for asking it.


I have to think of a witty signature about Frank LoBiondo

---

by: Hopeful @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 16:32:51 PM CDT

What I find annoying (0.00 / 0)

are the constant calls from pundits everywhere for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race whether she wins or loses in any state primary.

If Obama wins, Clinton should quit.
If Clinton wins, Clinton should quit.

I am so sick and tired of this double standard--who says sexism is dead?

And BTW she won PA by "double digits"--not 9.2% but 10%.  

What this kid wants is a ticket that can beat McCain.  Period.  Another 4 years of Bushism will kill us all.

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 20:19:36 PM CDT

Re: (4.00 / 1)

I'm not aware of anyone here (on the front page at least) that's called for Clinton to withdraw from the race.

I don't think it makes much of a difference if the win is by 9% or 10%, but to address your point....Maybe the Pennsylvania Department of State has incomplete numbers, but with 99.51% of precincts reporting, they report:

Obama: 45.4%
Clinton: 54.6%

54.6-45.2=9.2

You only get 10 if you round 45.4 down to 45 and round 54.6 up to 55 before you subtract them. In other words, if you subtract 0.4 from one number and add 0.4 to the other, you get an extra point difference (it's effectively rounding 0.8 down to 0). The networks are either lazy or can't do math, but just because they report it doesn't make it so. Unless the state is reporting wrong or incomplete numbers, Clinton won Pennsylvania by 9.2%.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 20:54:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

addendum (4.00 / 1)

by the way, Jon Stewart reported it tonight as 9.2%. It's a cliche by now, but ain't it sad that it takes a comedian to report the news accurately?

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 22:07:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dear Juan et. al. (0.00 / 0)

I'm not aware of anyone here (on the front page at least) that's called for Clinton to withdraw from the race.

You guys aren't pundits--you're way better than they are!

And there's nothing wrong with rounding off percentages--it happens all the time.  

"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."  (Teddy Roosevelt)

---

by: DottieG @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 22:44:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Re: (0.00 / 0)

Not to beat a dead horse, but rounding is fine if you do it at the end of the math. Round too early and you carry on those simplifications throughout your math and the end number becomes meaningless.

---

by: Juan Melli @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 22:54:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You sound like the Rabbi's in the Hagaddah (0.00 / 0)

Arguing over the 10 plagues on the ancient Egyptians, whether they were equivalent to 50 plagues, 150 or 250 plagues!

And I suppose the monks who would also argue about the number of angels on the head of a pin.

9.2, 10.0, it was decisive!

Don't feel bad, this same argument was going on several national lists as well. so please excuse my venting over the venting.


"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 20:25:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton Will Not Quit (0.00 / 0)

That's been painfully established.

I have no problem with her running a substantive positive constructive campaign like the one Huckabee ran even after it was clear he had no chance to win.

Hillary has a right to run and "show us her stuff" as she demolishes the Bush/McCain axis of bullshit.

Hillary, in my opinion, does NOT have the right to run a Rovian campaign in which she uses the politics of personal destruction against Obama.

Her "rational" for it is that the Republicans are going to pull that crap on him, so she's only testing him out to see if he can take the heat.

That's nonsense.

By her own perverse "standard" he should then respond to her with the same kind of aggressive "kitchen sink" attacks that the Republicans would.

The premise of Obama's campaign is that the American people are sick and tired of politcs as usual and the politics of personal destruction in particular.

It's obvious to anyone that hasn't been blinded by their personal affection/commitment to Hillary that she's waging a dirty campaign.

Even the NYT, that has ENDORSED her, has come around to being put off by her tactics/tone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...

Editorial
The Low Road to Victory  

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad - torn right from Karl Rove's playbook - evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen," the narrator intoned.

Every day that Clinton continues to rip into Obama with these low road tactics provides John McCain and his surrogates with ammunition for the general.

I heard a statistic today on NPR that, based on PA exit polling, upwards of 40% of Clinton's voters say they'll drop out or vote for McCain is she loses.

Even if half that number return to the fold in November it's still major damage to Obama.

The only way Clinton "wins"....her whole "strategy" is to muddy Obama up so so so much that she can then make the claim to the super delegates that he's "unelectable".

Has it occured to anyone that even if that dirty low strategy worked, that it would leave her totally exposed as vicious untrustworthy low life?  (Whom I would be forced to support and vote for....but many many would not.)

Dottie, I apologize if my critique of Clinton's campaign tactics offends you.  I have nothing but respect for you.....but enough is enough.

Again, no one here is "whining".  The complaints against Hillary's tactics are objectively valid.   The assertion that she's hurting the party and the country is a reasonable and well supported one.

Painting Obama as a spineless effete elitist is 100% right out of the Republican playbook.

I look at Hillary's eye and I see a kind of "gold fever" it's actually scary.  It wasn't there when she was First Lady.   It wasn't there when she ran for the Senate and bravely stood up to Rick Lazio's attempt to bully her.

I believe she fully expected to have had this "in the bag"; and the Obama phenomenon has taken her aback and made her somewhat unbalanced.

She has the intelligence, energy, skills and sheer determination to win in states where the demographics AND THE LOCAL MACHINES support her.....but, that's not good enough.

The delegate math is clear cut.  Clinton can't win unless she "succeeds" in destroying Barack Obama as a human being.   And I'm not going to sit still for that.

Here's a few excellent diaries that you might find illuminating.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Listening to Clinton campaign surrogates on television, before the PA votes ever started to trickle in, was truly painful. Suddenly one state was the only state that mattered. All those other states were merely prelude: if Clinton could eke out a victory in this state, trailing in the delegate count would no longer be significant, and it would be a brand new race, and Obama would be on the ropes, and Clinton would suddenly win a billion dollars, a pony, and the moon; attention must be paid. It is not enough for Obama to simply be winning the nomination according to the rules laid out in advance: no, he must win the "right" way, according to the Clinton campaign and surrogates, or it doesn't count. He has to win the "right" states. And he has to win primaries, not caucuses. And he has to "close the deal", shutting Clinton out of remaining wins entirely, or it proves something ominous (the fact that Clinton has not been able to "close the deal" against him, and is instead trailing him badly and irreparably, barring superdelegate do-over, somehow does not count against her own merits.) And he not only has to win the "popular vote", but he has to win that, too, the right way, which is to say by counting only certain states and not counting others. And he has to win small towns, not just big population centers, because winning big population centers is elitist. Except that if he wins small towns in the West and Midwest, that doesn't count, because it's more important to win the big population centers. And all of this somehow proves that Clinton is a better candidate against McCain than Obama is, even though the polls to date have consistently shown Obama is a better candidate against McCain than Clinton is.

My suggestion to Clinton AND Obama is that they BOTH end ALL attacks on each other.  That kind of primary would actually make it MORE likely that the eventual winner becomes our next president.

There's no reason they can't compete on the basis of how proficiently they can bot skewer and expose the failures and foibles of McBush.

If Clinton stays on this low road, the superdelegates should put their party and country ahead of any political pork/promises /chits and read her the riot act.

The stakes are to high to allow this atrocity to continue.
 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 21:41:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not Taking The High Road (0.00 / 0)

Nothing like being gracious in victory!

Even 55% of Pennsylvania voters think that Obama is going to be the nominee!

You can't win the presidency by playing the victim.  One minute Hillary's people say that Obama isn't tough enough, but that it is the mean, cruel world that is trying to deprive the world of President Hillary.  It's Alice in Wonderland!

The real problem for the party which you claim to be concerned about is, what is the winning strategy for Hillary?  The only strategy is for her to drive over Obama with a bus.  She will not gain a lead in pledged delegates (which she has NEVER had).  She will never win more states than Obama has (since he has won 30!).  It is extremely unlikely that she will gain a lead in the popular vote by any math that doesn't involve a Oujia Board.

Amazingly, after weeks of the kitchen sink strategy, Obama still beats McCain!  Hillary has managed to have a majority of Americans view her unfavorably.  I don't believe any candidate has ever won the presidency while bearing that distinction.

So, if you truly want to beat McCain, then she should concede because the only way for her to win is by destroying the Democratic Party.

If you want to post a realistic alternative strategy, then go ahead.  But, there isn't one.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 22:33:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Corzine wants Clinton to be president (0.00 / 0)

so he can get the hell out of  Trenton, have himself appointed Secretary of Transportation,  or  even  better, Ambassador to Luxembourg. Tip  to  Jon: Get on the good foot with Barack & it  can still happen.  

---

by: Wesleylake @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 20:37:46 PM CDT

Get out of Trenton? (0.00 / 0)

How much time has he actually spent in Trenton since the accident? Drumthwacket's in Princeton.

Morven, the Governor's mansion before Drumthwacket, is also in Princeton. Trenton in the only state capital not seemed suitable to house a governor.

---

by: Dvd Avins @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 22:23:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

superdelegates (0.00 / 0)

Obama gained five supers today while Hillary picked up one.

Even the superdelegates aren't going to Hillary.  Not that they ever were.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 22:40:25 PM CDT

Speaking of delegates (0.00 / 0)

How many Progressive Democrats or DFA  Activist Democrats were elected or appointed Obama delegates?

How many LGBT Delegates in NJ does Obama Have?

How many does Clinton Have?

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 18:03:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe I'm Making a Mistake, but (0.00 / 0)

while they say that you shouldn't ask a question without knowing the answer, I am going to take the risk.  :-)

So, I will ask you to answer your own question:  How many does Clinton Have?

You're an alternate and Steven is an at-large.  Who else?

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:40:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton 6 - Obama 2 (0.00 / 0)

Obama:
Reed Gusciora
Brian McGinnis

Clinton:
Randy Bishop
David Smith
Steve Alterman
Tonio Burgos
Steven Goldstein
Moi

Obama did not come close to the LGBT goal, nor the Hispanic goal for delegates.

I'll find out tomorrow if there are any pages or standing committee members.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

---

by: Babs NJSD @ Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 20:15:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]