How Florida is Useful For the Democrats
Florida provides a very interesting case study for us. They were eliminated from being involved in nominating the Democratic Presidential candidate. So to a degree they are an unvarnished example of Hillary’s starting point.
None of the candidates campaigned there (except for ads that were run there as a result of some national advertising package). As such, it is a good example of what Hillary started with in the bank. One of the memes that Hillary and Rush and a whole host of people with a vested interest have trotted out, is that Obama spent huge sums of money and still couldn’t put Clinton out of the race.
In Florida, Hillary pulled 49.7%, while Obama had 33%. So that is a reasonable starting point for our discussion. Without spending a dollar, Hillary had a 17 point lead. This is likely because she is one of the most recognized women in the country. As a result, Obama has had to make up ground at every stop.
I don’t know how to value that sort of name recognition, but we can make some educated guesses. In Ohio, Obama had to spend $4.4M (Clinton $2.3M). That extra 2.1 million got him 6 points (Clinton dropped 4 points) and Hillary ended up with a net gain of 7 delegates (141 at stake).
One could make the argument that this is because his message isn’t catching on or whatever, but that is ignoring the assets that Hillary began with. Obama may have spent more, but Hillary already had millions of dollars worth of name recognition and a proxy message (guess who her husband is…). I would argue that Hillary had $10M worth of assets in Ohio before she set foot in the state.
To not acknowledge this fact is ignorance or perhaps it is understandable. Many of Hillary’s new supporters have been itching at another shot at disparaging the Clinton Presidency. These are people that compared Chelsea to a family dog and accused Hillary of being a lesbian, a murderer and a communist. So the next time you hear a right-wing pundit say that Hillary is the Democrats only choice, consider the source.
Oh, but Geek… haven’t you heard? Hillary is the under dog. She had to fight her way back to the top in PA.
Your points are excellent. She began with a huge advantage. I always have to remind myself that most people don’t follow politics as closely as I do. It’s like asking Americans who’s your favorite actor? George Clooney or Ed Norton? My money’s on George winning.
As far as her ‘new’ supporters… Hillary is embracing Richard Mellon Scaife and praising FOX News. Sometimes this all seems like a bad dream.
Amen to LG’s post and Pandora’s comments. I only wish that Obama’s campaign reads DL blog.
We are not normal. The average voter doesn’t know any of this stuff. Heck, the average voter doesn’t even know we exist. And couldn’t care.
If you have ever canvassed door-to-door — and many of you have — you have personal experience of this. They not only don’t know anything about the candidates, they have to be reminded that there is an election. Yes, even this year, there are people who will have to be reminded to go vote on November 6th.
So a brand name is a really big deal! That’s why she plays well to people with less education and he plays well to people with more. I’m not being elitist here, just recognizing that the folks who are working two jobs don’t have the time to be as engaged. Or, it is not part of their culture to study this stuff the way we do. I don’t know a single thing about NASCAR, nada, nothing. It doesn’t engage me. The flip of that? Well you can work it out. Thing is, the NASCAR people are a lot more normal than we are.
Good point Geek!
NASCAR fact:
They drive around and make left turns all day, but it doesn’t get really interesting until someone makes a right.
The Florida vote might be something of an indicator of what Mrs Clinton “started with,” but I’m not sure it’s all that valid. The results included 14% for John Edwards, some of which would have gone to Mr Obama and some to Mrs Clinton, in an undetermined ratio. Further, while there was no real advertising blitz, Florida proceeded after the news blitz about Mrs Clinton’s come-from-behind win in New Hampshire. It wasn’t entirely a tabula rasa.
But if you’re going to include Florida as part of the lesson, there’s another fact that has to be mentioned: as Sharon pointed out, (blog plug for a friend there! 🙂 ) if Florida and Michigan are included, Mrs Clinton has more popular votes than Mr Obama.
Dana,
That’s ridiculous. Clinton’s math in Michigan is bogus. She only counts herself. Obama gets zero votes.
Pandora,
And I am sure that is exactly the way she wants it.
Actually, that’s the way she needs it!
Great post geek. The media narrrative now is that Clinton is some sort of fiesty underdog, which is odd since the nomination was hers for the taking at the outset.
Where are all the “Clinton Can’t Close the Deal” stories?
This is an excellent post, LG.
As recently as last fall, Clinton was not just the front-runner, but the all-but-inevitable Dem candidate. Heck, the best competitive scenario had her in an early battle with Edwards, then sewing up the nomination.
She held onto her inevitable narrative way too long (which I think explains some of the high dudgeon of some of her supporters), and like the lack of post war planning in Iraq, she is still trying to recover from that mistake.
The other thing about Clinton’s inevitable strategy is that she is now abit late in the game to reach non-traditional Dem voters. The Obama campaign was all about asking everybody they could for a vote — not in trying to pull together as many favorable microtargets together to get to 50+1. Obama has been registering new Dems like mad all over the US (one of the very real benefits of this primary season going on) and those voters come in a range of demographics.
Wow Dana, if you pander any more to Clinton’s fantasy world you might be able to convince yourself that there is a way to keep evading reality for another four years. It is as simple as this with the popular vote statistic – IT DOES NOT COUNT! Not because Obama would lose (caucus states anyone – if measured he would be up significantly or the fact that his name was not on the ballot in Michigan or the simple fact that not all states have voted yet so totals are still INCOMPLETE) but because of a simple statistic called DELEGATES that are used to determine the nominee. Also there is a statistic called the ELECTORAL COLLEGE that actually determines the presidency. This popular vote crap is just another fantasy and a way for Clinton to avoid reality. Just what we need, two candidates for president that avoid reality. Wonder what would happen to the country then?
All you folks do is spin on why one or the other interpret the Rules to
fit you arguments.
So while we all are so interested in rules lets state exactly what the rules call for.
Rule 1 in order to win the the chance to run a person running must have 2025 delegates after the primaries are over. we now know neither obama or Hillary will have reached that number.
rule 2 the super delegates must base their votes on the person that they feel is the strongest canidaite and will help the party maintain control of congress.
So if we are so hung up on the rules the argument that the super delegates must vote for the person who has won the most delegates OR the most votes or the most states DOES NOT APPLY
So please both Obama and Hillary supporters stop with these phony arguments and stick to the rules
HO
LEEEE
sHIIIIT
did a wingnut (truthteller) just say
All you folks do is spin on why one or the other interpret the Rules to
fit you arguments.
wow….
Actually, rule # 2 is inaccurate as the superdelegates do not have any rules regarding who they have to support. They can consider who is the strongest candidate as one of thier criteria if they like but there are multiple pieces of criteria for each superdelegate.
“rule 2 the super delegates must base their votes on the person that they feel is the strongest canidaite and will help the party maintain control of congress.”
Maintain congress? This is not a Clinton strength.
And is John McMad taking the public financing or is that a major flip flopper! The votes in Fla and Michigan should not be counted…they violated the rules…Fla has screwed up so many elections, how dare Clinton bring that State back in in 2008! New book coming on McInsane, turns out Barry Goldwater dispised him…that will be another interesting book outing McMad.
The reason Obama didn’t get any votes in Michigan is because he chose to remove his name from the ballot.
We may never know the real reason he did this maybe it was because he didn’t want to lose again. I know you obama folks will dispute that statement by he also had his people put a stop to re votes in both Mi and Fla. and now he refuses to debate Hillary in North Carolina we need a person who is willing to fight not avoid a contest. So if hillary is so weak why won’t he debate her.????
Pandora it appears that you are the maker upper of your own rules to fit your ideas of what should happen the super delegates were place in the Dem’s process years ago to save us from another McGovern failure.0how do you come to the conclusion that to maintain congress is not Clinton’s strength. I could make a statement like you with out any facts to back it up that Obama will suffer from white folks not telling pollsters that they won’t vote for a black man just like the Ca. gov. race back in the 80’s
TT,
you are amusing in a way. It’s great that you have taken interest in all of this Democrat stuff.
We may never know the real reason he did this maybe it was because he didn’t want to lose again.
here’s a theory for you. MAYBE BECAUSE THE VOTES WEREN’T GOING TO COUNT AND HE WAS WORRIED HILLARY WAS GOING TO TRY SOME SHADY WAY OF GETTING THE VOTES TO COUNT WHEN THEY WERE ALL TOLD THEIR PRIMARIES WOULDN’T COUNT….
nahhhh, he just didn’t want to lose.
to DHB have you caught the Pastor Wright with Bill Moyer he is the one person who knows Obama the best this according to obama who called him his mentor.Tne pastor when commenting on Obama’s speeches stated he is just telling the people what they want to hear just like any politician they all do that and so does he. So it now appears that the man who knows him best now tells us that all Obama has been doing is just blowing smoke.
WTF
OBAMA IS A POLITICIAN!?
GOD DAMNIT! i knew it. Now I have to go hitch my wagon to a man with Character that speaks his mind, doesn’t go back on his word or make up shit at the drop of a hat!
And tht is MR. DHB to you!
No one has seen the Bill Moyers interview… including YOU –
The interview will be broadcast on Friday evening, April 25, on Bill Moyers Journal, a PBS news series that airs nationally. Check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/moyers.
– since it won’t be aired until tonight. So stop quoting sound bites. Get back to me when you’ve watched it.
Phantom: You don’t understand me at all; I want Mrs Clinton to lose, and I voted in the Pennsylvania primary for Barack Hussein Obama. I’ve said many times before that if it were a choice between Hillary Clinton and Satan, I’d have to give the devil his due.
But I’m not blind to the fact that the virtually-dead-but-wouldn’t-accept-it Mrs Clinton has been rising from the ashes, and no only isn’t dead, but could wind up your party’s nominee. Nor am I blind to the fact that6 Mr Obama, the fresh front-runner following Super Tuesday, has proven something less than the political juggernaut some thought him to be, once people started to actually look at his (thin) record, his past political associations and the fresh gaffes he’s been making when put under pressure.
I hope that y’all do nominate Mr Obama, because I believe that:
1- He’d be easier for John McCain to defeat than Mrs Clinton; and
2- If the Democratic nominee does win in November, I’d find Mr Obama at least tolerable as president, while every Republican in the country would absolutely loathe the idea of Mrs Clinton winning.
Dana,
I’m so confused! You find Barack HUSSEIN Obama least tolerable as president.
Why? Could it be you’ve sipped the kool-aid? Or maybe, like the rest of us, you’re sick of politics as usual?
Really… answer me. Is it just the hate of all things Clinton? Or is there something else going on?
Pandora, he said he finds him at least tolerable.
Oops! I hate little words. They always trip me up. Okay, Dana, insert the word “at” and then answer my question.
Pandora i hope you will clean up your blog i noticed that you still have folks on here that would rather call names than stick to the facts ,
EXample DHB referred to me as a wingnut how original it just goes to show that they dropped out of high school. So i see that some of these folks would rather act like Rush the Junkie ( A fact by the way) then to discuss their point of view in a civilized manner
Umm… you are the one acting like Rush and a wingnut. YOU are the one who keeps bringing up republican talking points: Rev Wright, Ayers, and that Michelle Obama hates America. Look in the mirror Truth Teller. You sound like a republican, so don’t blame me if people call you one.
If you’re offended by name calling, I suggest you re-read your posts.
Oh, and if HRC’s experience includes Bill’s Presidency – which SHE says it does – then it doesn’t bode well for Congress. Unless you’ve forgotten the rise of Newt and the “Contract with America”.
Pandora you should learn to use the net i watched the whole thing this morning
You just resorted to name calling I voted for more Dem’s then you have and you know it i am one of the few Delaware folks who have never been sucked in by Mike Castle . The last thing I need is a bunch of white wine drinkers telling us who to vote for . You were the one who got me into this silly blog in the first place . so from now on my responses will be one liners like yours without any facts to back them up.
here’s the first obama should pose in his African garb instead of complaining about the picture he posed for.
Pandora: I think that either Democratic candidate would be a poor president, because both would push policies I believe would be harmful to this country: higher taxes, higher social spending and very liberal judicial appointments. There really isn’t much difference between the two on the issues, and what differences do exist would be washed out by the changes in their proposals when they go through Congress.
The real difference between the two is not their policies, but their personal integrity. Mr Obama may turn out to be a lying scumbag, may turn out to secretly be a thoroughly nasty individual, but, if so, we don’t know that yet. With Mrs Clinton, we do know that. Nothing she says can be trusted, from her deliberate lies about policy — we all know that she’s lying about reduced taxes for the middle class — to her making up stuf out of fantasyland, as in dodging sniper fire in Bosnia-Herzegovina. If Mrs Clinton told me that 2+2=4, I’d check her math before I believed her.
Okay, Dana. Thanks for answering my question. It is the hate (possibly too strong a word, but maybe not) of all things Clinton.
Pandora,
I think it is the power politics of the Clintons that turns many people off. As well as the Billary foreign policies that, and let me be very clear here, WILL be a disaster. If you have kids I suggest you send them to like the Yukon in Canada now.
I agree, Brian. I just wanted Dana’s reasoning. I wasn’t surprised at his reaction to the Clintons. These sentiments exist in both political camps. My belief is that repub. and a lot of those ‘blue-collared’ dems will swarm to the polls in Nov. to vote against HRC. When it comes to Obama… well the other side doesn’t seem that energized. They seem willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. They might not vote for him… they might just stay home.
Gosh it appears that this site is an Oboma love fest
an anyone who feels different gets called names by those who disagree.
So there doesn’t seen to be any intelligent discussion here for me to partake
Bye folks
Considering the only Liberal candidate is Obama, what did you expect….
Auf Wiedersehen, Scheisse-Monkey!