Why Clinton Won: A Theory
» NYT: Lesson of Defeat: Obama Comes Out Punching (Michael Powell, Jeff Zeleny)
A very belated take, but I'd be downright negligent to not note this little clip as perhaps the smallest bit of attention given to why I think it is that Hillary won two big states on Tuesday without winning the major cities (San Antonio and El Paso being the exceptions).
Mr. Obama, finally, has tactical worries of his own. He won in states like Missouri by running up large margins in cities and suburbs. But in Ohio, he appeared outorganized.Gov. Ted Strickland, who endorsed Mrs. Clinton, advised her to encircle the cities. Mr. Strickland led her deep into his base in the hills of Appalachia in southern Ohio; Bill Clinton also passed through the region when he was president. Mrs. Clinton ran up big margins in those rural counties.
I still find it remarkably odd that for all the NAFTA-gate business, Obama still killed in Cuyahoga County. I'm still too dog-tired to check the demographics there. But wouldn't something like that in such a big union part of the state lead you to believe it might be just a tad closer?
In our very own state, there's some interesting mini-trends. Obama carried a few of the Red County/College Town areas. But there were some important misses. Namely, Lubbock, Tom Green, and Parker. Given the number of Obama ads I saw on just about every channel, it's hard to believe they didn't buy anything in the Lubbock, San Angelo, and Abiline media markets. Indeed, the closeness of those counties suggests either a) they did and it wasn't enough; or b) they didn't and the college kids almost pulled off an upset anyway. Still ... moving the needle there might have only gotten Obama a couple of points. The wins in this area include Brazos, Walker, Smith & Gregg counties (Denton, sorta). Those wins and the resources available for Obama make it seem implausible that the other counties were entirely ignored.
I posted an ad that I thought was Hillary's best a few days ago. The reasoning makes sense in light of Strickland's advice in Ohio. But the first time I caught the ad on TV, it struck me as very odd ... and possibly very bad. But the more I thought about it (like I do), the more I was impressed with it. Though th e airing I saw was on Houston broadcast TV, the audience for the ad was actually miles away. That's the audience Hillary needed to speak to and that's the audience that ad spoke to.
Not saying I know for certain that it moved numbers, mind you. There's lots of factors at stake. The Clinton name still means something very positive to folks outside the urban/suburban hub. She also picks up a few points from female voters sticking with her. And for all I know, maybe there's something to even that "Three AM" ad (it was produced by Roy Spence, afterall).
But the most impressive sense from this ad is that for the first time, there's a sense that Team Hillary has an executable gameplan that matches their strategy for winning. Such a shame the media doesn't pick up on any of that. Who can blame 'em when they've got Mark Penn spinning reporters as if they can't remember what he said two days ago.
Obama seems likely to've won the state, in the caucuses, as Clinton feared (see here. Sorry about the post.... It also surprises me, because my precinct had similar primary and caucus results.
I'm startled Obama won Brazos. Obama had a big 'Horns appearance, and then Bill had a good rally there, while Obama was nowhere to be seen, presumably because of the sparseness of Dems on the ground. I figured Brazos Dems had to be mostly for Clinton.
there's a sense that Team Hillary has an executable gameplan that matches their strategy for winning. Such a shame the media doesn't pick up on any of that.
How? They need to pick up Ohio-like wins in EVERY REMAINING state to win. How can that happen? And now Obama's going negative, too. Obama had stayed positive to not be the first to go incivil, but the campaign's leaked that now they're working on negative ads, too, starting with tax returns. It's not like they're low on material to work with.
(yeah, I'm an Obama supporter)
The palace on the sand begins to collapse. The product of the aggressive media and the Democrat internal bickerings is slowly unmasked.
I'm wondering why did the media give the Obamas a "free ride?" The media, for instance, have been nearly mute on the anti-Ameican delaration of Obama's wife, or on his "hope" (i.e., illusion) of withdrawing from Iraq within a year. (No military commander dares to do so save for in a debacle)
Wake up, the so-called "believers!" Obama is simply a prophet without a message, whose main goal is calling for an immediate withdrawal from the Middle East.
As for the other issues, he knows nothing. Clinton is a far better candidate.
The fact she hasn't canned Mark Penn long ago is another mark against her.
The guy's PR firm represents some of the worst governments in the world and has specialized in union busting.
I think Hillary won because she got more votes.
but that is just me.
...Clinton is a far better candidate.,
...which, of course, explains why she's losing the election.
The product of the aggressive media and the Democrat internal bickerings is slowly unmasked.
We were stabbed!
No, it couldn't have anything to do with Clinton and Penn themselves collapsing her big tent by insulting young voters, going negative on blacks, losing hawks like me by switching Iraq policy with the wind, taking months to notice that Bill doesn't work on the negative, etc, etc.. And then not tracking her money situation. All the media's fault.
I think Hillary won because she got more votes.
After all, caucus voters aren't real voters. They're probably really zombies. Did the Clinton campaign forget to put garlic in their checklist of what to bring to a caucus? Well, with such unreadiness, I think they deserved to lose.
;-)
????
Check the delegate count, sparky... Clinton lost Texas.
Are you people even paying attention?
My bad ... I was merely counting the popular vote. Guess I should have known that the current Obamaniac position was that such things mechanisms are clearly irrelevant.
She won Texas and Ohio exactly the same.
Just read an article in the Toledo Blade news- paper.
Seems like a lot of Repubs drank the Limbaugh Kool-Aid, and crossed over for Hillary in the primary.
Why do you think the Dem leadership is calling for abandoning the caucus process? Simple. Hillary really lost Texas.
Do we really elect a President to represent only Texas, Ohio, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and California, or do we elect a president that represents all of America, and can win in all 50 states?
Hey, what happened to one man, one and a half votes? ;-)
We love being able to vote early AND often here!
I know I'd be unhappy, too, if my candidate were on the losing side. Remember, we're really on the same side here.
It's time for Obama to provide some substance. I see his appeal, but I need more than the IMAGE of a "different" politician (the more I read about him, the more I think it's more image than reality. But I'll continue reading and hope to be proven wrong, especially if he earns the nomination) As a hard-working woman, I resent the fact he's come out of nowhere to challenge a woman who, though she and her husband certainly aren't saints, has demonstrated she is tough, experienced and can get results for her state and the nation. As another columnist said elsewhere, if a woman with as little experience as he had were vying for the nomination, she wouldn't have a chance in hell.
I think Hillary is the best candidate, but she hasn't done a good job of managing her campaign or Bill, and I think that has hurt her. As another columnist said, I believe that she is better than her campaign. (I suspect the opposite is true of Obama, but we'll see over time. I am actually glad to have some extra time to learn more about him, and for him to experience some "heat" so that he'll be more prepared for the campaign against the Republicans.)
I hope that regardless of who wins, the Democrats do come together in November and vote for the candidate (and note that in November there are NO CAUCUSES. Hillary did win the popular vote here and in a number of other states. She does have an uphill battle at this point, but if she ends up the winner, I don't think it will be because she "stole" the election.) Both candidates have similar stands on the issues, and we cannot allow a Republican president to nominate more conservatives to the Supreme Court.
If he wins, Obama will have to reach out to Clinton's supporters and more established politicians (not ALL of them are useless) if he is to succeed. If he expects to make change all by himself and his loyal but mostly inexperienced fan club, he won't get anywhere.