T Nation

Dem Nominee: A Perfect Mess

I can’t wait for the convention - some actual drama for the first time in my lifetime…

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count.html

EXCERPT:

[i]Projection: Clinton Wins Popular Vote, Obama Wins Delegate Count
March 28, 2008 02:31 PM ET | Michael Barone | Permanent Link

The Clinton campaign has taken to boasting that its candidate has won states with more electoral votes than has Barack Obama. True. By my count, Clinton has won 14 states with 219 electoral votes (16 states with 263 electoral votes if you include Florida and Michigan) while Obama has won 27 states (I’m counting the District of Columbia as a state, but not the territories) with 202 electoral votes. Eight states with 73 electoral votes have still to vote. In percentage terms, Clinton has won states with 41 percent of the electoral votes (49 percent if you include Florida and Michigan), while Obama has won states with 38 percent of electoral votes. States with 14 percent of the electoral votes have yet to vote.

The Clinton campaign would do even better to use population rather than electoral votes, since smaller states are overrepresented in the Electoral College. By my count, based on the 2007 Census estimates, Clinton’s states have 132,214,460 people (160,537,525 if you include Florida and Michigan), and Obama’s states have 101,689,480 people. States with 39,394,152 people have yet to vote. In percentage terms this means Clinton’s states have 44 percent of the nation’s population (53 percent if you include Florida and Michigan) and Obama’s states have 34 percent of the nation’s population. The yet-to-vote states have 13 percent of the nation’s population.

Thus the Clinton campaign could argue that Obama cannot win states with most of the nation’s people even if he wins all the remaining eight primaries. Could argue�??but I don’t think that’s going to persuade any superdelegates that Clinton is the real winner.

The Obama campaign has argued on occasion that its primary or caucus victories in Republican states means that Obama has a better chance to carry them in the general election than Clinton. As the Clinton people point out, that’s ridiculous in some cases: No one thinks Obama’s victories in lightly attended caucuses in Idaho or Wyoming mean that he can win them in November. Even in states like Minnesota and Colorado, Obama’s caucus wins are less persuasive evidence than current polls that he can do better there than Clinton in November. Nor are Clinton’s primary victories in states like Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Ohio very strong evidence for the proposition that she’d be stronger than Obama. General election polls are better evidence; they buttress Clinton’s case in New Jersey and Ohio, and refute it for Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. Interestingly, Clinton won primaries in only five states which went heavily for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004�??Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.

…[/i]

And here’s a round up of the latest dirt the press is digging up on the Dem candidates:

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/prime_time_for_oppo_dumps.php

Maybe by then we’ll figure out Obama’s positions:

Good stuff. Other things I continue to find interesting:

  1. The party of “common people” and “count every vote” is going to turn the decision over to party aristocrats for decision in the classic “smoke-filled room” filled with deals and compromises

  2. There are rumors that some Democrats are fearing an electoral disaster, this despite the fact that the GOP is in the worst existential shape it has been in some 20+ years and the Democrats could nominate anyone they wanted

  3. Al Gore might just yet get to fulfill his dream of being a savior - and, might I add, that the Democratic party is very blessed to have so many “saviors” in their ranks. Astonishing.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Team Hillary on Obama’s exaggerations (melded with language questioning his experience):

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6752

[i]
3/25/2008
Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama�??s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama�??s campaign is based on words �??not a record of deeds �?? and if those words aren�??t backed up by facts, there�??s not much else left.

“Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won’t do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well,” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, “Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama’s primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter.” In academia, there’s a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. “Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was ‘the only nuclear legislation that I�??ve passed.’ ‘I just did that last year,’ he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama�??s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.” [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. “Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: ‘I meant the whole civil rights movement.’” [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. “As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld’s asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir ‘Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.’ Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book.” [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama’s assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing ‘strains credulity.’ “�?�Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 – more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.” [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists ‘won’t work in my White House.’ “White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday – a flat declaration that lobbyists ‘won’t work in my White House’ after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions�?� After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying – in contrast to his written pledge – at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: ‘Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama’s health plan.’ "Obama’s ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama’s plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn’t analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that “experts” say Obama’s plan is “the best.” “Experts” turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen �?? who, for all their talents, aren’t actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama’s plan “guarantees coverage for all Americans,” neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it’s only Clinton’s and Edwards’ plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama’s would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to.�?? [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said ‘I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,’ but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. “As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care�?�And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage.” The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that “The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [�?�] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a ‘cloud’ over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year.” [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: ‘Obama�?�seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made’ on ethics reform. “ABC News’ Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday’s Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of “bundlers,” those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is “because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that.” Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama’s amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What’s more, although Obama’s amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a ‘law’ that the Illinois Democrat has ‘pushed through’ but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information.” [ABC News, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-exaggerat.html 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. “When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from ‘Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser�?? to �??Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser’ to ‘Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll’ to ‘Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.’ Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it.” [politico.com, 5/9/07]
[/i]

As I mentioned in another thread, Obama has nothing to run on.

Hellary is just a pain in the a$$ that will get pounded by McCain.

Now we need to focus as much attention on getting the right people in the Senate. I believe their current satisfaction ratings are worse than President Bush’s, but you don’t hear headlines about that every day.

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
As I mentioned in another thread, Obama has nothing to run on.

Hellary is just a pain in the a$$ that will get pounded by McCain.

Now we need to focus as much attention on getting the right people in the Senate. I believe their current satisfaction ratings are worse than President Bush’s, but you don’t hear headlines about that every day.[/quote]

Exactly. I do not like any presidential candidates but we need good congressmen and senators to keep whoever gets elected in line.

Hell, it looks like if McCain can keep from getting caught in any lies, he might be a shoe in. That would be weird…I was pretty much resolved the the fact that we were going to have a democrat in the oval office.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

In my humble opinion, there is one winning blow to get a dem into the presidential seat. impeach Bush.

Whether the impeachment goes through or not is irrelevant. Mccain will have to disavow any association with Bush, just as Gore had to do with Clinton.

Am I the only one that sees “veto” on just about anything the democrats put their foot down on? Veto without enough democrats to overturn the veto is moot.

It seems many people conveniently forget congress in the house and senate is on the verge of republican majority. As I recall there is like 1 seat difference.

But I guess we will blame the dem’s cause it works well for our mindset.

Conversely, isn’t the president one person representing one party?

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
In my humble opinion, there is one winning blow to get a dem into the presidential seat. impeach Bush.

Whether the impeachment goes through or not is irrelevant. Mccain will have to disavow any association with Bush, just as Gore had to do with Clinton. [/quote]

I don’t think this makes sense - McCain WANTS to distance himself from Bush. That wins him votes in the current climate.

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Am I the only one that sees “veto” on just about anything the democrats put their foot down on? Veto without enough democrats to overturn the veto is moot. [/quote]

There really shouldn’t be anything too ridiculous coming out of the Senate. People forget that the Senate was designed to ignore the House - it doesn’t do as good a job since they switched to popular elections, but it still does pretty well.

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
It seems many people conveniently forget congress in the house and senate is on the verge of republican majority. As I recall there is like 1 seat difference.

But I guess we will blame the dem’s cause it works well for our argument.
[/quote]

This matters in the Senate, but not in the House. In the House, the majority can pretty much do whatever it wants.

BTW, here’s the current breakdown:

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
jackzepplin wrote:
As I mentioned in another thread, Obama has nothing to run on.

Hellary is just a pain in the a$$ that will get pounded by McCain.

Now we need to focus as much attention on getting the right people in the Senate. I believe their current satisfaction ratings are worse than President Bush’s, but you don’t hear headlines about that every day.

Exactly. I do not like any presidential candidates but we need good congressmen and senators to keep whoever gets elected in line. [/quote]

Negative because they haven’t ended the war, which would require more and better dems.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
pat wrote:
Hell, it looks like if McCain can keep from getting caught in any lies, he might be a shoe in. That would be weird…I was pretty much resolved the the fact that we were going to have a democrat in the oval office.

As I look at the mess that the democrats have made of their primary process I try to think how they can salvage a victory. And…it can be done, here’s how:

  1. Allow Mich. and Fla. to revote so that they are not alienated in the general election.

  2. Whichever candidate ultimately wins the primary MUST choose the loser as his or her VP. That way the losing candidate’s supporters will not feel disenfranchised. Of course I’m not sure that either will be in the mood to run as VP after such a bloody fight.

And for icing on the cake for the dems…

  1. The economy continues to tank and the war in Iraq actually gets worse

If the above three things happen McCain will most certainly lose. If one and two occur he will probably lose as well.[/quote]

Either one is beating him now. You don’t need any of the 3.

[quote]pat wrote:
Hell, it looks like if McCain can keep from getting caught in any lies, he might be a shoe in. That would be weird…I was pretty much resolved the the fact that we were going to have a democrat in the oval office.[/quote]

Since nothing has changed and McCain mostly polls below or tied both dems who haven’t even campaigned against him yet, while he raises no money and flubs on Iraq on a regular basis… what might have changed your resolve?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Good stuff. Other things I continue to find interesting:

  1. The party of “common people” and “count every vote” is going to turn the decision over to party aristocrats for decision in the classic “smoke-filled room” filled with deals and compromises

  2. There are rumors that some Democrats are fearing an electoral disaster, this despite the fact that the GOP is in the worst existential shape it has been in some 20+ years and the Democrats could nominate anyone they wanted

  3. Al Gore might just yet get to fulfill his dream of being a savior - and, might I add, that the Democratic party is very blessed to have so many “saviors” in their ranks. Astonishing.[/quote]

1.Who will then vote for the candidate most people voted for.
2.I think most dems feel pretty confident. I mean McCain doesn’t know anything about anything, so what’s to fear?
3. Savior how? The race is over.

[quote]100meters wrote:

1.Who will then vote for the candidate most people voted for.
2.I think most dems feel pretty confident. I mean McCain doesn’t know anything about anything, so what’s to fear?
3. Savior how? The race is over.[/quote]

Wait - this must be one of those times when you aren’t “able to come up with a way to make my argument more intellectually honest, unfortunately”?

[quote]
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Good stuff. Other things I continue to find interesting:

  1. The party of “common people” and “count every vote” is going to turn the decision over to party aristocrats for decision in the classic “smoke-filled room” filled with deals and compromises

  2. There are rumors that some Democrats are fearing an electoral disaster, this despite the fact that the GOP is in the worst existential shape it has been in some 20+ years and the Democrats could nominate anyone they wanted

  3. Al Gore might just yet get to fulfill his dream of being a savior - and, might I add, that the Democratic party is very blessed to have so many “saviors” in their ranks. Astonishing.

100meters wrote:
1.Who will then vote for the candidate most people voted for.
2.I think most dems feel pretty confident. I mean McCain doesn’t know anything about anything, so what’s to fear?
3. Savior how? The race is over.[/quote]

This effect doesn’t show up in the straight-up polls yet:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/poll-democrats-might-vote-mccain-if-their-candidate-isnt-the-nominee/

If it holds at even half that level, the Dems will be hosed.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

1.Who will then vote for the candidate most people voted for.
2.I think most dems feel pretty confident. I mean McCain doesn’t know anything about anything, so what’s to fear?
3. Savior how? The race is over.

Wait - this must be one of those times when you aren’t “able to come up with a way to make my argument more intellectually honest, unfortunately”?[/quote]

No, this one’s pretty easy.

1.Obama’s is ahead (in the popular vote no less) and the superdelegates are clearly going his way.
2.The vast majority of dems think Obama can beat McCain and it appears 60 percent of Repubs do to.
3. I don’t see what role Gore could play other than being just another super delegate voting for Obama.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

thunderbolt23 wrote:
Good stuff. Other things I continue to find interesting:

  1. The party of “common people” and “count every vote” is going to turn the decision over to party aristocrats for decision in the classic “smoke-filled room” filled with deals and compromises

  2. There are rumors that some Democrats are fearing an electoral disaster, this despite the fact that the GOP is in the worst existential shape it has been in some 20+ years and the Democrats could nominate anyone they wanted

  3. Al Gore might just yet get to fulfill his dream of being a savior - and, might I add, that the Democratic party is very blessed to have so many “saviors” in their ranks. Astonishing.

100meters wrote:
1.Who will then vote for the candidate most people voted for.
2.I think most dems feel pretty confident. I mean McCain doesn’t know anything about anything, so what’s to fear?
3. Savior how? The race is over.

This effect doesn’t show up in the straight-up polls yet:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/poll-democrats-might-vote-mccain-if-their-candidate-isnt-the-nominee/

If it holds at even half that level, the Dems will be hosed.[/quote]

yes, and clinton and rudy are our likely nominees.

Yeah, except now you’re only a few months away from crunch time, as opposed to a year ahead of the primaries. Not a lot of time to heal those wounds…

ADDENDUM: BTW, you’re pretty confident in those wash polls for someone who thinks it’s too far out…

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.