Hmm… this makes a really good point. Maybe it would be better for Obama to let the Florida primary results stand:
Suppose the results from the January primary are allowed to stand. This will net Clinton 37 pledged delegates, and therefore Obama’s pledged delegate lead will go from approximately 161 to 124. Now, even with this hit and a big loss in Pennsylvania, it seems unlikely that Senator Clinton can get within 100 pledged delegates of Obama (the popular vote, too, looks like a long shot for her). In this scenario I see almost no chance of Clinton getting the nomination.
But, what if there is a Florida revote in June? Clinton will probably win but only net, say, half as many delegates. But she will have won another big state, not to mention the last big contest heading into the convention. Is that talking point worth twenty delegates? I think it might be. Admittedly, it’s also unlikely that Clinton can win the nomination under this scenario, but it could be more likely. Clinton needs a game-changer, and a Florida re-vote in June might be the ticket. Again, I am not saying this is necessarily the case, but if I were Obama I might rather go into the convention with a 110 delegate lead and Florida a distant memory than with a 130 delegate lead and a slew of bad headlines.
Michigan’s Soviet primary is another story, where Clinton was the only named candidate on the ballot. “The results of those primaries were fair and should be honored,” Hillary Clinton said this morning. My god. She is beyond shameless.
Just curious…
I remember a few months ago, you seemed quite positive as regards Hillary, and I’m just wondering what changed that, or when?
I’m a lifelong Democrat who has, nonetheless, been allergic to Hillary for as long as she’s been on the stage.
I’m asking this because I’m HONESTLY curious as to why people may be supportive of her in the first place, and I’m also interested in what may have made them change their opinions.
Well…
I started out undecided in this race. I’d long thought the Democrats would be shooting themselves in the foot if they nominated Hillary Clinton this year, because she was so polarizing, and things like her support of a constitutional amendment against flag burning reeked of political calculation. But there didn’t seem to be a way to stop her, and she didn’t seem to have any strong competitors, so I resigned myself to having her as the nominee. On the other hand, I respected her policy wonkishness, and she was my senator, and I saw her speak at the Lesbian and Gay Community Center during her first Senate run, and it was nice to see a woman running for president.
I remained undecided for months. But on the night of the New Hampshire primary, I found myself dejected that Obama hadn’t won, which made me realize I probably supported him deep down. But I was inspired by Hillary’s NH win and started leaning toward her — pretty much for emotional, pro-woman, pro-underdog reasons. Even though I wasn’t 100% with her, I was leaning her way, for the above reasons and because of her apparent policy expertise.
But then I found myself disappointed a week and a half later when Obama lost the Nevada primary.
But what really tipped me over the edge, and made me consciously hate her campaign, was Bill Clinton’s Jesse Jackson/South Carolina comment. That was indicative of the cynicism and shamelessness of her campaign. And it’s gone downhill from there. I’ll vote for her if she’s the nominee, but I won’t necessarily be happy about it.
Wow, when you answer, you *really* answer!
It’s what I’ve been suspecting, and what seems to be the totally anecdotal consensus- emotion seems to play a big part of it, from what I’ve observed from people I know personally.
(Keep in mind, I’m not trying to be catty or fan any flame wars, I’m GENUINELY trying to understand what HRC supporters are seeing)
Ohmigod Mike, you better look out!
I like Obama’s braininess and his calm approach to everything.