Hillary's blame game

Mickey Kaus on Hillary Clinton's "much-rumored staff shakeup":

Implicitly blaming her staff [for a possible loss in Iowa] seems more promising than blaming her husband. She's stuck with her husband.**

**--Unless ... you don't think ... Now that would be a staff shakeup.

Heh.

I think Kaus is right, though, that neither the staff nor the hubby are Hillary's main problem. Hillary's main problem is... Hillary.

Comments

[Mad Max, Esquire]

From what I am hearing, she isn't listening to the advice of seasoned veterans on her staff. Personally, I think that is almost as much of a flaw as never questioning the advice of your advisers.

I think if Hillary loses Iowa, she is going to lose the nomination. People are just looking for an excuse to throw their support behind Obama and Edwards. A big loss by Hillary in Iowa will give it to them.

[Condor]

"I think if Hillary loses Iowa, she is going to lose the nomination."

I can never understand this view. Hillary is up by 18.6 percentage points nationally. Now, I don't know how many points a loss in Iowa would take out of that. But this in itself is important; no one has any idea. Now 18.6 points is no small lead. Why people just assume it will be squandered by early primary losses is totally beyond me.

[Joe Loy]

On the other hand if Hill WERE to fire Bill, then he would be free to go to work for his disciple Mike Huckabee, if we are to believe Mitt Romney :}.

btw I like This quote from that story:

Retorted Huckabee: "This nonsense about being a liberal is pure nonsense."

Presumably that would be, as distinguished from the nonsense which is Impure nonsense, of the sort we get from ~ hm ~ Whom? Mayor Rudy of the (rather understatedly :) self-proclaimed Imperfect Life? Senator Barack the Druglord of the Southside? Senator Smilin' Johnny... NOWAIT! That's It! I GOT it! The very WitchKing of Impure Nonsense: MATT DRUDGE. (Well I'm certainly glad we got That settled. :)

[Joe Loy]

Because, Condor, that chimerical "national lead" must remain strong enough (taking into account the ripple effect, if any, of earlystate setbacks) to Distribute itself among enough States to win enough DELEGATES to win the Nomination, which is conferred only by an Absolute Majority of the delegates voting at the Convention.

Keep in mind that (a) the Dems ban "winner-take-all" primaries & caucuses, instead mandating proportional representation (albeit with minimum Threshholds) in the delegate allocations. Also (b) that a sizeable minority of the total Dem delegate seats are NOT ALLOCATED by the primaries/caucuses, but instead Reserved for certain "party leaders and elected officials" who may remain "Unpledged" to any candidate. And (c), that this wonderful Delegate Accumulation process does NOT End on February 5: iow, Super may or may not be Duper but the Fatlady need not Sing 'til Spring. (Or, indeed, high Summer. :)

[Condor]

Joe,
I have no reason to assume other than that an 18.6 point nation lead would translate into a majority of delegates. Is there one? Sure that lead would likely shrink if she loses some early states. But why assume that it will diminish so much that it will either be lost, or else so low that it doesn't yield a delegate majority?

[Joe Loy]

Condor,

I don't Assume either one. OTOH either scenario seems a non-neglible Possibility.

Look at it this way. Under Dem rules an 18.6-point lead in a given Primary state with at least 3 Viable candidates, will verylikely translate into a Majority of that state's Allocated delegates (excluding its Unpledged contingent of course :) IF said Leader's share of the total popular vote is above, veryroughly speaking, 40%. / However, if the identical Point-spread comes by way of (say) a PV split of 38.6% to 20% to 19% ~ with the remaining 22.4% dissipated amongst the various-&-sundry Chris Dodds Threshhold-missers, announced Dropouts still on the Ballot, 3rd-Tier Petitioners of whom we'd never Heard until Primary night, and of course the option "Uncommitted" which I believe the Dems Require on all their ballots & which I KNOW appears on Many anyway :) ~ whyyy, then in That case as I say :), it becomes Dicey whether Ms. Eighteen-point-Six, after the requisite mathematical Adjustments (i.e. Thousands of Ballots! Thrown Out!!! :), does or doesn't collar an allocated-delegate Majority. (A question further complexified by allocation of many of the delegates per Congressional District vote rather than Statewide. :) // Now, take those general Principles & apply them to Another state where the leader's Lead has fallen to, say, 10 points. Or 5. // NOW factor in the Other otherstates where she finishes 2nd, or 3rd ~ and you begin to See what I mean. :)

[Or, to quote Georgie Patton per The Movie, as he views the chaos & carnage of the smoking Battlefield: "I love it. God help me, I Do love it So." :]

[Joe Loy]

P.S.: Condor, I forgot this Illustration. / In the excellent and faithfully Rules-compliant state of Connecticut :) in March of 1992, Bill Clinton (to the Astonishment of Almost All) reportedly "lost" the Dem PresPrimary to ~ ~ ~ Jerry Brown! / Yes, the Land of Steady Habits plumped for Governor Moonbeam :). [Letterman, himself a CT voter at the time, famously attributed the outcome to a "heavy Klingon turnout." :] /// However, candidate Clinton outpaced candidate Brown ~ by a margin if 1 (One) ~ in the Primary-allocated-Delegate totals, notwithstanding Jerry's celebrated 1st-place finish in the statewide PV. / and No, it wasn't a "Glitch." It was just the way the System Worked. ;>

Happy Holidays, Condor :).

[Alasdair]

Elder Loy - you are enjoying this WAAAAY too much !

Still, it'll be ironic if the Vast Right-Wing ConspHillary denies Senator Carpetbagger the nomination she so assiduously craves ...

[Joe Loy]

young padawan Alasdair, I enjoy Many things waaaay too Much :}. However as Saint Thomas Makem ;> used to sing, "...For the Merry-hearted boys / Make the best of Old Men." :)

And yes, yer right about the Irony. / Senator TakesAVillage ~ Pillaged by the Nutroots, just like she was Joe Lieberman Himself. / Think of That. :>

[Condo]

Oh. I see what you have in mind.

[r]

.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Condor-

Look at it this way. Hillary may have an 18 point advantage nationally, but you have to figure that a majority of Democrats still don't favor her. This means that the majority of Dems favor a candidate other than her. Since Hillary is a known entity, the odds are most of those voters who aren't for her now will galvanize around whoever is left as the primaries move forward, most likely Obama or Edwards, and not Hillary.

[Condor]

"Hillary may have an 18 point advantage nationally, but you have to figure that a majority of Democrats still don't favor her."

Ummm... You're going to have to explain that one to me. What an 18 point lead MEANS is that the majority of Democrats favor her, more specifically, 18 percent more.

[Alasdair]

Or it means that a bunch the folk answering the question have decided to mess with the minds of the polsters, perhaps ?

I know that if someone decides to poll me about Hillary, and if I know it's a Dem poll, I'll tell 'em *I'm* absolutely certain to vote for our Saviour-From-The-Eeeeevil-Booooosh ...

[Alasdair]

Pollsters aren't so very different from weather forecasters ... and, in politics, they are about as accurate, too ...

[Mad Max, Esquire]

"Ummm... You're going to have to explain that one to me. What an 18 point lead MEANS is that the majority of Democrats favor her, more specifically, 18 percent more."

A plurality isn't the same thing as a majority. Most polls show Hillary getting 43% to 45% of the Democratic vote nationwide. She isn't above 50%. In other words, 55% to 57% of Democrats don't want her as their nominee. I think most of that majority will line up behind Obama or Edwards once other candidates start dropping from the race.