A Serious Path to a Hillary Nomination

[Austinitis]

Step One: Attack. Hard.

Hillary needs to keep up the level of attacks that she's been going with. A lot of people have been saying that her attacks aren't doing anything to Obama or that they aren't enough. But take a look at the graph below. (Data fromhttp://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/favorable_ratings_for_presidential_candidates"> Rasmussen) Since mid-February there are only two big points on the graph where Obama's unfavorable ratings exceed his favorable ratings. The first starts near 3/13, when the Jeremiah Wright scandal broke. The other starts around 4/11 when Obama's bitter comments came to light.



That graph shows that everything Obama supporters are worried about is true. That Obama can be hurt. That his campaign has gotten consistently weaker since early March and that a lot of his strength now is riding on what he did more than two months ago.

This is also where we can help. We need to do two things. First, we need to https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=3">get Hillary the money she needs to keep up the attack. Right now Obama is outspending us by pretty huge margins, and yet our attacks are doing way more damage to him than his are doing to us. That means that a dollar given by a Hillary supporter can actually make a lot difference - far more than a dollar given by a given Obama supporter.

Second, we need to keep up the attack in areas where Obama is vulnerable. This means hitting that gun-questionnaire over and over again. There are http://youtube.com/watch?v=NxYmkjuTdDc">YouTube videos of Obama lying on camera that we need to push. There are also PDF files of the actual questionnaires with Obama's handwriting. We need to push these to everyone we can, especially starting this Wednesday so that Hillary can be strong going into Indiana and North Carolina. Both Indiana and North Carolina are full of gun-owners, and there's no way that focusing on this issue in those states can do anything but help Hillary on May 6th. So if you know people in those states, make sure they've seen the videos and the documents. If you live in those states, make sure everyone you know sees them.

Third, we need to send the message to Hillary that we believe in her and that we support what she's doing. We need to encourage her to stay in the race all the way to the convention. Part of this is accomplished by sending money, but things as simple as a letter of support to her campaign saying that we believe in her can really go a long way. (Anyone interested in starting a letter-writing campaign should PM me). Remember, a lot of this is game goes on in the candidate's head - we have to keep her confidant and let her know that, no matter how much people attack her, we'll support her.

IMPACT OF STEP ONE:

If we're aggressive and if we keep at it, our attacks should have two impacts:

First, and importantly we're going to push Hillary into the lead in the popular vote. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html">This is well within the realm of possibility. I'll explain how this impacts in the section on step two.

Second, we're going to bring Obama's general election weaknesses to forefront of the minds of super-delegates. This by itself probably won't convince super-delegates who have sided with Obama to support Hillary but it'll give them an important nudge to start thinking about their decision again. Once we've got them thinking about it again, we'll use step two to win them over.

Step Two: Summer Media Blitz

Starting June 3rd and going all the way to the convention, we execute step two. We push really hard on the idea that the popular vote including Florida and Michigan represents the will of the people. We claim that super-delegates are obligated to ratify that will and endorse the popular vote leader. We claim Obama's pledged delegate lead is the product of archaic and undemocratic primary rules. We take a page out of the Obama camp's play-book and we claim that if the super-delegates don't endorse the popular vote they're stealing the election from the people. We threaten a backlash (even if we're not serious if they don't comply).

There's no way that the Obama camp can win a "popular vote vs. pledged-delegate" fight in the media. The distribution of pledged delegates is based on a system which has hugely undemocratic features, many of which haven't been highlighted in the media (because it hasn't been relevant yet). For example, the pledged delegate count prizes more highly the votes of people in areas that traditionally vote democratic in heavy numbers (violating the principle of one person, one vote). It also give hugely disproportionate weight to people voting in caucuses (for example, Obama carried Idaho by a mere 2,000 votes but picked up 2 delegates. Hillary carried California by 400,000 votes but only picked up roughly 40 delegates. That means that someone in Idaho gets 10 times the voice of someone in California!). It's possible for the pledged delegate count to award more delegates to the candidate who loses a state than the candidate who wins it. For example, Hillary won Texas by 100,000 votes, but Obama picked up 6 delegates there. If Hillary picked up as many delegates per person in Texas as Obama picked up in Idaho, she would have picked up 50 delegates just in that margin. So a lot of Obama's lead is actually the product of odd rules which have almost nothing to do with democratic will. Again, there's no way they're going to win that fight in the media.

So in step two our battle-cry needs to be "Stolen Election! Undemocratic! Will of the people!" And it's going to be important for us as individuals to make these arguments and to see the second step through. We're going to need to keep up our donations to help Hillary have a competitive voice in the media over the summer and we're going to need to be spreading our message on forums like this.

IMPACT OF STEP TWO:

These steps will do a couple of things:

First, we take back the narrative that the Obama people have been beating us over the head with since February. We not only take away their ability to use that (hugely powerful) argument for their guy, but we turn it to our own ends.

Second, we make it nearly impossible for super-delegates to stay with Obama. They'll already be nervous about Obama from step one, and this will give them all the excuse they need to line up behind Hillary. Remember, we're the party that had our popular mandate stolen from us in 2000. There's no way that the super-delegates want to be this year's O'Conner in Bush v Gore.

Third, we open up Obama's pledged delegates to targeting. The Obama people will probably insist here that those pledged delegates are really loyal and unlikely to switch sides. For the most part they're right, but we have a new kind of "delegate math" that favors us here. If we take a pledged delegate from Obama and give it to Hillary, we drop Obama's tally by one and raise our own by one: a movement of two. That's twice as efficient as winning delegates in elections. In fact, if we can get just 5% of Obama's delegates to switch (roughly 75 out of about 1500), we instantly wipe out Obama's pledged-delegate lead. And just like super-delegates, pledged-delegates aren't going to want to override the will of the people.

Finally, and really importantly, step two shows us that the "delegate math" argument being used by the Obama camp is simply wrong. They're right that we can't catch up in pledged delegates by the end of the primaries, but nothing about that means that we can't secure the popular support to win the nomination. If we push step two all the way through we can wipe out the single metric used by the Obama people to comfort themselves with the idea that Hillary can't win. We turn this whole game upside down.

Conclusion:

What all of this shows is that it's still entirely possible for Hillary to win. Even if things don't play out the way I've described them above, the fact that we can envision scenarios where Hillary wins tells us that the Obama camp's message simply isn't true. We can win, and our chances aren't bad at all.

[Edit to give source for graph and fix typo.

[Jersey Devil]

1. Sure, if she does that she can win - in 2012

Which obviously has been the plan for at least a few months now, hasn't it?

[Diamond Dog]

6. Go look at her unfavorable ratings.

Each time she personally goes on the take, she takes backlash for it. She either needs to learn Obama's secret and have her surrogates do all the negative campaigning or concede that she is a weak politician.

[Exilednight]

16. Hillary supporters claim that there is a ceiling on her unfavorables, but it must be................

a glass ceiling because she keeps shattering it.

[Austinitis]

57. She takes a backlash, but recovers when she backs off it faster than Obama

Look at the way she's played out Ohio, Texas and now Pennsylvania. In the weeks before the event she attacks pretty hard, and then in the last day or so she goes on talk shows, etc. to rehabilitate her image. Her numbers recover, but Obama keeps getting hurt. It's like a game of chicken, when you keep going, going, going right up to the edge of the backlash cliff. I actually think she backed off a little early going into Penn, but the timing is tricky and it's hard to blame her campaign for that.

[Diamond Dog]

61. Unequivocally wrong, but an expected response.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4668032&page=1

This story is dated five days ago, and I have no reason to expect that her approval ratings have improved in the wake of her utter inability to keep herself from negative campaigning. 54% of the American people - an all-time high - regard her in a fundamentally unfavorable light. I know I do, and it would take very little effort on her part to cause me to vote for Nader.

In short, you promote a policy that would destroy your candidate in the general election if through some act of divine intervention she were to walk away with the nomination. I frankly don't understand what attracted you to the Democratic Party in the first, unless it was a flier printed by the Democratic Leadership Council.

[Austinitis]

65. Take a look at her numbers

I keep my own polling data spreadsheets so I'm usually pretty up on the trends.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pLYPNryKcVU29d4i7GcUCQA&oid=3&output=image

[Diamond Dog]

67. Right. And there's a twenty point spread between 'totally favorable' and 'totally unfavorable'.

What's your point, other than that mine's right?

[krkaufman]

145. The fact that you seem to respect that behavior says as much about you ...

... as the vile and disreputable person, the whore, that you support.

[HereSince1628]

2. Is it me or is there a problem in the second sentence?

[Diamond Dog]

7. Aye, and it was intentional.

Those were the only two days his UNFAVORABLE ratings exceeded his favorable.

[HereSince1628]

24. This Through the Looking Glass primary is so confusing

up is down, right is left, good is bad...

what's a guy supposed to do? :shrug:

[Austinitis]

36. Not that I'm aware of.

What did you have in mind?

[Occam Bandage]

45. The problem I see is that

the complaint most frequently heard about Clinton's attacks is that they are ineffective towards her goal of winning the nomination (as they tend to drive her negatives upward more sharply than his), but that they are still damaging towards his image and campaign, especially as regards the general election.

I'm guessing you generally remain in pro-Clinton circles, where only the first half of that complaint is heard--and where discussion of her negatives is generally dismissed, leaving only the rather strange half-complaint you have written as the second sentence. Perhaps you are a campaign staffer of some sort?

[Austinitis]

84. I volunteered in Texas

but I'm not involved directly any more and I was never a paid member of her campaign.

I think Hillary, to win, has to drive his negatives up and has to be willing to take the corresponding rise in her negatives. The problem with this campaign is that there aren't really very deep policy differences, and so, until these attacks started, it was framed as a "likability" contest. And, as much as I like Hillary, the hard truth is that she's not as likeable to most people as Obama and so she loses there. So she has to break that framework and attacking hard does that.

Even though she's having a hard time making up what she lost in February, even the Obama people have to admit that she's been doing a better job the last two months. Had she started off running her campaign like this, Obama wouldn't be an issue. And I think that if she keeps running her campaign like this she may just be able to pull things off.

[Occam Bandage]

89. And, again, this is why your post is reprehensible. You are saying

that there are no deep differences between Obama and Hillary, and so she cannot possibly win on policy. You are also saying that she is at a major, major disadvantage on likability--one that she is not going to reverse. You are all but admitting that she will never be more likable than he is.

Your theory, therefore, is that the only hope of victory is in destroying both of their likabilities to the point where neither is considered "likable"--that is, to the point where neither candidate is electable, at which point both candidates are likely going to be broke, at which point there will be no time for the victor to attempt reconciliation with the loser's supporters, and at which point you think Hillary finally may have a chance to convince enough superdelegates to overturn the results of the primaries.

That is, of course, offensive enough; America is not served well by elections where public office is awarded through personal destruction, as the Republican victories in '00 and '04 have proven. However, it becomes downright objectionable when one considers that this is only a nominating process.

The utterly-destroyed Democratic nominee will, as soon as your plan is deemed a success or a failure, have to deal with a likable, experienced, and undamaged John McCain, who will have an overflowing war chest and an immaculate image.

Your only remaining hope of victory is to make the Democratic nominee utterly unelectable, regardless of who emerges from the convention as the bloodied victor. Your "plan for victory" can be nothing but a loss for the Democratic party (and thus America as a whole), regardless of whether you are successful.

[Austinitis]

112. On the plan I've laid out the attacks only go through late spring

by then the vote tallies will be in and the second phase (which doesn't attack Obama) can kick in. If Obama can't recover in the period between early June and November then he's got vulnerabilities which will make him lose no matter what Hillary does. And if Hillary can't get a lead in the popular vote by June, then the second part of my plan never kicks in. No matter what, he gets several months to recover. The only one who's really at risk of being beat-up over the summer is Hillary, and that's only if Obama attacks.

[Occam Bandage]

123. So your entire plan relies on Obama

remaining damaged by Clinton's attacks just until the convention, and then springing back overnight. Yes, that seems reasonable.

After all, even if she closes the primary-vote gap to a near-tie, there's no way the supers overturn the elected delegates and hand it to her if the favorability numbers look anything like they do right now.

[Austinitis]

124. No, it relies on him being hurt until the voting ends

At which point there will be a popular vote total to campaign on.

[Occam Bandage]

129. And, like I just said,

that alone won't do it.

The final result total (absolute best-case scenario for Clinton) is going to be:

Elected delegates: Obama leads.
Elected delegates plus declared supedelegates: Obama leads.
With all Democratic primary votes counted: Obama leads.
Also counting sham beauty-pageant contests: Clinton leads slightly.

In order for Clinton to have the slimmest chance of convincing the remaining superdelegates to break in her favor, she is going to have to convince people not only that MI's non-contested votes are valid and ought trump the actual vote totals, but also that she can win. If things settle down on the campaign trail, and the candidates drift towards their 'natural' favorability/unfavorability ratings, then Obama will look to have a massive net favorability lead. That means, of course, that in head-to-head matchups, Obama will do much, much better than Clinton will against McCain.

The second half of Clinton's argument--that she can win more easily than Obama can--is going to be downright laughable if she's still losing hypothetical matchups by 10 points as Obama wins them by five. She has to keep him hurt--which means she has to keep herself hurt, too, since she's the most backlash-prone politician I've ever seen.

[Austinitis]

131. I don't think anything nearly so extensive is required

You're assuming that super-delegate have a default tendency to support the guy with the most pledged delegates, and while I agree that that's the case now, there's no reason to think that it'll be the case after a three month media fight. The system under which pledged delegates are distributed is Byzantine, undemocratic, and strange, and the reason people put so much stock in it now is that the Obama camp has done a far better job of portraying the system than the Hillary campaign. For example, right now most voters think that the the pledged-delegate system is at least roughly consistent with a one person, one vote principle - they won't think that after three months in the media.

So if there's a big, public fight over the pledged delegate system, then it's going to be really hard for anyone to justify their votes by appealing to a pledged delegate lead - the system just can't stand up to any real media scrutiny without being discredited. And that means super-delegates are going to have to look to the poplar vote. Some may decide at the end of the day that they don't want to count Florida, but I really think that a lot of them will feel a lot of pressure to include it.

And that's why I think the way you've framed things in your post falls apart. Because you act as if there are four relevant metrics, and that Obama leads on three of them. But one of those metrics will be discredited after any kind of media fight and another (pledged + super-delegates) is the metric that's caused by the fight over the metrics we're debating. So the right really comes down to two metrics: Popular vote w/o Florida and Popular vote w/Florida. And while I can't promise that Hillary will win a fight between those two metrics, I certainly think she has a better than 40% chance.

<EDIT TO ADD MATERIAL>

As for the polling numbers and their influence on super-delegates. I agree that that's going to be a problem, but if the super-delegates have seen how high Obama's neg's can go, I don't think they'll insist that Obama's neg's currently be that high in order to go for Hillary.

[Diamond Dog]

96. If there aren't deep political differences, why must you shill so?

[Austinitis]

113. Why do you shill? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

116. To get John McCain's number-one helper out of the race, so the Dems can win.

Actually, calling Clinton that is a bit of an understatement, as McCain doesn't actually have to do anything as long as Clinton's in the race. Perhaps that should be, "To get John McCain's substitute candidate out of the race."

[Austinitis]

119. I don't think anything can really help McCain

all that much. Especially if it ends more than a few months out from November.

[Occam Bandage]

122. I suppose you'd have to convince yourself of that to continue supporting Clinton.

[roseBudd]

126. Oh but you did join DU after Super Tuesday

[Austinitis]

132. Yea, I didn't join until people started calling for her to drop out after the Wright scandal

I've done a lot of message boards in the past, but this is the first time I've ever done a political one. I don't really like the political ones as much, largely because of how hostile a lot of people are (Though I want to stress that there are a lot of really great Obama supporters here. I've been having a really great conversation with Occam Bandage over the course of the day.)

[Avalux]

3. I think you have nominationitis, Austinitis.

Hillary will not be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Even if she did get the nomination by some back room deal, she has pissed off a large portion of the Democratic base with her attacks that they will not support her campaign.

[Austinitis]

11. The path I laid out doesn't go through the back room

It's right out in the open with the popular vote.

[Occam Bandage]

30. Er, yeah, it does. It relies entirely on convincing superdelegates behind the scenes to

hand Hillary the nomination--despite being behind in the popular vote and elected-delegate count--based on the results of uncontested elections in Michigan and Florida (one of which did not even have Obama's name on the ballot).

[endarkenment]

66. Uh no it is right out of the open in the back room.

Anyway, good luck with that. When your kid's soccer team is losing do you demand that the refs change the rules?

[Laurab]

74. Isn't that Hillary's forte? n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

102. By which she subsequently loses the GE

because nobody likes her.

[roseBudd]

127. But it's still dirty pool, if she was the candidate people wanted THEY WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR HER

instead of Obama in a majority of the primaries and caucuses. He is winning because he is more talented than she.

[gcomeau]

4. Regarding step one...

Put up Clinton's graph. I dare you. It kind of destroys all the rest of your argument. Nobody is going to forget Hillary's higher negatives and lower positives while you're yelling about what Obama's are.

[guyanakoolaid]

15. Is that crickets???

[gcomeau]

69. Yep, I do believe that's crickets...

..but I'll consult an entomologist just to be certain. While I'm doing that maybe someone will come and drive them off with a scary graph that destroys their own argument, but I doubt it.

[gcomeau]

88. Ok, found that entomologist...

...and they confirmed for me that these are indeed crickets.

Persistent ones too. They just keep chirping, and chirping, and chirping.

[natrat]

5. clinton and her crew suck shit

[emilyg]

27. Gee - now I'll take your opinions seriously.

[cliffordu]

8. Blah de blah de blah blah blah. We got it, on to the next, please.

[Vinca]

9. Assuming she took your wonderful advice and actually won the nomination,

how could she win back the Democrats she would have lost by doing so and win the general? It's time to throw back a few shots of reality.

[mcctatas]

10. Step Three...

destroy the party and then lose the general due to skyrocketing negative opinion...
:eyes:

[ps1074]

12. What happens in the general then?

When the AA vote don't vote for Hillary in numbers she will need to wing swing states? PA and OH come to mind... Afteral, her strategy is convinsing SD she can wing those same swing states. Without the AA vote she has 0.05% chance of wining them.

[Occam Bandage]

22. The dead-enders don't really care about the general. Obama is their enemy, not McCain.

[Austinitis]

52. Both candidates have serious general election problems

but I think Hillary has the better shot at it. Also, she's willing to take Obama on as VP (which he would be dumb to turn down), and that should heal over a lot of wounds. I doubt Obama would take Hillary (though I would be a lot happier if he would).

[Occam Bandage]

56. Which is a bit like

pointing to a man with a sprained ankle and a man with a severed leg and saying "ah, both men would have serious problems running a hundred-meter dash, so let's not consider that too heavily. Besides, have you ever tried running on a sprained ankle? That's very painful indeed."

Hillary already has higher negatives and lower favorables than Obama does. She has a weaker nationwide infrastructure, and is deeply in debt, while Obama's campaign is flush. The "path to the nomination" you propose would result in even-higher negatives (as her negative campaigning has been more damaging to her own numbers than to Obama's), a divide in the Democratic party that Clinton has not shown any capability to heal, and would require her to engage in borrowed spending that would make Congress blush.

Even if she were to succeed in doing what you propose (which would be the political equivalent of drawing a royal flush several times in a row), calling her general election problems at that point "serious" would be criminal understatement.

[RaleighNCDUer]

103. After this campaign she'd be doing exceptionally well

to get his vote - much less get him on the ticket.

You are delusional.

[Occam Bandage]

104. Moreover, it would be an awful hard sell. "Yeah, this guy is totally incompetent,

brings nothing to the table, is nothing but talk, hates rural Americans, has horrible policies (except for the ones he stole from me), doesn't love America or the flag, whines a lot, and is probably a crypto-Muslim sleeper agent.

He's the guy who should be a heartbeat away from the Presidency!"

[RaleighNCDUer]

108. LOL

[newmajority]

13. Who is going to pay for that "summer media blitz"?? Hillary is $9 Million in the red.

Hillary's campaign is finished. 36 hours from now, all but the most delusional will be openly admitting that.

[Austinitis]

18. A lot can be done with free media

It's not like the news programs won't cover the dispute.

[Occam Bandage]

19. You know. Donations. Which, er, nobody is making.

[Austinitis]

62. I certainly wouldn't say that

She kind of gets overshadowed by Obama, but Hillary's fund raising would be a big deal in any other election cycle. She's raised almost 180 million dollars, which is a vast sum (but, admittedly, one that gets overshadowed by Obama's money)

[Occam Bandage]

64. She *has* raised, yes. However, as you've said,

let's not pay too much attention to what a candidate did several months ago, and look at where they're at now. She's being badly outspent--and even still, she's spending more than she's taking in.

[Austinitis]

76. I know

and I recognize that Hillary's supporters will have to revamp their donations in the OP. But they won't revamp their donations if the Obama camp's inevitability narrative isn't challenged. That narrative, more than anything to do with elections, is where the Obama camp is scoring it's major wins. It slowly strangles the optimism of Hillary's supporters can convinces them not to give.

So I think it's more than worthwhile to point out that the inevitability narrative has obvious weaknesses (the most major of which is the popular vote).

[Occam Bandage]

85. The principal problem with that, of course,

is that you're stuck in a chicken-and-egg scenario. In order to get money, you need the Obama narrative to be challenged--but you can't challenge the Obama narrative without money. Your hope is to use "free media" to push your narrative, right? And in doing so encourage people to donate money, so that you can get your stalled engine running again, right?

I am going to assume you understand that you are borrowing from Trippi there--and that you are well aware of why Trippi's theories do not work in practice.

[Austinitis]

92. I know who Joe Trippi is, but I wasn't intending to borrow from him

although I may have unintentionally done so (I've read stuff on the importance of media narratives in campaigns, but I wasn't aware that those theories are mainly associated with Trippi). How do his theories fall apart in practice? (obviously, I'm going to be pretty interested in finding out.)

And, yea, you've described what I'm envisioning pretty well. Since I don't have any control over the Hillary campaign's strategy I'm mainly hoping that I can rally enough Hillary bloggers to challenge the narrative online. If that works, then surrogates may pick up the argument and use it on TV.

I think a lot of the trick will be convincing Hillary supporters to abandon any hope of winning outside of capturing the popular vote. A lot of the reason that there's no competing narrative coming out of the Hillary camp is that the Hillary camp keeps hedging its bets in case the popular vote doesn't go our way. But if we don't get the popular vote we lose. There's no realistic plan B after the popular vote. And so it makes a lot more sense for people who support Hillary to get behind a unified "popular vote" narrative, which can challenge the "pledged delegate" narrative being put forward by Obama.

[Occam Bandage]

94. Well, with Trippi,

I'm more specifically referring to his practical work with pushing narratives through unorthodox methods, given insufficient conventional resources. With Clinton broke, you're almost turning her into a Howard Dean in 2004 or a John Edwards in 2008--convince the base to ignore the odds, rely on cheap/free means of bringing out your message, and hope to change the narrative from below instead of dictating it from above. In practice, this means a two-pronged attack, in which you use the Internet to rally fundraising, push a message, and inspire a crowd, at which point you hope to shift gears over to your candidate's more-traditional respectability (in Dean's governorship or Edwards' senate term/VP-bid/advocacy) to keep the ball rolling.

The problem that both faced was that the Internet is a lot harder to control than traditional apparatuses are. Bloggers and forum jockeys such as ourselves have a bad habit of thinking for ourselves, and of trying to create and push our own messages.

Without the necessary infrastructure that both lacked, it became virtually impossible to formulate and push a successful response to the first challenge that either campaign faced (being Dean's Iowa collapse/scream and Edwards' failure to win Iowa). And the problem with this would likely be the same. Sure, with some effort, Clinton might be able to fall back on the internet to push a counter-narrative; her stature would lend that narrative more legitimacy than, say, Ron Paul's or Dennis Kucinich's efforts to do the same. However, it would leave her virtually unable to confront any changes in the situation (in either direction), up until her fundraising was back on track. Moreover, she's running out of time to launch such a strategy. I think that she's largely neglected the activist/internet portion of her support base, and so I'm not sure I can see that effort being as broad, deep, or quick as it would need to be in order to revitalize her fundraising.

[Austinitis]

105. I think you're pointing to

a lot of the things that are going to really stand in the way of what I'm trying to do. I do, though, think that there are a couple of things that make the current situation a bit different:

First, a lot of the disputes that raged (for example, about the possibility of a backlash, or the case for excluding Florida, or the impossibility of a Hillary win) were played out with the Obama camp using intellectually vulnerable arguments and the Hillary camp not really replying. And the reason for this, I think, is that the Hillary campaign tried to pitch most of their arguments at super-delegates and they tried to do so behind the scenes (really, they still are, and you see that with the "Obama can't win" argument that never gets made openly but gets pitched at super-delegates). The Obama camp, on the other hand, paid a lot of attention to making arguments through the media and, with only one side's arguments being made, the media became an echo-chamber for those arguments. Those arguments seem to have become influential with the super-delegates because of that.

Moreover, when the Obama camp uses paid staff to make arguments they supply friendly bloggers with ammunition to throw at Hillary bloggers. Since the Hillary bloggers weren't getting the same help, they were largely driven off the blogs and message boards. (That's not to say that paid staff are naturally better at making arguments, but they have the time to sort through bad arguments and find the better good ones).

The two major results have been: A) that the Obama camp has largely monopolized the narrative on these issues while B) the Obama camp has arguments with intellectual vulnerabilities that haven't been exploited.

And that's where I'm hoping that Hillary's situation is different. Since most the bloggers for Hillary have gotten battered by a lack of support from the Hillary campaign I'm hoping that, once given that support, Hillary bloggers will "rebound" to some extent. Hopefully that rebound will build some enthusiasm and get people to donate. And that, at least, is the source of a lot of my journal entries here. I generally try to pick on Obama campaign argument that looks vulnerable and attack it in a way that people will repeat. Other people are hopefully doing the same thing and enough of us together might spark the rebound I mentioned.


And if that doesn't work, there really is no plan B (barring some event/scandal which none of us can predict).

[Occam Bandage]

130. And I think that in the last paragraph there, you're beginning to segue from

political strategy to political fantasy. Any plan that turns on a mass movement crystallizing on demand is a plan that cannot be expected to bear fruit.

[dchill]

95. "She kind of gets overshadowed by Obama,"

You do have a gift for understatement.

[roseBudd]

128. "overshadowed by Obama's money" yes because lots of people clearly prefer Obama & are putting $

where their mouthes are.

[kenny blankenship]

14. So fucking VILE

But then McCain workers always smell that way.

[Occam Bandage]

17. So, basically, it all turns around Clinton winning the final few elections by margins she has not

yet approached in any state outside her political base of Arkansas, and then by claiming "the will of the people" based on an uncontested election in Michigan, in which Clinton's was the only name on the ballot.

And this does not seem unrealistic to you.

[Austinitis]

78. The margins aren't that unrealistic.

See the spreadsheet in Stage One of the OP. And I think the gun-questionnaire can be turned into a really powerful attack. (It combines honesty attacks gun attacks that should play well in Indiana and North Carolina). She probably can't win NC, but she can keep Obama's win low enough that she can pick up the popular vote with wins elsewhere.

[JackORoses]

20. Sorry buddy, Hillary will never be President. Not now, not ever.

[guyanakoolaid]

21. Step 3: Convince people 1+1=3

:eyes:

[cali]

23. your chances suck. just not as much as your repulsive rightwing freeper

pov. And you forgot something, genius: Hillary's lying scummy attacks are actually hurting her more than Obama. Her negatives are much higher than his, and there is 0 hope of her ever getting them up. Over half the country destests her.

[sniffa]

42. And, let's not forget the big sticking point on phase 2

She doesn't have money for a media blitz.

[Occam Bandage]

48. She mentions "free media" upthread. It seems her goal is

to spam forums and YouTube with this, to send volunteer surrogates out to the talk shows, and then hope the media covers it as a legitimate issue.

[sniffa]

50. Lame

They can give it a shot if they like. Us, we should be in GE mode during the blitz.

[H2O Man]

117. I'm trying to

read between the lines here. I'm convinced that you are trying to communicate a message here, aren't you?

[BlueIdaho]

25. Graph is from? nt.

[Austinitis]

33. The data is from Rasmussen

I've added that to the OP (thanks for the reminder). I cut and pasted the data into a spreadsheet to make the graph.

[BlueIdaho]

40. Thank you. nt.

[BlooInBloo]

26. "the fact that we can envision scenarios" HAHAHA!

I can imagine monkeys flying out of your butt too.

[islandmkl]

28. You could have just said this alone:

"First, we need to get Hillary the money she needs to keep up the attack."

Buy the pit bull some red meat.....

[AtomicKitten]

29. Hillary's kamikaze campaign has made her unelectable, undermining her own case to the SDs.

At this point, she'll be lucky to hold her seat in the Senate with what will almost certainly be a primary challenge in NY.

[Ian_rd]

31. Welcome to DU, Karl!

:toast:

[Occam Bandage]

32. Unfortunately, Ms. Rove did not bank on DU having some remaining degree of sense, perspective, or

decency.

[paulk]

58. really?

where is this sense, perspective, or decency?

Seems to me that any pro-Hillary thread (like this one, for instance) invokes exactly the opposite reaction in the Obama faithful.

Yup, all that unity, hope, and change go right out the window to be replaced by -

Vicious, mean, petty, vindictive.

Most of you Obama supporters on this board are Obama's own worst enemies.

You put the lie to his rhetoric on a daily basis.

[cali]

59. that you think this is a pro-hillary thread shows just how delusional

and vicious YOU are.

[Occam Bandage]

63. Paulk, look at the OP here. Look at what it is proposing.

It is "pro-Hillary" in that Hillary is mentioned frequently, yes. But its primary goal is to propose the worst type of politics. It is suggesting a political murder-suicide, in which Clinton supporters are asked to go so negative as to render both Obama and Clinton utterly unelectable, and then to hope that the results of the primaries be thrown out the window and that the superdelegates can be bullied into choosing Clinton over Obama--based on little more than the fact that neither would be able to win at that point.

If any type of post deserves to be denounced, it is this type. It is perhaps the most eloquently misguided set of 18 paragraphs I have yet seen on DU. Rejecting this is not demonstrative of insufficient sense, perspective, or decency. Rather, it is evidence of their continued existence in the rejecter's mind.

[Ian_rd]

71. Well said.

I considered it "Karl" (if Karl can be an adjective), for its total lack of ethics and morals. It is a true Rovian amoral concept. No longer is any consideration given to why Hillary should win, but only how best to destroy the opponent by any means necessary, no matter how shallow, no matter how damaging to our democracy.

Don't look now, but guess who just made a cameo in Hillary's latest TV ad. Why, it's none other than the Republican's favorite go-to guy for fear itself - Osama Bin Llllllllllladen!

[paulk]

72. you, at least, have taken the post on in those terms

most of the responses here are, however, the usual sort of personally directed garbage.

[islandmkl]

34. you got there before I did....

the bait seems a little obvious, doesn't it?

[Occam Bandage]

38. It isn't bait. it's very intelligent, well-written, and lucid. It's also based on

some remarkably deluded assumptions.

[oasis]

35. Good idea. Send Obama will back into his victim coccoon. The

American voter won't put up with much more of Obama's pouting.

[mcctatas]

53. ...

Oh for Christ's sake, victim cocoon? Hillary is the queen of playing the victim, and she's unpleasant and snarky when she does it! "Maybe somebody should ask Barack if he would like a pillow"...
:eyes:

[guyanakoolaid]

86. I'm still trying to work out the grammatical logic of that first sentence

"Send Obama will back into his victim coccoon(sic)." :dunce:

[mcctatas]

125. wow...

i didn't even notice, has it gotten so bad around here that I am now fluent in crazy talk?

[Oreo]

37. Win at all costs... downtickets be damned!

What will it take for you to understand it's done? She has no money left and isn't bringing in enough to buy anything else.

[Diamond Dog]

39. Since mid-February there are only two bigs point where... his favorability exceeds..."

Change that, champ. It wasn't at all intentional, was it?

[Austinitis]

41. Thanks - fixed.

[tritsofme]

43. Excellent post.

This is the down and dirty path to nomination for Hillary.

Politics is a blood sport, and we're just getting warmed up!

[bowens43]

47. this of course is why hillary is losing.....

keep it up though the more hillary and her supporters act like assholes the better it is for obama. BTW anyone who thinbks politics is a sport has no business being voting.

[Catherina]

54. I hope you won't join the complaint chorus when Obama supporters

bare our claws and fangs in defense and refuse to roll over like sheep.

[cali]

60. darling hilly is fucking herself.

and the idiot OP would only further that.

[JVS]

80. Primaries are not to be treated as General Elections.

You can only get so dirty before the other part of the party says "fuck you"

[Arugula Latte]

81. No, the band that will play you off the stage is getting warmed up.

[bowens43]

44. She's not getting the nomination in 2008.

How's she going to win?

[nxylas]

46. In other words, just keep on with the strategy that's done so well for her up till now

[Ganja Ninja]

49. Here's the only way Hillary gets to the WH.

Step one: Make sure Obama loses to McCain.
Step two: Run again in 2012 after a disastrous 4 years of a McCain presidency.

[Catherina]

51. Step 3. Seek help. Serious help n/t

[jpertello]

55. If we're aggressive and if we keep at it, our attacks should have two impacts:

First, destroy the clear winner (OBAMA'S) chance of getting the Democrats back into the White House, thus handing the country over to John McCain and his very scary neocon friends.


Second, destroy the USA and Earth as we know it for at least the next 4 years.


Thank you, Hillary Clinton. You're really coming through for the democratic party. What a trooper.

[Tatiana]

68. What are you going to do if Obama starts going after Clinton pledged delegates?

(some of whom I think are dying to switch in states like Cali and NY - Obama's top two fundraising states)

[Occam Bandage]

70. In some ways, it reminds me of high school when I was

introducing some new members of our chess club to chess problems.

"So, I'll move the knight here, and then the queen here, and then the rook, and then checkmate!"

"Er...you are aware that black gets to move too, right?"

[Tatiana]

90. Perfect analogy. n/t

[Austinitis]

75. I'm almost certain he will if Hillary doesn't win the popular vote.

I mean, that's really what's going to kill any chance of her moving forward if she doesn't perform well in coming contests. It's not that she can't get super-delegates. It's that she's going to have a hard time holding onto her own delegates (many of whom don't want to sink the party if there's no way to help Hillary). But that's only going to matter if we get to the convention. If she wins the popular vote, I think she can go to the convention and win. If she loses it, she'll probably be out by early June.

And I'm OK with that if we try. I just don't want to quit when there's a real opening for victory.

[zulchzulu]

73. Here are links why Hillary is the worst choice you make if you're a true Democrat

Handy Guide to Hillary Clinton's Bosnian Lie: The Faux Heroine of Tuzla
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5348113&mesg_id=5348113

Handy Guide to how Hillary Clinton is trying to cheat on the Four State Pledge (Michigan/Florida)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5419518

Handy Guide to Bill and Hillary Clinton's links and contributions from the Outsourcing Industry
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4179519

Handy Guide to Why The Clintons Are The Last Thing The Democratic Party Needs Now
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5313426

[bvar22]

77. Sounds like a great plan......

...for ELECTING REPUBLICANS in 2008.


Destroying Democrats is not my idea of a good plan.
Your "plan" admits that Hillary can't win on her own merits, but must attack Democrats to "win".
I am appalled that "Democrats" on a "Democratic" website would look at your stuff and say, "Yes. Thats how "we" win".

No Thanks.


I'll stand with Kerry, Kennedy, Feingold, Carter, MM, MoveON, Olbermen, and others that will build a Democratic Party that represents ALL Americans.

You can have Lieberman, Carville, Penn, Wolfson, Zimmerman, McAuliff, the DLC, and Fox News.




"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Austinitis]

82. All elections are comparative

They always involve contrasting your strengths against your opponent's weaknesses. Obama's campaign continually attacked Hillary on Bosnia and I see no reason for her not to hammer Obama while his head's on the cement with the questionnaire issue.

[RaleighNCDUer]

106. Funny, I've NOT seen Obama attack Clinton on her Bosnia lies,

and the only place I see anybody making anything of the infamous questionaire is here on DU and on Clinton News Network (of course, I don't watch Faux; I assume they're covering it too).

So, weigh a piece of paper, one of hundreds of the type that all politicians look at every year, against Hillary's one and only trip to Bosnia. Who is more believable?

You lose again.

[Austinitis]

111. His campaign does it

Obama pretends to be totally ignorant of the conference calls he orders (and then he lies about those calls in the debate).

And these pieces of paper have been campaign issues for a while. Obama knew about them from news stories published just a few weeks ago. And Obama also made the official line coming out of his campaign that he had never filled out the questionnaire (which anyone who's ever worked for a politician knows is bullshit).

So there are a number of lies. I think it makes for a pretty effective attack. And if it doesn't, then you've got no good reason for us not to try.

[nichomachus]

79. A perfect blueprint for a failed Hillary (one-term) presidency

If you follow this plan, maybe Hillary will win the nomination. The danger is that, if she doesn't, this will so sour her image that her political career will be over. There will be no run in 2012 -- and she may lose NY next time around.

If she does get the nomination, she may lose the GE -- and if she does, the slash and burn politics will mean her political career will be over. She will be vulnerable as the carpet-bagger senator from NY.

If she does get the nomination following this Rovian plan, a lot of Dems and independents may hold their noses and vote for her, simply because they don't want another Republican in power. However, that will mean a political victory, but not a moral one.

Many people who vote for her merely because she's the "least worst candidate" will not be there to morally support her when the GOP attacks, which it will. At the first sign of a real or imagined "scandal," she will be left twisting in the wind by all the people she stepped on to get into the White House. Sensing blood in the water, the GOP and the corporate media will intensify their attacks. More supporters will desert her.

She will be a one-term president with no legacy - and her political career will be over.

So, a well-thought out plan. Very thorough. A recipe for political disaster.

[Leftist Agitator]

83. You're much more cogent than the average Hillarite, I'll give you that.

But your advocacy of utterly destroying the probable Democratic nominee just to install your beloved Queen (the most flawed candidate conceivable) frankly sickens me.

DIAF.

[mmonk]

87. Anyone so engrossed with winning they would knock out the party from

contention at this historic moment is no friend to any of us. In taking such a strategy, she most likely will ensure her own defeat. I know some want to wait until June but I think it would be best for an avalanche of support to come from super delegates for Obama in May.

[RiverStone]

91. Step 3: The democratic party implodes. We lose the GE and majority on The Hill

If Hillary wins by a delegate coup and in particular if it is against the will of the pledged delegates and the popular vote - the party would have a floor fight of unprecedented proportions in Denver.

If Hillary's coup succeeded, millions would walk away from the party in disgust. We Dems know what it is like to have an election stolen already.

I'd NEVER vote for a puke - but I'd have to think long and hard if I could support a stolen nomination. I'd just work like hell for Dems at a local/state level.

IMO, the SuperD's will not ever let it get past June - watch what happens on May 7th.

[Austinitis]

98. Question: If she wins the popular vote

and thus wins over super and pledged delegates would you support her?

[Occam Bandage]

99. Depends on if your "popular vote" is counting the sham elections in Florida and Michigan.

As for me, if a primary is uncontested, and/or if there is only one candidate's name on the ballot, I don't really consider that a valid vote.

[Austinitis]

110. Can we agree on this?

Super-delegates ought to go with whoever win the popular vote.

There may be some dispute about how the popular vote should be tallied and about who should be counted, but each super-delegate should choose the method of tallying the popular vote that they feel comfortable with, and they should go with the winner of that tally.

And you may want to read http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Austinitis/3">the journal entry I wrote on arguments for and against counting Florida. I think the case for counting Florida at least is pretty strong.

[Occam Bandage]

114. An interesting phrase there:

"each super-delegate should choose the method of tallying the popular vote that they feel comfortable with."

So, basically, you've just skipped over the questions of Florida and Michigan. This is unsurprising. Your path to victory relies entirely on superdelegates perceiving Hillary as the popular-vote winner. You're also aware that Hillary cannot win by that ad-hoc metric if Florida and Michigan are not counted. You're also aware that the case for including Michigan (in which, it cannot be repeated enough, Hillary Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot) is flimsier than a saran-wrap bathing suit, and that the case for including the uncontested primary in Florida is nearly as weak.

Frankly, if there is a public debate--and a public debate in which there emerges a common consensus--about counting the sham votes in the final popular-vote tally, Hillary Clinton loses the nomination. Your roadmap absolutely requires there not to be a public debate on whether a candidate ought be given the nomination on the merits of an election in which she was the only candidate on the ballot.

And so you hope to prevent that debate from occurring. "Let the superdelegates choose their own method," you claim. Never mind that your roadmap explicitly demands manufactured noise to, shall we say, assist the superdelegates in making that decision. You call for a astroturfed e-mob loudly and angrily calling for "all the votes" to be considered--a neat bit of misdirection, given that Florida's votes were not contested, and that Michigan residents couldn't cast a ballot for Barack Obama if they wanted to.

Frankly, your "each should choose the method they feel comfortable with" line is inconsistent with your broader claim. You're suggesting out of one side of your mouth that superdelegates ought be bound to a certain metric--say, who got more votes in primaries. Fair enough. But yet with the other side, you're effectively unbinding them, claiming they ought choose the specific metric they feel more "comfortable" with.

Deception has its place in political life. However, so does straight conversation. You seem to be mixing them in a rather unbecoming fashion.

[Austinitis]

115. I think the issue can be split into two parts

1) A claim that super-delegates ought to base their decision on the popular vote tally.

2) A claim about the way that the popular-vote ought to be tallied.

It's possible for people to disagree about both of those issues, so I'm trying to focus in on the issue I think we actually disagree on (the second one). If Hillary and Obama both agree on (1), then I think Hillary can probably make pretty compelling arguments for her version of (2) (seriously, the arguments for counting Florida are pretty reasonable). And I think that it's far better to frame the issue as a matter of how the popular vote ought to be tallied than it is as an issue of who has the most pledged delegates.

So you're right that I'm trying to frame the issue, but I certainly wasn't trying to be deceptive.

Besides, there are a few other aspects of the popular vote that Hillary can point to - all of which follow the principle "one person one vote". For example, she can suggest that Texas caucus votes not be counted. Since everyone who voted in the caucus also had to vote in the primary, it's enough to count their primary votes to give them one vote. I don't think she'll be able to get Michigan, but Florida + Texas primary only puts her in a good spot.

[dansolo]

121. No, we cannot agree on that

While I agree that superdelegates can use their own judgment as to what factors they want to consider, I completely disagree with your assumptions that they will all massively defect to Hillary. Even if Hillary manages to do everything that you suggest, the superdelegates will not vote for her. First off, she is broke, and will not have the funds to sustain a general election campaign. Secondly, she destroys the chances for most downticket candidates, who also happen to be superdelegates. Third, they will be answerable to their own constituents, who couldn't care less about overall popular vote numbers. Superdelegates who switch to Clinton will run the risk of themselves being voted out of office.

[RiverStone]

109. If she wins with a majority of the popular vote from legit contests...

Yes, I would cast a vote for her.

MI/FLA need redo's - I would not acknowledge either vote as a legit contest.

[pdx_prog]

93. Whatcha been smokin? eot

[Armstead]

97. In short......SLASH AND BURN

And turn the Democrats' overall chances into ash while you're at it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

100. Thank you, Karl.

Next business?

[Hoof Hearted]

101. I've always known she can win. The MSM can't handle English, why would I trust them with math?

There is ONLY one number that matters and that number is 2025, anything short of that is just noise.

Does this look like a quitter to you?

[galaxy21]

107. Hillary can't win without young people or blacks

and she will not have their support if she takes the nomination from Obama.

[dansolo]

118. You seem to be ignoring a very important factor - money

Hillary has no money for a summer media blitz. And the superdelegates will not back a candidate who is in the red, and has debts from over two months ago that still haven't been paid.

And any path that relies on 75 PLEDGED delegates switching to Clinton cannot be considered serious.

[Austinitis]

120. Look at the comments above yours

They talk about the money problem and the way that free media could be used to push the blitz.

[moc]

133. You are remarkable. For someone who has been here for such a short time,

you have posted a remarkable amount of bullshit.

Congratulations.

:eyes:

[Austinitis]

134. I just try to fit in with my new community of Obama-bots. n/t

[mcctatas]

135. ...

welcome to DU...
now shut the fuck up...
please...

[Austinitis]

138. Why do you even bother to post this stuff?

If you don't want to have a discussion, fine. But let's not make a big performance of these announcements. It's not like Hillary supporters are going to be upset or miss you.

Really, I wouldn't even notice your absence if you didn't inform me of it.

[DesEtoiles]

136. welcome...to my ignore list! and buh BYE!

[Hoof Hearted]

137. You keep saying that like anybody cares. What kind of narcissist runs around making "ignore"

statements? Please, please put me on ignore.

[Timberside]

139. It's Been Over For Two Months

Hillary can't win! Play with the "delegate calculator on Slate's site. Once you put in your most optimistic tallies for the remaining primaries you will see that she still falls well short of Obama's lead. Even with adding in Florida (which she won) and Michigan (where he is polling ahead). She still finishes over a hundred delegates behind.

And if you believe that the supers are going to overturn the primary process victory of the first African American candidate, when he has won more states, more votes, and more delegates, you aren't old enough to remember the riots of the sixties, or the '68 convention.

Elected officials are not going to turn away, the first person since Bobby Kennedy to bring more people to the party, and giving both houses of congress their best chances of re-election and increasing their majority.

Don't be naive. She lost this nomination when she chose the people around her, the strategy she employed, and failed to amass an organization like the conglomerate Obama has created. She relied on Bill and big states. Obama out organized her, and outsmarted the illustrious Clinton machine. Maybe they should have employed Carvel after all.

Once he wins NC by a landslide, the supers will all come out for him in a wave of praise for both candidates, and a plea for party unity looking towards an Obama victory (with coat tails) for November.

[quakerboy]

140. Thats a quick way to

lose the GE. How do Republics make it close enough to steal? Reduce the turnout. What does this plan do? Reduce the turnout.

[Austinitis]

146. Obama gets most of the summer to recover if the plan doesn't work

If he can't recover with the period between June and November, he wasn't going to win anyways.

[quakerboy]

147. Is that the 2012

Hillary campaign revving into action I hear there?

BS. sad thing is most of us know it. You may even know it. Anyways is a specious argument to cover up mistakes. If your plan remains in effect, and it results in a Hillary nomination, count this election lost. I think Obama can beat your system, but if he does not, then you will have lost us the election.

[Khaotic]

141. You're a joke ...

... and so is your candidate.

Go back home and play your childhood games where it doesn't have a negative impact on your party's chances of winning the general election.

Maybe your theories would be better suited at this game.

[buzzleboo]

142. And the graph for Hillary...

The sniper story got legs at around 3/20 when the two lines diverge. Looks like that had an effect. This shows that both candidates were affected by negative ads which isn't surprising.

[Political Heretic]

143. There is ZERO serious path to a nomination.

[Austinitis]

148. Feeling so hot right now? n/t

[krkaufman]

144. what a bunch of nutjobs. n/t

[Austinitis]

149. We'll see in a few weeks n/t

[NewHampshireDem]

150. Already debunked

Over at DKos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/21/191740/725/2/500356

BTW, I thought all you were on strike or some other hissyfit?

[Austinitis]

152. I don't think that's so much a "debunking" as it is Obama supporters getting angry

and talking about donuts, posting pictures, etc.

[sampsonblk]

151. That's insane

You do realize we belong to the same party, right?

Mitt Romney could have done the same thing to McCain. But he had too much class. Huckabee and Giuliani could have gone in the gutter also. But they didn't.

Why not? Becuase they are not dumb enough to screw themselves and their own party.