Hillary's slow collapse
The final result in Wisconsin last night was a startling 58 to 41 margin for Obama -- closer to the unweighted exit polls (60-40) than the "final," weighted ones quoted by Fox (55-43). I'm no polling expert, but it occurs to me that maybe the "weighting" process somehow took into account the degree to which exit polls in previous contests had overstated Obama's support -- but this time, that didn't happen.
If so, it could be another sign of Obama gaining strength. Not only is he winning, or damn near winning, many of Hillary's core demographics (women, low-income voters, non-college-educated voters, etc.), he may also be converting the fake-Obama-supporter demographic into real Obama supporters. Where, two weeks ago, some voters would tell people, including pollsters and exit pollsters, that they supported Obama -- the hip, young, black, inspirational candidate with the celebrity music video and the liberal hipster allies -- but would then cast their ballot in secret for the "safe" candidate, Hillary ... now those people are actually voting for Obama.
Just a theory. And probably a wrong one. :) But I thought I'd throw it out there.
On a related note, Michael Crowley looks at the Collapse of Hillary. But the candidate herself seems not to have noticed. For the third straight election night, Hillary's "concession" speech failed to mention that she'd lost anything, or that there had even been an election held that day. And today her campaign has opened a new front in the delegate-counting war, collecting all their ridiculous spin in one convenient "hub." It's like they don't realize they're losing -- like they're whistling past the graveyard. News flash to Team Billary: you can't win the nomination purely on back-room machinations. At some point, you'll have to win some more primaries. A bunch more, actually. Not just Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico. You'll need those -- by wide margins -- but you'll need others, too. And that seems like an increasingly dubious prospect.
By the way, here are yesterday's speeches.
Hill needs to distinguish herself from Obama, possibly a bit more centrist and less left than he is. I think it's more remarkable that we have the prospects that a woman could become president, so I cannot understand why she is not emphasizing this.
Posted by: Wurf | Feb 20, 2008 11:12:49 AM
I can't wait to see Hillary's new deck chair arrangement for this week. Perhaps someone should offer her a tip -- take a two week vacation, right now. When she campaigns she loses support. When she wasn't actually doing anything she was the front runner. So she best cut her loses and just be quiet. Send out her get out the vote people and perhaps she can hold onto her now slim leads.
Posted by: dcl | Feb 20, 2008 11:29:35 AM
It'll be really interesting to see how they handle the upcoming debates. My guess is that Obama goes after McCain really hard while Hillary tries to find any prior inconsistencies ir anything else that she can to force Obama into some sort of catostrophic error. Hillary needs to be really aggresive without coming off as being negative/mean. Not an easy task.
Posted by: yea | Feb 20, 2008 11:35:49 AM
it looks like Hillary is current up by 9 in Ohio. I think this will get much closer. Since Obama tends to gain as election day approaches in almost every state that he campaigns in, this is pretty obvious, but i think NAFTA is going to hurt Hillary even more here. NAFTA is extremely unpopular in Ohio/Michigan and Bill played a significant roll in getting NAFTA through. It will be extremely conveneint for Obama engraft anti-NAFTA rhetoric into his normal "change" theme. The only thing that will keep Ohio much closer than Wisconsin is the strong democrat political machine in Ohio.
Posted by: yea | Feb 20, 2008 11:39:14 AM
I think Hillary is incapable of attacking Obama without looking like a witch. Maybe she will surprise people in the debate, but I doubt it.
Yeah, Obama hasn't achieved anything - except one of the biggest political upsets since Dewey "Did Not" Defeat Truman. Also, when Obama does delve into details, he sounds a hell of a lot less radical than Hillary.
Posted by: Angrier and Angrier | Feb 20, 2008 11:41:50 AM
Oh, and I love how Hillary is saying that it is "only fair" for Michigan and Florida to count. Really? Is it fair to change the rules in the middle of the game? Is it fair to pledge to do one thing and then do another for political advantage? I don't think Hillary gets it...this behavior is why she is losing.
Posted by: Angrier and Angrier | Feb 20, 2008 11:44:05 AM
"Clinton campaign: Target is 2208"
Do they really think that (1) Hillary will still be a viable candidate in 200 years and (2) she won't have a better opportunity in any of the 49 elections between now and then?
Posted by: USC 2L | Feb 20, 2008 2:13:28 PM
USC 2L - ""Clinton campaign: Target is 2208"" - and the Hildebeest will probably look and sound the same in 2208, too !
Wurf - the problem for Senator Clinton trying to emphasise the "womand could become President" theme is that it brings into play the Democratic Party's track record of female candidates for occupants of the White House ... so far, they have only picked 100% non-viable female candidates ...
Add that to Senator Clinton's 'feminine charm' factor - and she becomes even *less* viable ... of this time round's candaidates on the Democratic side, former Senator Edwards 'feminine charm' factor is WAAAY higher (not to mention positive) as compared to Senator Clinton's obvious negative rating ...
Posted by: Alasdair | Feb 20, 2008 3:50:30 PM
Wurf - "the prospects that a woman could become president" - the problem that Senator Clinton has with emphasising that aspect is the Democratic Party's execrable record in their choice of potential female candidates for occupants of the White House ... they have yet to choose a viable such candidate ...
Add to that Senator Clinton's 'feminine charm' factor - especially given that former Senator Edwards has a 'feminine charm' factor which is WAAAYYY higher (not to mention it's positive, as well) - in the perceptibly negative, and that makes Senator Clinton even *less* viable a candidate ...
Posted by: Alasdair | Feb 20, 2008 3:55:07 PM
ACK !
Brendan - I apologise - I thought that may comment hadn't taken - so I re-typed it ...
Sorry about the overlap ...
Posted by: Alasdair | Feb 20, 2008 3:56:44 PM
There's been a lot of problems with the comments lately, maybe little Loyette drooled on Brendans server or something... ;-)
Posted by: David K. | Feb 20, 2008 4:11:00 PM