Who had a Better night Obama or Clinton?

[J. J.]

This was the Obama situation on 2/4/08.

1.  He was raising more money.

2.  He had numerous newspaper endorsements.

3.  He had, for what I think is the first time since 1980, the public support of Ted Kennedy in the Primary, along with numerous members of the "establishment."

4.  He had his major weapon, which probably gave him Iowa, deployed:  Oprah.

5.  Arguably, he had momentum.  Even the FL loss was largely discounted by the media.  Media had been hugely friendly.


This is what the result was:


A.  Obama may have one more delegates than Clinton on Super Tuesday, but not enough to give him the overall lead.  Clinton leads.

B.  He lost a number of traditionally Democratic states, NY (understandable), NJ, MA, and CA.  MA should have been a win.

C.  In the southern states that he won, he did so largely because of winning the Black vote.  The states where he won the white are states he would have virtually no chance of winning in the fall (UT).

D.  Unlike Huckabee, he could not solidly hold a region, i.e. the South (TN).

For the effort put out, which I don't think he can sustain, he should have done a lot better.  The only really good news way NM (?), CN, and MO.

Obama has had two chances to put this away, NH and yesterday.  Both times, he has come up short.

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My post wasn't ment for you, but rather the Hillary! spinmeisters who try to paint winning MA and CA as an amazing victory.

Hillary! was supposed to win in those places, despite what Zogby said. Remember SUSA had her up by 13 the night before the election.

This is another example of overhype of Obama and now the post Super Tuesday spin when he failed expectation.  Supposedly, Obama was going to win CA, and MA, and he didn't.  Obama just called Clinton the "front runner."

And "early voting" is voting.

[J. J.]

mypalmonkey?

I'll work on my banana jokes.

[J. J.]

The media is fawning of Obama that if his grandmother voted against him, they call it racism.

[J. J.]

The media is fawning of Obama that if his grandmother voted against him, they call it racism.

bitter...

No, my first choice won. 

I have never seen anyone get the media hype like Obama has.  And it's not Obama doing it; it is the pundits.  It actually hurts Obama, long term, because he can't live up to expectations.

[J. J.]

This was the Obama situation on 2/4/08.
4.  He had his major weapon, which probably gave him Iowa, deployed:  Oprah.

What's fascinating to me is that the one area of the country he deployed Oprah (California), the black population didn't show up.  What's up with that?

Part of it is not the Black population; Oprah was good with white women in Iowa.

Some of it was that she could be on the ground for days in Iowa, retail politics.  She could have changed the results in NH.  Part of it is that there are many "celebrities" in California and she wasn't a huge attraction.

Possible putting on the trail in places like MA, NJ, NM would have been a better deployment, as would putting her in the neighborhood of LA.

[J. J.]

I would say Obama, if only because he didn't get destroyed. In fact, he actually overperformed. I would be very nervous if I were Clinton, it's a very close race and the primaries to come strongly favor Obama.

I'm just glad that Texas actually matters in something related to the Democrats.

I would say that Obama has under performed twice.  In NH, he had a chance to destroy Clinton and be the nominee; he would have been unstoppable.  Yesterday, he had a chance to win and show broad based support, nationally; he could also have ended the day in first place with the delegate count.  He didn't and he had everything going for him.

The problem now is money.  People will contribute to the presumptive winner (John McCain for the GOP).  Obama is not the presumptive winner and, after yesterday, should begin to see money problems.  Hillary is married to the fund raiser in chief; money has never been a problem.  She can conduct an extended campaign better than Obama.  It won't be pretty, but she can pull it off.

As I told an old friend once, "That's why they call it a campaign."

[J. J.]

The problem now is money.  People will contribute to the presumptive winner (John McCain for the GOP).  Obama is not the presumptive winner and, after yesterday, should begin to see money problems.  Hillary is married to the fund raiser in chief; money has never been a problem.  She can conduct an extended campaign better than Obama.  It won't be pretty, but she can pull it off.

I'm sorry, but this is a very hackish statement to make. Obama just outraised Clinton more than 2 to 1. Why? Because due to the sheer difference in number of donors, Hillary is starting to get hurt badly by the per-donor fundraising limit!

Not hackish, but practical.  Obama had a huge win in SC, gigantically favorable press, and mega endorsements.  He looked like he could pull off a decisive Super Tuesday victory, for a while.  He didn't.

Clinton can now say, "Look, Obama had all the newspaper endorsements, Ted Kennedy, and most of the Kennedy Clan, mega good press, more money, and I am the one in the lead."  That raises funds. 

Nothing succeeds like success.  On Super Tuesday, Obama was not a failure, but he wasn't a success either.

I'll add that, from what I've seen Obama can pick off states, and is great in person, but he falters and the larger, more unified, campaign.  He can win a victory, but he can't follow up and exploit one. 

[J. J.]

If I understand the figures correctly, Hillary had more cash on hand than Obama raised.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019

Obama needed a clear win.  He didn't get it.

[J. J.]

I'm not that big of a believer in the Intrade market meaning much BUT I think you overstate the Obama hype situation.  Hillary consistently traded in the 60's thruout January.  Why would the "bettors" on intrade be solidly behind Hillary's chances, but the campaign donors be behind Obama - kinda cuts against your theory that the money follows the winner (even though I think there's generally merit to that argument).

Not to mention, after NH, Hillary looked like she was practically home free, yet she still only raised 13 mil in the entire month (not all fundraising occurred post SC).

I've seen the Intrade numbers well below sixty.

Absolutely no way was anyone claiming Hillary was "home free" after NH.  Last two weeks of January, it was all about Obama, and how terrible Bill was.

I think Obama was in very good shape to walk out of Super Tuesday as the front runner; I'll even go so far as to say that, before Texas, he may emerge as the front runner for a while.  Hillary is better able to sustain a campaign.

Hillary will be the nominee, probably with the help of the Super Delegates and/or with the seating of the FL delegation.

It is a long term campaign and I don't think that the Obama campaign fully understood that.  Hillary does.

[J. J.]

To all those who said it was better for Clinton: Intrade disagrees.

I seem to remember Intrade saying NH would go to Obama.  I seem to remember me saying, "Buy Clinton."

[J. J.]

BTW, here is the latest quote from Intrade that I have:

Pretty even on the Democratic side. McCain has mostly sewn things up on the Republican side.

DEMOCRATS

Nomination
Clinton 51.0
Obama 49.0
Gore 0.9
Edwards 0.2

All the outstanding states that are traded
New Mexico: Obama leads 50-45
Pennsylvania: Clinton leads 55-30

[J. J.]

He did, however, lose two states that should have gone his way--two states that were polling his way, and were expected to go his way:  California and New Jersey.

Not a single poll in over a year had Obama winning New Jersey.  The average of every poll since February 1st was a 6 point lead for Clinton.

There was that supposed last minute surge for Obama.

[J. J.]

He did, however, lose two states that should have gone his way--two states that were polling his way, and were expected to go his way:  California and New Jersey.

Not a single poll in over a year had Obama winning New Jersey.  The average of every poll since February 1st was a 6 point lead for Clinton.

I was referring to California, not NJ.  Sorry for the confusion.

There was that supposed last minute surge for Obama.

Yeah well, "New Jersey for Clinton" was still of news value comparable to "DC for Kerry" in the 2004 general to the uninformed observer. Really, there'd be few states she has less business losing.

[J. J.]

JJ wants Clinton to win because she will be easy to defeat in November. Clay has no excuse to support her, except that he's a white Southerner (I don't know why they don't like Obama, its not just because of his race, its probably other issues, she's always done well with poor people too.)

No, sorry, I've thought she would be the likely winner after NH.  I do thing Obama is over-hyped (and I actually think that's hurting him).

[J. J.]

looks like 38.7% of this forum are hillary hacks LOL

No kiddin. If she had such a great night, why'd she do her speech so far ahead of Obama?

11:00 PM news in the East.  Same reason Obama didn't speak after winning California, oh wait, he didn't win did he?

[J. J.]

The current MSNBC site has it 838/834 for Obama, without the Super Delegates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914

Clinton is still leading overall, with a lot of strong and delegate rich states out there.

[J. J.]

The winner of the elected delegates will be the nominee. No matter who the Super Delegates are supporting in the present. If Obama is in the lead with elected delegates after March 4th then expect Dean starting to pull strings in order to get Obama a influx of supers. He wants this thing wrapped up soon.

No, that will split the party.

[J. J.]

The winner of the elected delegates will be the nominee. No matter who the Super Delegates are supporting in the present. If Obama is in the lead with elected delegates after March 4th then expect Dean starting to pull strings in order to get Obama a influx of supers. He wants this thing wrapped up soon.

No, that will split the party.

The person who loses the elected delegates and wins the nomination will split the party, if that happens.

If Dean looks like he's "pulling strings," that will anger half the delegates, no matter what.  I actually think you will have either a divided the party, unless it's settled in the field.

[J. J.]

Obama had two chances to win this outright, NH and Super Tuesday.  Both times he failed.  It now becomes a long drawn out process that might last until August.  I wonder if Bill will be unleashed again.