Question To Clinton Supporters: Why Do You Think Clinton Is losing?

[BlooInBloo]

As an Edwards->Obama supporter, I have my own theories, all of which you'd presumably disagree with. So I'm curious why YOU think she's losing.

I'm not gonna argue with anything here - I'm just looking for a central location to see what Clinton supporters think is causing her to be behind.

[MercutioATC]

1. She's not losing...she's winning it HER way.

Your OP is misogynistic.

















:P

[EFerrari]

4. Frank Sinatra rolls in his grave.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Heh. I thought it was a New Kids On The Block reference.

[EFerrari]

14. Oh, rub it in!

:spank:

[BlooInBloo]

15. hahaha! You're not old - you're EXPERIENCED!

:evilgrin:

[DJ13]

2. Overconfidence in winning Super Tuesday

Overconfidence and a massive ego go hand in hand in leading to her losing.

[BlooInBloo]

6. You mean as in she was expecting the primary to be over at that point...

.... and didn't have a real "Plan B"?

Or do you mean something else (not looking to put words in your mouth).

[Yukari Yakumo]

35. In simple terms...

Edwards : Iowa :: Hillary : SuperTuesday

Except Edwards had the sense to drop out before spending gobs of money on what was certainly a losing effort.

[paulk]

13. yeah, like running for President when you've only had two

years of experience in the Senate doesn't require a massive ego.

I got a clue for you and the rest of the Hillary haters - ALL politicians have massive egos.

[newmajority]

3. She's not losing, Damn it!

Until every DLC governor- led state has been allowed to fix the machines, and every superdelegate has been threatened and/or bribed, this is NOT OVER!!!

/end hysterical hillbot mode

[baldguy]

8. As long as she has ONE delegate on her side, she's not losing!

[dsc]

7. Here are my theories

First and foremost, the press went after her hammer and tong and made it impossible for her to get any kind of message out. The anti Clintonism and sexism of our media was devastating to her campaign.

Second, she didn't plan well for caucuses.

Third, the way we choose our delegates rewards Obama and hurts her. Her supporters, except gays, tend to live all over and not in centralised areas. His live in overwhelmingly democratic areas that got more delegates. He also was able to pile up huge margins in those areas while she got moderate ones in hers. He wound up getting way more delegates per vote than she did.

[grantcart]

26. All three of your points are valid

I don't think it excuses her poor performance but I really appreciate an honest answer on a difficult subject for you.

[slick8790]

36. So... wait.

You third point.

Do you really disagree with more reliably democratic areas getting more delegates?

[dsc]

72. I think it should be based on votes in the primary not on votes in past races

It would take longer to get delegate results but it would be worth it.

[slick8790]

77. That's actually not a bad idea.

But I think it should still factor in past voting trends. Because take the possibility of a district that went say, 60% republican in the last election, and then a bunch of repubs cross over to fuck with our primary. But a combination of those two ways would be the fairest, I agree.

[NorthCarolina]

62. One curious mention, you said

"Her supporters, except gays, tend to live all over...."

Are you assuming that the majority of the gay community is breaking for Hillary? If so I am not really sure that is true. I know plenty of gay people and to be honest with you I don't know of a one that has indicated a Hillary leaning. I live in NC though so maybe the gay community here is different than the national trend, but even on gay blogs I regularly visit I don't find the Hillary following to be anywhere near as big as the Obama following.

[dsc]

71. she has been getting about 2 to 1 support in exit polls from gays

I admit the gay vote is hard to poll but that is what the polls have said.

[Erin Elizabeth]

74. So.

1. Not her fault, the media's fault.

2. Her fault-didn't plan well for caucuses.

3. Not her fault, the way our system is set up.

Out of three reasons, two aren't even any of her doing. So the only think you think *she* actually did wrong was not to plan well for caucuses.

[Radical Activist]

76. Hillary got more coverage than any other candidate.

She was also benefited from being called the front runner for a year despite not winning a single election. Obama only got significant coverage after he out raised Clinton in one quarter, and she still got more. Some of the coverage was bad but she had more opportunities to get her message out than anyone else running.

[bigtree]

9. Obama's generated more appeal

That appeal has to be defined by those who support him.

The 'losing' Clinton's weathering right now has her historically close to her rival, denying him the ability to win the nomination by votes cast alone. She's just a percentage shy of the support he's managed in this race, so it makes no sense to anguish over where she fell short. Obama just managed a more effective race, through organization, appeal which generated cash, or whatever. He's out matched that ability.

I do think Clinton is showing a significant amount of support in the face of all of the resources Obama now has arrayed against her.

[grantcart]

27. Very reasonable analysis

[Levgreee]

33. "She's just a percentage shy of the support he's managed in this race" not true

elections are often close, GE's decided by 3-4 percentage points. Obama has 53% of the pledged delegates to Clinton's 47%. 6% is quite a large margin, and insurmountable at the moment.

And trust me, Obama would have taken the name credibility, starting at 60% in most states, over the money, any day. The nomination was hers to win. Hillary isn't losing because of money, although it is true that it has given Obama the ability to catch up from his inferior starting position.

[dailykoff]

10. Let's wait until we hear from the voters in Guam

before we call Hillary a loser and why do you hate Chelsea anyway?

[dchill]

29. You mean "Hope-less Guamians for No Change?"

They are a pretty big faction of the remaining Dems that she has NOT (yet) offended.

[Lucky 13]

51. Funniest subject line today...

:rofl:

[dchill]

58. Why... why... THANK YOU!

:hi:

[Erin Elizabeth]

75. Also, why does everyone hate women?

:crazy:

[Writer]

11. Honestly? I think it's because Edwards dropped out before Super Tuesday. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

12. Obama supporters: Do me a favor and lighten up on the snark in this thread...

... I really would like to know what Clinton supporters think on this, before it degenerates into the normal gdp snarkfest.

[ClassWarrior]

30. Agreed, Bloo. It's a pleasure to hear some of our friendly opponents...

...discuss reasonably. This is how it needs to be throughout GD/P.

NGU.

[la la]

32. I posted a 'new' group here

a few days ago.....Snarks for Obama.....I think they've gained more members in the last few days. Snarkiness abounds, especially----MY OPINION---from those DU-ers for Obama. I'm thinkin', maybe it's a generational thing.

:silly:

[BlooInBloo]

46. I'm fine with snark - just wanted to get info here in this particular thread is all. :)

[Arkansas Granny]

16. I believe that part of it is due to the near "rock star" image that Obama has attained.

He is seen as something new and different while Hillary has been in the public eye for many years. Hillary's negatives have been known for a long time, but Obama has not had to withstand the same type of public scrutiny so far in his political career and that plays to his advantage.

[mwb970]

17. Haven't you heard? She's winning!

Oh, and we're winning in Iraq too! And the economy is terrific! And bad eggs don't smell!

[BlooInBloo]

18. #12 please....

... I'll join you in all the other threads snarking. :)

[paulk]

19. I never expected Hillary to run away with this nomination

Hillary is behind because the left wing of the Democratic Party (along with a lot of new voters that have participated in the process who aren't even Democrats) has opposed her. Much like they opposed her husband, who didn't wrap up his 1992 nom until June. This wing, being more inclined to activism, is overrepresented in the primary process - (and especially caucuses) - and it always has been - which is one of the reasons the Democratic Party consistantly puts up Presidential candidates that mainstream America sees as too liberal - and votes accordingly.

[newmajority]

53. Now hold on a second, Paul.......

You and the other DLC'ers are always claiming that the "left wing" of the party is an insignificant minority, and that's why the left can't win. Now you say the left is what prevented Hillary's planned coronation.

Which is it? :shrug:

[paulk]

65. I think they are a minority when it comes to the GE

And that they are over represented in the primary process. And always have been. That is the point I'm making. Obama has taken the lead with a coalition that loses general elections. He has built up the largest part of his lead in states that we will lose in the GE. He has done poorly in the swing states and in large, diverse states that more closely mirror the voters of a general election.

Another significant factor for Obama's lead has been his built in demographic advantage in the south, where a large part of his delegate advantage has come from. We will not win those states in the general election. The only one we have a real shot at is Florida, however, Obama appears to have written that state off.


----------------


I realize that in the black and white world of Democratic Underground even defending the DLC means one is a "DLC'er", but I am not a member of that group. I am, however, a pragmatist and I understand that they have been instrumental in "red" areas of the country in winning seats for the Democratic Party.

[OzarkDem]

20. Race isn't over, no one is winning yet

Its a draw. Neither candidate has been able to close the deal so far.

[BlooInBloo]

21. I thought about including the option "I don't believe Clinton is currently behind" in my question...

.... But chose not to. Oh well - it's represented in your post at least.

[Umbram]

79. "Is the game on yet?" "Yes" "Who is winning?" "Nobody, it's not over yet." Absurd.

[dchill]

22. One word. Inevitable, the failure of which gave way...

to the "Get Out Of The Kitchen Sink" strategy.

[BlooInBloo]

23. Expand please? Not sure I'm following you.

[dchill]

25. OK, I think that after deciding to portray Hillary as...

the "inevitable" nominee, the campaign felt that their strategy would pay off big on February 5th, and the deal would be done. There was NO planning for a "what-if" scenario that had her actually losing big-time on Super Tuesday, and every scheme that they came up with after that was a cynical, underhanded, and frankly obvious negative ploy - a good number of which turned out to dramatic backfires. "Inevitable" - flawed as it was, was made worse by the fact that there was no back-up plan, and even worse than that by the choices she made at the top of her campaign staff. Penn and Wolfson only know how to mislead (lie) and kneecap, and only gave birth to what can at best be described as a mediocre attempt at winning new voters, something they never seemed to realize that they HAD to do. And she kept them both on beyond any hope of productive results. And Wolfson is still there.

Expanded enough? :)

[BlooInBloo]

28. Gotcha - somewhat similar to (my interpretation of) #2 then it looks like - thanks!

[FlaGranny]

24. Well, from a previous on-the-fence Clinton supporter,

one of the reasons she lost my support was her campaign, her snarkiness, and her preachiness. That's just me, though.

[Lucky 13]

56. 100% true for me too.

I supported her after Edwards left. BRIEFLY. I don't want a president that's nasty or spiteful. I want a reasonable person that is brave enough to take the high road.

FlaGranny? I assume you may be a granny in Florida? Well I'm a 30 year old lesbian in Vermont. I think we may be a fair representation of how many different kinds of women have been turned off by the campaign's negativity.

And right or wrong, that's how we PERCEIVED it - nasty and negative.

Your biggest mistake isn't even the negativity or continuing to use it as a strategy. Your BIGGEST mistake was labeling everyone who perceived it that way as your ENEMY.

They aren't the enemy! They are the VOTERS!

Instead of listening to anyone giving you feed back on how the public is receiving your message, you just turned the volume up. We had no choice but to change the station, for sanity's sake!

[FlaGranny]

80. Indeed.

Yes, I'm a granny in Florida. :-)

[True_Blue]

31. Because the media wants Obama to defeat Hillary

Obama will be much easier for McCain to defeat in the GE. Watch the media tear into Obama like pit bulls once he gets the nomination.

I predict he'll suffer a worse defeat than McGovern did against Nixon.

[sniffa]

39. Feel free to expound on this

I've never heard of the media angle before.

[True_Blue]

52. The RW media has done everything possible to push Hillary out

On the other hand they've been tip toeing around Obama. Not making him face any real scrutiny - not yet anyway. He’ll be like a deer in the headlights once the GOP machine starts attacking him. Remember what they did to Dean? Dean was well ahead of the other candidates two weeks before the Iowa primary. Then the MSM started polling Kerry as most likely to beat Bush. No one really liked Kerry, but they didn't want another 4 years of Bush, so Kerry won Iowa. When Dean lost Iowa he did the now famous scream, which they played over and over. Dean was a wimp and he dropped out. Hillary won't give up though. To the media, the Clintons are a cancer that won't go away.


Mark my words - The MSM will play up McCain as a war hero and Obama as a radical anti-American flag-hating terrorist.

[newmajority]

59. Dean wasn't a wimp

He dropped out, as Edwards did, and as Hillary should have, when he had no path to the nomination. Some people forget that Dean had more delegates than Kerry until well into the primary season.

Furthermore, the attacks on Dean were completely aided and abetted by the DLC, just as the attacks against Obama now are. But if the DLC does that to Obama in the GE, they are slitting their own throats, not his.

It's obvious that Obama has studied the Dean campaign a great deal. He's taken Howard's successful strategies on to his own campaign, and they're working. And they're kicking the shit out of the DLC machine.

Obama vs Grandpa McLoony? I can't wait. :evilgrin:

[BlooInBloo]

47. Just to be sure I understand - it's your prediction that Obama will win 0 states?

[True_Blue]

55. That's what i think

I also think that Hispanic voters will vote for McCain over Obama, but would pick Hillary over McCain. McCain has had a lot of support from the Hispanic community here in Arizona.

[BlooInBloo]

57. Cool - thanks!

[dchill]

68. I believe the poster is allowing for the possibility that...

Obama MIGHT win D.C. - McGovern won Massachusetts and D.C. iirc

[BlooInBloo]

69. Oh - I thought he only won one - my bad - thanks for the correction.

[VotesForWomen]

34. 16 years of Clinton hating propaganda and a media free pass for O, but in spite of that

the race is quite close, and hillary is wining the states that will make more impact in selecting the GE winner.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. She has kept her solid 40%, never expanded on it, and the rest went to Obama

40% would've been enough if the opposition had remained divided, but the other candidates dropped out and their supporters mostly went to Obama.

[BlooInBloo]

48. Oh - that's an interesting thoughtline.

[Genevieve]

38. Because 'she's in it to

SPIN it'.

(Or, she lies alot).

[Petey Wheatie]

40. Obama = Hare, Hillary = Tortoise n/t

[Gore1FL]

44. Are you saying

her strategy relied on other candidates sleeping instead of campaigning? Seems like an odd strategy, but does explain her long list of losses.

[Petey Wheatie]

49. The tortoise didn't rely on shit. He just kept his head down and kept on moving. Go Hill! n/t

[BlooInBloo]

54. I'm not understanding the analogy - which one started off with the big lead?

Clinton or Obama? Hare or tortoise? Am I missing something about the analogy?

[Gore1FL]

60. But only won because the Hare napped.

that never seemed to happen. In fact the tortoise napped during the month of February.

--Hence the Hare's insurmountable lead.

[Orsino]

41. You might get more responses if you changed your query...

...as to why she's behind in pledged delegates. There's really no need to call it "losing" yet, any more than there was back when it was Obama who was behind.

[Gore1FL]

43. When was that?

[BlooInBloo]

45. When someone's behind in a contest, that's called "losing". And there's plenty of responses.

[NashVegas]

42. Marketing

The Obama campaign has done a magnificent job of marketing that candidate.

[crankychatter]

50. More ppl voted for obama than hillary cuz they liked him more? Wild Internet Conspiracy Theory.

call me cwazy

[quantass]

61. Obama is believable & inspirational. Not just another politician telling us what we want to hear.

[WinkyDink]

64. Oh, I think that is exactly what he is telling us. People don't vote for what they don't care for.

[mydemiseisnear]

63. Because the other side has painted her as racist

Her lead was robust before the "fairy-tale-is-racist" scandal and other "scandals" trying to portray the Clintons as racist.

[Kesaco]

66. Michigan and Florida

[BlooInBloo]

70. Ah - hadn't heard that one here yet. So you blame the 2 state parties for screwing Clinton...

... by breaking the rules that everybody knew about in advance?

[andlor]

67. On what madication are you lately?

[Radical Activist]

73. She's a fake in a year when people want conviction.

She came in third in Iowa because they saw her up close and Iowans can spot a fake.

[Enrique]

78. because people want change

Clinton is associated with old politics.