Hillary Campaign Deathwatch

Hillary Campaign: All Four March 4 States Are Must-Wins . . . For Obama

The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday.

Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches.

If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem.

Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear:

Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.
Click to expand...

The first time I read this, I thought Mark Halperin was pulling our legs.
But it's here, too

If Hillary wins so much as Rhode Island, its a Hillary victory. :covereyes
 
Puppycow's Hillary campaign link said:
when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday.
...
If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem.
Click to expand...

So, it's a positive that her campaign is having a hard time financially?
 
TriskettheKid said:
From the Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html
Click to expand...

Interesting article. I see many articles about Hillary won't get enough votes to clinch the nomination. However, I have seen no article showing that Obama will get enough votes to clinch the nomination either.

Somehow its a crime if super delegates give Clinton the win but if they give Obama the win its fine and dandy. I call this the "Obama myth".
 
corplinx said:
Interesting article. I see many articles about Hillary won't get enough votes to clinch the nomination. However, I have seen no article showing that Obama will get enough votes to clinch the nomination either.

Somehow its a crime if super delegates give Clinton the win but if they give Obama the win its fine and dandy. I call this the "Obama myth".
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has been THAT passionate about it, but most DO point out, and rightly so, that doing something like that would split the party.

It's known that no one will get the required number via PLEDGED delegates. I don't think that's up for debate anymore.

The worry is that by going against the outcome of the primaries, it could result in an even bigger problem for the Dems come November than anything that's been said by Clinton or Obama so far.

Regardless, there would have to be some VERY good justification if Superdelegates ended up going with the runner-up candidate instead of the front runner. Otherwise the Democratic party could suffer a split of monumental proportions.
 
I find it ironic that all these superdelegates were created to avoid another McGovern fiasco when the primaries gave him the nomination. He then went on to a monumental loss in November. The supers, then, were supposed to be the wise party elders who would keep the voters from doing something dumb. Now, the common argument - and one I agree with - is that if the supers don't go with the candidate who gets the most votes, then it will be a disaster for the party. Then why the hell have the supers at all?
 
SezMe said:
I find it ironic that all these superdelegates were created to avoid another McGovern fiasco when the primaries gave him the nomination. He then went on to a monumental loss in November. The supers, then, were supposed to be the wise party elders who would keep the voters from doing something dumb. Now, the common argument - and one I agree with - is that if the supers don't go with the candidate who gets the most votes, then it will be a disaster for the party. Then why the hell have the supers at all?
Click to expand...

You said it. Back when it became clear that neither candidate would win on pledged delegates and the whole issue of superdelegates became a topic of the talking heads, one would keep hearing "nobody expected a situation where the superdelegates would count". What an idiotic statement. Of course they expected this situation, that is why they created superdelegates. I would have created a drinking game based on this stupid statement, but I am usually already drunk by the time the Sunday morning programs come on.

Daredelvis
 
corplinx said:
Interesting article. I see many articles about Hillary won't get enough votes to clinch the nomination. However, I have seen no article showing that Obama will get enough votes to clinch the nomination either.

Somehow its a crime if super delegates give Clinton the win but if they give Obama the win its fine and dandy. I call this the "Obama myth".
Click to expand...

No, I liken the nomination to the regular season of a sporting event...top spot is given to the person with the most points, the best record.

I guess to look at it from your pov, you have two candidates, running a race, and neither have reached the finish line...

well in that case, I think you should give it to the person who got closest to it...

Fortunately for Hillary, the Superdelegates and rich fat cats can change things like this...

TAM:)
 
Obama Leads in Recent Poll in Pennsylvania

This same poll had Hillary leading by 26% two and a half weeks ago; now Obama is ahead by 2%.
Pennsylvania is of course a must-win for Hillary. Even a narrow Clinton victory would good enough for Obama to claim a moral victory, considering how far behind he had been.
Three more weeks before the poll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom