The story of the Democratic primaries so far, boiled down to seven minutes.

May 6, 2008 4:10 PM

The Democratic Primary Season in 7 Minutes.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (63 comments total)

7 minutes? I don't see how they can spin it out that long.
posted by cillit bang at 4:15 PM on May 6

...they have Aragorn, that's how!
posted by WolfDaddy at 4:21 PM on May 6

This seems like a funny video to make after the primary season is over.
posted by shakespeherian at 4:27 PM on May 6 [1 favorite]

That's actually pretty decent, though it's odd—there's about thirty seconds of editing between this and something that wouldn't earn a "satirical" label, and none of the gratuitous funny does much to help the summary other than in terms of raw comic relief. If you want to really get into the pundit/media scandal cycle, get into it, but as is it's like they sort of half went there and left it at that.

Still, tight editing. It's hard to say how much sense most of that would make to someone who hadn't been paying any attention at all to the primary season, though.

This seems like a funny video to make after the primary season is over.

Acts I and II are definitely over. There's some resolution possibly a very strange convention still to come, but a hell of a lot is already settled—especially for the folks who've dropped out of the race.
posted by cortex at 4:33 PM on May 6

Time machine go!
posted by Artw at 4:33 PM on May 6

The democratic primary in 0.5 seconds:

Obama wins.
posted by delmoi at 4:36 PM on May 6 [2 favorites]

Acts I and II are definitely over. There's some resolution possibly a very strange convention still to come, but a hell of a lot is already settled—especially for the folks who've dropped out of the race.

True; I just wonder why make this video on May 2nd, four days ahead of two primaries, at least one of which is pretty large-sized. Are they planning on making a 'complete Democratic primary season in eight-and-a-half minutes' after the convention, or just this? If so, why make it now instead of a month from now?
posted by shakespeherian at 4:37 PM on May 6

I'm holding out for "The Democratic Primary Season in 30 seconds, as performed by bunnies."
posted by mek at 4:44 PM on May 6 [2 favorites]

True; I just wonder why make this video on May 2nd, four days ahead of two primaries, at least one of which is pretty large-sized.

Because it's four days ahead of two primaries, at least one of which is pretty large-sized. It's been a miserable drought for pundits, and people are itching for some action, and when they're itching you pull 'em in with something entertaining.

This isn't about delivering essential, properly-timed historical documents, it's about getting people to go to your website and watch your video and generate ad revenue.
posted by cortex at 4:47 PM on May 6

Hmmm. I wonder if all us Oregonians should just burn our ballots if it's so over?
posted by valentinepig at 4:54 PM on May 6

As someone who lives outside the US but has a keen interest in your politics and politics in general, can anyone tell me when this whole 'primary' nonsense will be over (assuming neither candidate withdraws early)? And will there be enough time for the victor, be it Obama or Hillary, to counter McCain before the presidential election?
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:55 PM on May 6

file under HIPEfilter and crapfilter and, my favorite: torturefilter.

I hope, though, you're right cortex. If the stupidcrats blow another gimme, we'll all pay dearly.
posted by valentinepig at 4:57 PM on May 6

video no worky
posted by tumult at 5:01 PM on May 6

There aren't many pledged delegates left after today -- 217 left. Hillary's likely to take WV, KY and PR -- Obama's likely to take Oregon, Montana and SD. Assuming they split, Obama needs to convince something like 50 or 60 superdelegates to endorse him, and he has the nomination locked down. I'd imagine that you may see a few dozen super delegates endorse Obama this week. Probably after PR, the rest of the Supers will endorese en masse, along with a lot of soft hillary supporters switching.
posted by empath at 5:01 PM on May 6

e2k - June 3 is the last one. Howie (Dean - democratic party chair and party time-bomb from 2004) seems to have it worked out that soon after that folks will have to make up their minds. It seems like Barack-o has been the presumptive nominee since super tuesday (back in February) but conflict drives the plot forward [nod to josh for convincing me of that nugget] and sells. Nobody would tune in for a love-in. They'd just sit home, get stoned and worry about paranoia.
posted by valentinepig at 5:04 PM on May 6

There is no way in hell you can get me to sit through a 7 minute loop of that "God Damn America" clip.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 5:53 PM on May 6 [1 favorite]

Could someone give me a scenario by which Hillary would actually win, and there wouldn't be an uproar?
posted by odinsdream at 6:08 PM on May 6 [1 favorite]

This is real and not for play,
Imma Vote Obama Way

We Hood
We Votin'
And throwin' it up!
posted by empath at 6:22 PM on May 6 [1 favorite]

And throwin' it up!

Is there much support for the vomit platform?
posted by elfgirl at 6:24 PM on May 6

throwing up gang signs, yo...

I'm sure the 'fuck what yo mamma say, imma vote obama way' line is gonna go over big with the campaign..
posted by empath at 6:28 PM on May 6

Also, a blinged out hip-hop video is probably exactly what he needs to put him over the top in Kentucky, West Virginia, Obama, Montana and South Dakota.
posted by empath at 6:29 PM on May 6 [1 favorite]

Uh -- Oregon.. they haven't named a state after him yet.
posted by empath at 6:30 PM on May 6 [9 favorites]

odinsdream -- Sure. The scenario the Clinton campaign is currently likely hoping for is that Obama is caught, and caught soon, with the proverbial live boy or dead girl, and she sweeps all of the remaining states by double-digit margins. She catches up with him in the popular vote, and either also catches up to him in pledged delegates (unlikely), or convinces enough superdelegates that he's now completely unelectable that they ignore the pledged delegate count. Except for a few die-hard holdouts convinced that the whole thing was a devious plot, most of the democratic party goes along with it, acknowledging that the superdelegates had no choice after Obama [did whatever horrible thing Obama was supposedly caught doing in this scenario.]

Likely? No. Remotely possible? Eh, strong candidates have crashed and burned both earlier and later than now. Do I think it's going to happen? No.
posted by kyrademon at 6:34 PM on May 6

Could someone give me a scenario by which Hillary would actually win, and there wouldn't be an uproar?

I can only think of one.
posted by dw at 6:36 PM on May 6

Uh, I think there would be quite an uproar to that.

Like burning the country to the ground.
posted by empath at 6:42 PM on May 6

Ok, I mean... that's what I thought. But listening to any media other than online, you'd believe there was actually a chance. I mean you could almost hear the radio folks sigh with relief tonight when it looked like Obama was just going to take NC.
posted by odinsdream at 6:57 PM on May 6

My spider sense indicates he's going to take Indiana, it's 52-48 Clinton right now with 1000 precincts left to report, and the biggest (most urban) precincts report last, which seems to have confused CNN for about six months so far...

And yes, if there's an assassination, at this point, I'll get a gun and join a revolution. And I don't even live there.
posted by blacklite at 7:00 PM on May 6

Indiana is going to be a split in the popular vote. For some reason Obama tends to take more delegates in those situations, though.
posted by empath at 7:13 PM on May 6

Hmm.. CNN keeps pointing out that the last county is likely to be strong Obama because it is mostly black. They've barely mentioned that it's mostly Chicago wannabes.

It'll be close.

The joke is that it doesn't matter who 'wins' with representative delegates..

this is the first time i've turned on the tv in months, i'm a bit pissed at the noise
posted by xorry at 7:23 PM on May 6

More to the point: Can anyone foresee a situation in which Hillary leaves the race other than being vote down at the convention?
posted by shakespeherian at 7:39 PM on May 6

Oh give me a fucking break - what the fuck is this Hillary speech about. God this pandering bullshit is tiresome. What the fuck.
posted by odinsdream at 7:40 PM on May 6

The joke is that it doesn't matter who 'wins' with representative delegates..

Yeah, but that's not what they tell you on the tee vee!

I did some poking around, and this blog post (scroll way down until you see indiana maps) is the first place I have ever seen a real breakdown of how delegates are awarded and from where. I wish there was some sort of ... organization... of people... that were there to dig up information... aw well that'd be silly anyway.

It sounds like Obama should pick up at least an edge of 1 or 2 delegates from the IN race.
posted by blacklite at 7:45 PM on May 6

What I've Learned this Campaign Season, Expressed In Haiku:

Women are scary.
Black people are scary too.
McCain sleeps in peace.
posted by Dizzy at 7:53 PM on May 6

shakespeherian -- again, sure. If enough superdelegates announce for Obama he clearly becomes the definitive winner, I'd bet quite a lot that she will at the very least suspend campaigning (which is de facto withdrawing.) In all honesty, I think the people who are predicting that she would continue campaigning after that are being a bit silly. I suppose I could be forced to eat my words about this, but I don't think so.
posted by kyrademon at 8:04 PM on May 6

She's said she's taking it all the way to the convention. There will likely be a credentials fight over MI and FL unless Hillary supers defect in significant numbers.
posted by empath at 8:06 PM on May 6

I wonder if all us Oregonians should just burn our ballots if it's so over?

As a Democrat who votes in Texas, you're whining about useless ballots amuses me.
posted by Cyrano at 9:50 PM on May 6

"your" whining, too.
posted by Cyrano at 9:51 PM on May 6

This is why I just use "yer". Covers yer bases so yer never stuck worrying about homophones.
posted by cortex at 10:15 PM on May 6

We now know who the democratic nominee is going to be, and no one is going to dispute it, Keith -- Tim Russert.

I saw this bit live a while ago. Hillary's chance to win died in Wisconsin. If she had been running the campaign she's been running lately after super Tuesday, she'd probably be the winner now, but her campaign was in disarray. After Texas and Ohio, there was no realistic way for her to win in pledged delegates. The super delegate stuff was pure fantasy.

By the way, Bernstein was on a panel on CNN talking about her close advisers are actually saying she'll seek VP slot (actually he said one of her advisers told him she'd demand it). And DLC Chairman Harold Ford Jr. was arguing she should be put on the ticket on MSNBC.

I sure as hell hope not. I don't want her anywhere near the white house, and frankly I hope she gets primaried out of the democratic party ala Lieberman (and no way would she win as an independent). That probably wouldn't happen, but it would be awesome if it did.
posted by delmoi at 10:36 PM on May 6

The bit I don't get (Australian here) is hasn't Clinton basically been kicking her own party in the balls hard since February when it was obvious she was going to lose? All she's done is spend a few months making her party's future candidate look as bad as possible and make the whole party look divided and weak. Or is this pretty normal?
posted by markr at 1:22 AM on May 7

I've never linked to this site before but uh, Drudge Report, of all places, has a big ol' picture of Barack and Michelle on the front page. Underneath it: "THE NOMINEE."

Yep.
posted by blacklite at 1:51 AM on May 7

If she had been running the campaign she's been running lately after super Tuesday, she'd probably be the winner now, but her campaign was in disarray. After Texas and Ohio, there was no realistic way for her to win in pledged delegates. The super delegate stuff was pure fantasy.

Do you think? Over the past 4-6 weeks, I mostly saw Obama getting tripped up by manufactured crises (Wright, Ayers, "cling/bitter") because there was no other mud to throw at him. Hillary, at the same time shifted from her customary poll tested talking points into NAKED PANDERING OVERDRIVE mode. Her campaign over this recent period smacked more of desperation that she was helped by some missteps on the other side, probably gave her a boost, but I'm not sure I saw much improvement in how she was managing it.

Its funny/infuriating to me that all the shit Clinton supporters threw on Obama (what experience does he have? Why can't he close the deal? how electable is he? his supporters treat him as a messiah, where he can do no wrong, and they demonize our candidate?) could just as easily, and even more appropriately be applied to HRC.

What I'll be glad to be done with is the sickening, haughty condescension that HRC's supporters had been projecting for the past four months. As if none of us had any appreciation of the glorious Clinton past that saved America from dragons, and that the mere fact of her election would bring back the good old days of the nineties (Which really weren't that great for a lot of people).
posted by psmealey at 3:08 AM on May 7 [1 favorite]

In all honesty, I pick Obama. But damn, I really wanted to see Bill wearing the obligatory string of pearls, in his new role as First Lady, as Hillary boots Bush's ass out the White House. ::sigh::
posted by Goofyy at 4:26 AM on May 7

Was anyone else reminded of this?
posted by zardoz at 4:38 AM on May 7

all the shit Clinton supporters threw on Obama (what experience does he have? Why can't he close the deal? how electable is he? his supporters treat him as a messiah, where he can do no wrong, and they demonize our candidate?)

Hey yeah, where the hell did MetaMan go?
posted by Greg Nog at 4:57 AM on May 7

I'm also confused as to why Senator Clinton is still in the race. Suppose:

a) Senator Clinton gets the nomination and goes to win the presidency. I think this scenario is very unlikely. She's already lost any chance at my vote and I have to believe that she's alienated a good chunk of her base. Of course, I've been really wrong before and her numbers are still very close to Obama's.
b) Senator Clinton gets the nomination and loses against McCain. I can't imagine that she'll be nominated in 2012. I think her campaign will have left a bitter taste that's too strong and persistent for four years of spin to erase.
c) Obama wins the democratic nomination but loses against McCain. This is the only scenario I can see that is even close to being a win for her. Then she can spin herself as having told the party that Obama couldn't win and her protracted campaign as an attempt to provide the party with a viable candidate.
d) Obama wins the nomination and wins against McCain. In this case she's just wasted money, time, and good will in a futile struggle.
posted by rdr at 5:22 AM on May 7 [1 favorite]

I'm with you, rdr. I was thinking about this last night. I think the only way that HRC can salvage her reputation and continue to be a player within the party is to immediately bow out of the race. She'll need to come up with some conciliatory language to Obama loyalists, say that she took a look at the numbers, and that it no longer makes sense to continue her campaign, as it can only negatively effect the party... AND she'll need to come up with some sincere exhortations to her own supporters to keep the momentum going with Obama, and be emphatic about just how disastrous a third Bush term (i.e.: McCain) would be to the country, regardless of our minor differences of opinion.

I don't think she'll actually do this, and she will destroy her own career if she doesn't, but I don't think it's too late for her to marshall some good will.
posted by psmealey at 6:48 AM on May 7

Hey yeah, where the hell did MetaMan go?

Please don't.
posted by cortex at 6:56 AM on May 7 [4 favorites]

I liked this. I thought it was smart, funny, and a good refresher. The primary season does feel more drawn out than season 3 of Lost. At least we already know what's up with the Hatch.
posted by ericbop at 6:58 AM on May 7

From Clinton's perspective though, if she were to bow out now, it would make her staying in this long look more stubborn/foolish. My guess is, unless some people she respect take her aside and explain to her that the game is up, she's going to stay in until the end, and there's a good chance people have already done it.
posted by drezdn at 7:18 AM on May 7

delmoi: If she had been running the campaign she's been running lately after super Tuesday, she'd probably be the winner now

No. The math: Super Tuesday decided the race. The video fails to give the proper context that the race has been over for just over three months now, and everything since then (i.e. the last 2:30 of the video) has been nothing more than a media circus.

To start with, the nomination was Clinton's to lose all along. In October of 2007 she was obliterating Obama in national polls by an average of 45%-20%. She had out-fundraised every other candidate on both sides in 2007. Before a single vote had even been cast, she already held a hundred-superdelegate lead thanks to her establishment support. And she was holding pocket aces: having the best-known Democratic brand name and the heaviest of the Democratic heavyweights as a campaign surrogate in her corner. Her own campaign declared her "inevitable", the media obediently lapped it up, and she confidently predicted that whatever happened in the early contests, the race would be over by Feb. 5th once half of the pledged delegates had been elected.

Now most insiders have a pretty good idea of how each contest will play out beforehand, simply due to demographics. For instance, the Obama campaign spreadsheet that was leaked months ago correctly predicted every contest except two (Obama won Maine in February and Clinton won Indiana last night). "Momentum" is really about media narrative and fundraising; the scheduling of the contests is what really dictates who wins when. Everyone already knew that the post-Tuesday February calender would be more in Obama's favor, but she would do very well on Super Tuesday itself and, if all went according to plan, knock out all her remaining competition that day (had Edwards not already dropped out). How well? One independent analysis at the time projected a best case Clinton scenario of a 200-delegate margin (knocking out Obama) and a best case Obama scenario of grimly breaking even, with the final polling splitting the difference at a 100-delegate Clinton advantage. Instead, the video notes that Obama won by 10 delegates. To put this in perspective: Clinton's "massive" Pennsylvania win that netted her +12 delegates? That was matched by Obama's +12 delegate margin in Idaho on Super Tuesday. Idaho. Having vastly overperformed in the stacked-against-him first half of the entire delegate grab, Obama's campaign won the remaining February contests as expected and suddenly Clinton is "on the ropes". Except not really: she had already lost, because there wasn't going to be another Super Tuesday for her to make up Obama's pledged delegate lead.

How she got there is a testament to the utter failure of strategic vision and execution by Clinton's campaign -- and ultimately, of Clinton as the candidate herself. For starters, she hemorrhaged badly-needed funds on grossly overpaid consultants: she paid her chief media coordinator, Harold Ickes, $240,000 for the first three months of 2008 when Obama paid Ickes's counterpart $36,000 over the same period. And that's one of many examples: the most egregious is the millions dumped into the money pit of Mark Penn and his polling firm. Her strategy was based on accruing large margins in populous, expensive media states. Obama meanwhile went back to his roots as a community organizer and smartly invested in ground operations all across the country. Remember Idaho? Obama opened a field office there three months before Super Tuesday (which no other candidate on either side bothered with at all), and topped it off with a headline-grabbing arena rally in Boise while Clinton was busy campaigning in California that weekend to run up the margins. Whereas Clinton appeared to "have no plan" outside of a handful of states, Obama was busy organizing everywhere, even deep in Clinton country for contests long after Super Tuesday. When it came to managing the 23 simultaneous contests leading up to Super Tuesday, Obama contested far more votes and ran circles and circles around Clinton. (And to follow suit, in April Obama's campaign announced they're likewise starting their first 50-state voter registration drives for the general election. Organization, organization, organization.)

Clinton's numerous political strengths -- unparalleled tenacity, masterful expectations management (it's no accident that she miraculously keeps winning "must win" states, states that she was conveniently predicted to win by polls all along), strict media discipline, and a thoroughly Machiavellian sense of attack -- have been in full display over the past months. I think it would be unfair to begrudge her for playing her game well: you would give it your all, too, even if you only had a 5-10% chance of fulfilling your lifelong ambition to hold the most powerful elected office in the world -- because that's far from a zero chance to reach your career goal. And the media has been fully complicit over the last few months in keeping the drama going. But we're now finally reaching the point where the weight of reality is making it impossible for the pundits to keep the charade up, and the past months are slowly being revealed as the sham that they are. It doesn't matter how Clinton had run her campaign since Super Tuesday: she had already lost the numbers game that night. What does matter is how her campaign tactics will affect her political career once this thing's wrapped up, but I think how she makes her exit and what she does during the general election campaign will have as much impact as her past few months.

Lastly, I disagree with Clinton the candidate, but psmealey there's no need to generalize about the "sickening, haughty condescension that HRC's supporters had been projecting for the past four months." There's been plenty of overzealous partisans in both camps, but most people I've seen are simply supporting their preferred candidate, that's all. For instance, Edwards supporters overwhelmingly flocked to Obama's camp despite Edwards the candidate criticizing Obama's health care plan and casting doubts on his toughness during his campaign. It's just politics. Generalization about "XYZ's supporters" looks incredibly petty, especially months from now.
posted by DaShiv at 7:20 AM on May 7 [68 favorites]

Remember Idaho? Obama opened a field office there three months before Super Tuesday (which no other candidate on either side bothered with at all), and topped it off with a headline-grabbing arena rally in Boise while Clinton was busy campaigning in California that weekend to run up the margins.

And that, in a sense, was the turning point of this election. It was the moment for me when I realized that Hillary may be able to outgun and outshine Obama, but they couldn't outsmart his campaign. It was a football coaching staff seeing a soft spot in the opposing team's coverage and running a TE slant route to that spot over for positive yardage again and again and again....

Obama's campaign figured out how to operate under McCain-Feingold. They figured out how to work Dean's strategy. The one spot they're weak on is coming back from the media attacks, but that seems to be more about Obama trying to position himself "above the fray" than them not being able to do it (and something he needs to address very soon).

Hillary's campaign ran like this was 1996. They relied on the party glitterati to get them through. They were working with an outdated understanding of the internet and how fundraising works post-McCain-Feingold. And worst of all, they had no leadership in the front office -- Solis Doyle was out to lunch and Mark Penn was too busy putting his foot in his mouth. So by the time she turned into Populist Hillary, it was too late to recover.

The points she's making -- she's more electable, she's more in touch with lower class whites, she doesn't come off as elitist -- are all true. And had she started her campaign that way all the way back in IA and NH, she'd be the one sitting pretty. But like an overconfident football team walking on to the bowl game field with an attitude that they'd already won the game, her "inevitability" gamut failed her because she and her staff were not ready to be outsmarted. And like that team, she got rolled.

As for the whole "Clinton's supporters won't vote for Obama" gamut, most of them will. And even if half of them stay home, he'll still beat McCain.

But in a sense, Clinton staying in has given Obama a sense of what the GOP could throw at him come September-October. And based on what we've seen, I think the best they can do is try to drive a wedge between Obama and more conservative independents and liberal Republicans.

Obama's road to the White House isn't going to be easy, since he'll have to redraw the map in order to do it (trading OH and FL for VA/NC/GA and reopening the South to Democratic campaigns). Hillary's "big state" strategy was all about Kerry + Ohio. Obama's strategy is about putting states in play that haven't been in play since the collapse of the "Solid South." So, he has to hope that this really is a "change election," because if it is, he has an opportunity to fulfill Dean's "50 state strategy" and re-open GOP-dominated areas to the Democrats.
posted by dw at 8:01 AM on May 7 [3 favorites]

This is why I just use "yer". Covers yer bases so yer never stuck worrying about homophones.

Ъ crazy.
posted by oaf at 9:53 AM on May 7

More to the point: Can anyone foresee a situation in which Hillary leaves the race other than being vote down at the convention?

She's a force to be reckoned with, that's for sure. But it's up to the unpledged delegates to grow some gonads and make a choice. Even if is turns out to be another McGovern (or was it Mondale), at least they'll've made a decision. And put this whole thing to rest. Heck, they could do it today if there was a single spine to be shared amongst the lot of 'em.

So, no. I suppose yer right, probably won't happen.

Never trust your spidey senses.
posted by valentinepig at 11:00 AM on May 7

My dad worked in a mill.
posted by mattbucher at 11:49 AM on May 7 [1 favorite]

And even if half of them stay home, he'll still beat McCain.

says who?

God knows I have no horse in this race and very little interest in the civil war among Democrats, but still Obama looks like someone who may very well lose, especially if he can't hold on to some big States. What you call "Kerry + Ohio" should be a very doable roadmap for a Democratoc candidate running after 8 years of George W. Bush. You admit that Obama has to dream up a different road map and start winning heavily Republican States in the Deep South.

but what if Obama can't hold on to, say, California? Arnold is a McCain man and Arnold is pretty popular. also, I'm not sure the whole of California is the most liberal State out there, and frankly, Arnold may be a Kraut and McCain an asshole, but they're both whiter than Obama.


AND she'll need to come up with some sincere exhortations to her own supporters to keep the momentum going with Obama, and be emphatic about just how disastrous a third Bush term (i.e.: McCain) would be to the country, regardless of our minor differences of opinion.

I don't think she'll actually do this, and she will destroy her own career if she doesn't,

her career is over only if Obama wins the general election (and she's not his VP)
posted by matteo at 12:01 PM on May 7

but what if Obama can't hold on to, say, California? Arnold is a McCain man and Arnold is pretty popular.

As a long-time resident of California, I can assure you that Arnold is pretty popular because of reasons entirely unrelated to his being a nominal Republican.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:18 PM on May 7

Could someone give me a scenario by which Hillary would actually win, and there wouldn't be an uproar?

I can only think of one.

This one is more unlikely, but it would get HRC the nomination. Skip ahead to 7:38 for the action, to 10:00 for the "damn ho set me up."
posted by beelzbubba at 12:23 PM on May 7

says who?

Three things:
1. Record turnout in primaries,
2. Flat to negative GDP numbers lead to party change, and
3. Incumbent parties rarely hold when the non-running incumbent is unpopular (see 1968, 1952)

All the macro numbers point down. And that bodes poorly for the GOP holding the independent vote.

but what if Obama can't hold on to, say, California?

If Obama can't hold onto California, then he'll have far, far bigger problems long before that's a worry. California is, at its core, "elitists" -- upper-class whites, college students, African-Americans. The wild card will be Hispanics, but is McCain willing to compromise and offer Hispanics amnesty or a guest-worker program knowing it could kill him in the Heartland? Probably not.

The problem with "Kerry + Ohio" is that it's short-term win, long-term loss. It will work in 2008, but when the new census takes another 10-15 delegates out of the blue North and Northeast and hands them to red states like Arizona and Texas, you're now in need of places like Virginia and Georgia and North Carolina to hold.

The Obama stratagem is much riskier -- you're neglecting the Rust Belt for the sake of picking fast-growing states in the Southeast and Southwest. The reward, though, is a generation of Democratic dominance. And that's why Dean has stuck with Obama -- he's thinking long game.

All that said, I think Clinton could have won handily, too, and probably could have won in 2012 easily. I'm just not sure another 8 years of Clinton are really want the Dems or the country need.
posted by dw at 12:29 PM on May 7 [1 favorite]

George McG drops the hammer on HRC
posted by psmealey at 1:03 PM on May 7

but what if Obama can't hold on to, say, California? Arnold is a McCain man and Arnold is pretty popular. also, I'm not sure the whole of California is the most liberal State out there, and frankly, Arnold may be a Kraut and McCain an asshole, but they're both whiter than Obama.

Arnold only became popular after his nonsense right-wing measures failed out of the gate, and he pushed his whole agenda to the left. He's been governing as a Democrat ever since.

Beyond that, California's main population centers have the most liberal voters in the country. While rural CA's is about as bible thumping/reactionary as you can get. This cohort is not very fond of McCain. McCain should do well in military areas around San Diego and elsewhere, but not likely anywhere else. If libs stay as energized as they are now, Obama should carry the state easily. With McCain's stance on immigration, and how he's tortured it over the past year in a shameless pander to the right, whatever Obama's problems with Latinos, they will not show up to vote for McCain.

I have never bought HRC's position that Obama's lack of success in "big states" in the primary points to weakness in the General. Success in the primaries has never been a template for success in the GE for either party. I give McCain no chance vs Obama in New York, NJ, Connecticut, Massachusetts. I also think that Obama gets us back Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Colorado, Nevada and possibly Texas.

I do think he's soft in the rust belt, but can probably shore this up by selecting a Bob Kerrey/Jim Webb style tough guy Democrat (as much shit as HRC talked about bringing in the midwestern blue collar vote, I think McCain carries them easily, even vs. Clinton).
posted by psmealey at 1:24 PM on May 7

Mike Gravel Sings for Obama Girl's Vote.
posted by homunculus at 2:30 PM on May 7

I don't accept.
posted by EarBucket at 1:03 PM on May 8