Whom does Hillary think she’s kidding?
March 6th, 2008 at 02:08pm Pat Cunningham
OK, class, listen up.
Some of you think Hillary Clinton gained the upper hand in the Democratic presidential race with her primary-election victories Tuesday in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, right?
Some of you think she’s taken the momentum away from Barack Obama, right?
Some of you even think the nomination is now well within her reach, right?
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
In my book, Obama’s still the odds-on favorite to capture the nomination. For starters, he leads Clinton in states won (25-13), delegates won (by about 134) and popular votes (by about 600,000). Her chances of closing those gaps are slim-to-none, even if do-over primaries are held in Michigan and Florida.
For another thing, the latest match-up polls show that Obama would beat John McCain by twice the margin Clinton would.
As for Hillary’s claim that she’s done better than Obama in most of the big states so far and therefore is better suited to take on McCain in November, only a political ignoramus could fail to see the hole in that argument.
Take California, the biggest state of all, for example. Obama lost to Clinton in the Golden State primary, but that doesn’t mean he’d lose to McCain there in the general. On the contrary, he would be a prohibitive favorite to win California and almost certainly would get the votes of most of Hillary’s erstwhile supporters in the process.
Understand this: Most Clinton and Obama voters in the primaries will end up voting for the party’s nominee in November. The big-state argument advanced by Hillary’s handlers presupposes that people who voted for her rather than him in the primaries won’t vote for him in the general election, which is utter nonsense. That’s the same as saying that McCain is the second choice of most of Hillary’s primary-election voters. No way.
For more details on Clinton’s dim prospects, check the excellent summaries HERE and HERE.
UPDATE: And now we have the NEWS that Obama raised a whopping $55 million in February — $20 million more than Clinton raked in and $41 million more than McCain raised.
Entry Filed under: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
4 Comments Add your own
1. hokumboy | March 6th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Pat,
What’s your take on the Foster/Oberweis battle for Hastert’s seat?
With all the hubbub on the Presidential election this one’s almost been forgotten.
2. Kaus | March 6th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Pat, polls are for rubes….and your polls disagree with the LA Times Poll….Mccain beats Obama and Clinton in a general election matchup, according to a new Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll.
3. Pat Cunningham | March 6th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
The ABC/Wasington Post poll story reads:
“A surge of Democratic allegiance is boosting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton alike in match-ups against John McCain, with change vs. experience as the roadmap for voter preferences in the 2008 general election.
“Obama’s advantage over McCain is the bigger one in this ABC News/Washington Post poll, a 12-point lead compared to Clinton’s 6-point edge. McCain’s endorsement by George W. Bush may not help: The president’s back at his career low approval rating, matching Harry Truman in long-term unpopularity.”
4. Pat Cunningham | March 6th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Hokum: I’m greatly interested in the special congressional election on Saturday in the 14th District of Illinois, Denny Hastert’s district. I’ve got kin over that way, and one of my nephews is a politician in Kane County. The polls show it a tossup between Democrat Bill Foster and Republican perennial candidate Jim Oberweis. Both sides have spent a lot of money, and there’s been a lot of mudslinging. The ordinarily conservative Chicago Tribune has endorsed Democrat Foster. But the ordinarily moderate/liberal Sun-Times oddly gives the nod to Oberweis, but disses him big time in the process.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed