Why Can't Obama Close the Deal

[NickCole]

With all the enthusiasm of large crowds and outspending Hillary 3 to 1, Obama still could not close the deal in Pennsylvania -- just as he couldn't in any of the big states.

In fact Hillary seems to have won by double digits.

That's a major victory for her.

No matter how much money Obama can raise and no matter how big his crowds, superdelegates have to recognize that Hillary is the one who delivers the big states Democrats need to win in November.

Why can't Obama close the deal?

 

[syntax]

A big win for Sen. Clinton in PA. Double digits. Won't change the delegate count much.

 

[chance1]

well

like ohio, pennsylvania is demographically suited to hillary

and she's from there

so she was/is supposed to win there

but a 10 pt margin is pretty fuckin good - that could change

not sure this is a "why he can't close the deal" but it does give u reason to pause - which IMO is not a bad thing

he has made me pause in the last couple weeks - i think he is showing himself to be less than genuine and quite frankly thin skinned and weak

not the stuff of shoe ins

she on the other hand seems to be running a better campaign

maybe mark penn outenzee is a good thing - yup

think lance has taken over ?

LOL

 

[MystikWizard]

I could turn the question around and ask why Hillary can't seem to close the deal? Why is she behind so far? Why can't she raise more money than Obama? Why does more of her money come from lobbyists then any other candidate? Why don't Americans find Hillary trustworthy?

 

[NickCole]

I could turn the question around and ask why Hillary can't seem to close the deal? Why is she behind so far? Why can't she raise more money than Obama? Why does more of her money come from lobbyists then any other candidate? Why don't Americans find Hillary trustworthy?

Despite all that she keeps winning all the big states Democrats need to win in November.

Clearly a lot of voters think she'd be a better President than Obama.

In fact, looks like she's won hundreds of thousands more voters than Obama in Pennsylvania alone -- and that's after he broke all records for campaign spending.

 

[byro]

I could turn the question around and ask why Hillary can't seem to close the deal?

Exactly right. Wasn't she supposed to have this wrapped up as of Super Tuesday?

 

[southern fox]

With all the enthusiasm of large crowds and outspending Hillary 3 to 1, Obama still could not close the deal in Pennsylvania -- just as he couldn't in any of the big states.

In fact Hillary seems to have won by double digits.

That's a major victory for her.

No matter how much money Obama can raise and no matter how big his crowds, superdelegates have to recognize that Hillary is the one who delivers the big states Democrats need to win in November.

Why can't Obama close the deal?

I don't think anyone expected Clinton to not have a majority of Pennsylvania's vote. My only surprise is that she won with 10% rather than in the area of 6%. Ultimately, its a proportional distribution system, and Clinton will inch ahead by a negligible margin -- probably bagging a net gain of ten to twelve delegates. In the end, nothing changes.

Like I said earlier, its important not to make Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania into something that it isn't. Its not a decisive turn or Stalingrad-esque victory.

She can't win the nomination at this point, unless she was pulling regularly around 70% of the vote in each remaining state -- which won't happen. Either that, or she convinces super-delegates to vote against the delegates and the popular vote -- which isn't going to happen either. And I don't like it that Clinton is hedging on that idea.

As far as why Obama can't defeat Clinton -- the same argument could be made against Clinton. Why did she fail to seal the popular vote, despite originally having all of the advantages? Why the hemorrhaging of so many states? How could she go broke so many times? How can a relative newcomer cause so much trouble for her to seal a nomination that so seemed to be hers? Why could she not close the deal? Why did it drag on for so long?

I don't ask those questions to disparage her, but to point out that the same rationale can be used even more strongly against her.

Ultimately, the reason that the primaries are still going on is that the Democratic Party has two strong candidates. Its folly to expect either of them to "collapse" to the other, and its spin to disparage them for not being able to decisively destroy the other. Neither can, since both have their respective demographics which do well in different states. Clinton can hang on as long as there are states that favor her demographics.

In the long run, its over. Looking down the road, Obama has the nomination.

 

[MystikWizard]

With Hillary's likability factor being below Obama's, are her supporters just looking to give the Republicans another victory in the General Election, since we already know Republicans despise her over Obama? Is that what her supporters want?

 

[chance1]

"Seems", depending on who you are listening to this time. The first part of your post, and the low road she's taken, doesn't put much credence behind the last sentence there, don't you think?

Hell no.

I don't understand why you think this is true, when it so clearly makes no sense. She didn't win the big states against a Republican, so the claim is meaningless.

i don't think she's takin the low road

she's holding him accountable for his associations, positions, background and experience

as she should

 

[PSCGuy]

Re: Obama Can't Close the Deal

If Obama won this, he still would not have closed the deal---but he's still winning.

That's not true. As a Clinton supporter, I can say truthfully that is Obama won PA, I would have packed it in. And I know a lot of other Clinton die-hards that feel the same.

Also, it would have killed the media narrative. Hillary can stay in the race because she keeps winning some states--and that's a story. If Obama came into Hillary's backyard--where demographics and name recognition favored her--then the media would have pronounced her dead.

 

[southern fox]

Despite all that she keeps winning all the big states Democrats need to win in November. Clearly a lot of voters think she'd be a better President than Obama.

With respect, this is spin.

Your words "a lot of voters" seems disregard a majority of the popular vote, a majority of the states, and a majority of the delegate count.

Yeah, Clinton has done well in large states, but that does not follow that Obama will flop in them against McCain. The vast majority of the large and populous states tend to vote Democratic regardless of the candidate, and I don't see any difficulty in Obama carrying California, New York, Ohio, and so on in November. He will have a spectacular showing in Illinois.

There are exceptions like Texas, but I honestly don't see Clinton carrying it hypothetically anyway -- and Pennsylvania can turn out this November to be a swing state if Obama is not careful.

 

[chance1]

Right, you would be for this type of politics. This doesn't surprise me in the least. My apologies for asking an obvious question.

poor boy

so naive

give people credit

if they feel the message is unfair - they will reject it

and don't apologize - for being u

u gotta be u

no one else is gonna be

obama is speaking now

doing his "i was just talking to a young man in nc" who of course has no health insurance ................

his stories r getting tiring

and redundant

he's a preacher

he should run a church

not a country

 

[chance1]

now BO is attacking mccain and bush

kinda ignoring hillary's win

hmmm

and he's taking mccain out of context

hmmm

rev wright
weatherman ayres
bitter

he's got lotsa splainin to do

and he aint doing it

ignoring hillary

interesting

 

[chance1]

im hearing lotsa amens from the crowd

this isnt church BO

 

[NickCole]

They came out to vote for Hillary.

Obama supporters keep claiming nobody likes her or trusts her. But in the states Democrats have to win in November they keep coming out to vote her to victory.

(CNN)—Pennsylvania’s primary day turnout approached general election levels this year, state officials said Tuesday night.

The result comes on the heels of unprecedented Democratic voter registration in the months leading up to the presidential primary.

Voters in some counties participated at double and triple the level of the previous two presidential cycles – up to 60 percent in Clinton-supporting Allegheny County — although there is little basis for comparison, since the nomination had been essentially decided by the time the 2000 and 2004 primaries were held, so both were basically uncompetitive contests.

“This primary, at least to me, has felt almost like an expedited general election that came seven months earlier,” said Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State, Pedro A. Cortes. “That’s about the best way to describe it.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...y-turnout-approached-general-election-levels/

 

[NickCole]

With respect, this is spin.

Your words "a lot of voters" seems disregard a majority of the popular vote, a majority of the states, and a majority of the delegate count.

A majority of states doesn't mean anything in the primary or general election.

The delegate win will be decided by superdelegates. Neither Obama nor Clinton will reach the needed number without them.


What's left is the popular vote, and I agree that's important.

Are you concerned with a majority of the popular vote?

Genuinely?

If you're genuinely concerned with the majority of the popular vote then you must be concerned that the popular vote of Florida and Michigan be counted. And guess where that leaves us?

 

[NickCole]

Apparently, it leaves us with the same ol' Rodham fanatic spin. They don't count because they broke party rules.

The voters did not break party rules.

And the primary dates of Iowa and South Carolina also broke party rules, but the voters of those states weren't disenfranchised.

 

[southern fox]

Obama supporters keep claiming nobody likes her or trusts her.

I’ve never heard this. If someone is saying this, then its best to politely ignore them. They are blatantly partisan and being sensational.

Its unwise and dishonest to take the actions of some individuals -- particularly the worst you can find -- and blanket their actions and thoughts over the many, as if this was some sort of mass opinion. Its not, and you know it.

I resent being pushed into such characterization, since it does not accurately represent my thoughts at all.

But in the states Democrats have to win in November they keep coming out to vote her to victory.

I’ve responded to this already, as have others. You should not repeat yourself verbatim after being contradicted. I may as well return the favor:

This is spin. Certainly, Clinton has done well in large states, but that does not follow that Obama will flop in them against McCain. The vast majority of the large and populous states tend to vote Democratic regardless of the candidate, and I don't see any difficulty in Obama carrying California, New York, Ohio, and so on in November. He will have a spectacular showing in Illinois.

There are exceptions like Texas, but I honestly don't see Clinton carrying it hypothetically anyway -- and Pennsylvania can turn out this November to be a swing state if Obama is not careful.

 

[chance1]

Chance, I saw that speech. Not surprised you are mischaracterizing it. You're just stirring things up now like your long history of pro-Bush has done. He's explained Wright, the "bitter" comment wasn't offensive in the least, and Ayers/Weathermen have nothing to do with him. You don't care about Obama or Rodham anyway, as soon as McCain got the nomination. Which is cool, I don't get the demonization McCain gets here, but I am worried who/what he'll choose as a running mate. Any thoughts on that one? Who knows if I might be voting for him too.

u saw it

but did u hear it

and blah blah blah with ur pro bush thingy - im not pro bush - whatever

he's never explained wright - except to his most ardent followers - who could watch him take a shit onstage and cheer

weatherman is very troubling - and trust me when i tell u - that ain't going away - nor should it

"i don't care about ..............."

dude - u don't know jack - and u def don't know bryan (that's me)

i could deal fine with any of the 3 remaining as POTUS

could u? thinkin no

running mate? better not be a huckabee or an extreme conservative - that would be lame - and counter productive politically IMO

i hear charlie christ a lot - might help him take florida

not a republican insider u know - so really i have no idea

i just like mccain - dont agree with him on a bunch - but my respect for him is enormous

when he went into michigan in a primary he wanted bad and said "sorry those auto jobs r gone" well - i was in love

nah

he shoulda beat bush in 2000

 

[southern fox]

A majority of states doesn't mean anything in the primary or general election.

I never said that a majority of states was a prerequisite for electoral victory. I merely pointed out that every statistic was dead against your implication – since Obama holds a majority of the popular vote, a majority of the states, a majority of the delegates, and to be followed by a majority of super-delegates.

The delegate win will be decided by superdelegates. Neither Obama nor Clinton will reach the needed number without them.

This is correct.

But these super-delegates will not cast their votes to circumvent popular opinion, regardless of the original intention of the system. Pragmatically, it won’t happen. I can’t see it, except in the case of an instantaneous catastrophic meltdown of the Obama campaign.

What's left is the popular vote, and I agree that's important.

Are you concerned with a majority of the popular vote?

Genuinely?

In a matter of speaking, yes. A direct popular vote for the general election is probably a bad idea for the problem of candidates ignoring the majority of the smaller states. The Electoral College is flawed, but its purpose is rational. I think that the super-delegate system is even more deeply flawed and in need of an overhaul, regardless of their likely endorsement of my favored candidate. The proportional representation system is a good idea, probably a better idea than the Electoral College for the general election. But it needs many overhauls for the sake of efficiency.

If you're genuinely concerned with the majority of the popular vote then you must be concerned that the popular vote of Florida and Michigan be counted. And guess where that leaves us?

With Florida popular vote counted, Obama remains ahead regardless.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

I've never counted Michigan, considering that Obama did not appear on the ballot -- he cannot pick up votes to counter-balance Clinton’s gain of 320,000, which severely distorts the math. Instead, the dark horse “Uncommitted” gets around 230,000 votes. If those votes were sent in Obama’s direction, which was the transparent intended destination, then Obama has an extraordinarily narrow lead of roughly 100,000 votes in the national popular vote.

And regardless, polls have Obama with a national 10 point lead over Clinton.