Why Can't He Close the Deal?

Maureen Down and AP both published stories making the same point today about the results from PA and the election in general. The question is simple, why if "everyone knows" Hillary has been out-fundraised, outspent, out-charismad, out-etc... can Obama not close the deal and put her away with just one win in a major state that would statistically make it impossible for her to catch up in any form or fashion?

We've had this same discussion after Ohio, Texas, and now Pennsylvania. It may be the only true thing to have come out of her mouth the entire campaign, but it is indeed true that once you get out of smaller states, Obama loses.

Dowd


Wow....


Double-wow.

AP


Triple-wow.

So I ask you because not only do many of you support the man, but voted for him, why, among not the general election but within his own party can Obama not close the deal and win just one of the big races that put this thing out of reach? Does his charisma, while raising boat-loads of money, have limits that Hillary and larger states demonstrate? It is clear that he is great with a speech, but catch him in an unprepared moment or in a debate, and things go marginal at best.

My view, as I've said all along is that Obama, in portraying himself as once in a generation/lifetime change agent and not much else, has only to be proven normal and human to be rendered ineffective. Clinton may have tossed the kitchen sink at him but it took the bloom off the rose and now it is clear, there isn't anything he has to counter with. I mean he can toss the kitchen sink back at Clinton but it reinforces her own campaign point in that she has already had the kitchen sink and a heck of a lot more tossed at her and is still here punching. Everyone already has their vibe for Clinton. It is an "I loathe her but she checks my boxes and promises competence" vibe and tossing more dirt on it really won't change the level of loathing much worse.

What are your thoughts?

Another fallacy... McCain has put Ron Paul away and every other candidate. He has secured the nomination by winning the necessary delegates. When the Republican version of this happened with Huckabee refusing to bow out, McCain put him away and secured the nomination.


It is not nonsensical at all. It is entirely possible to secure the nomination and if Obama was able to win the large states as he had done the smaller states, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also from what I have read, Clinton, if you include Florida and Michigan vote totals now has the popular vote advantage again.


A popular vote claim is a legitimate claim to the nomination. She has reclaimed this and that problem is absolutely Obama's.


Well those of us that don't buy the nonsensical Clinton experience argument will note that Obama actually has more experience. He has held office since 1995 and while he may not have held a national profile that entire time was certainly able to work hard and build a fundraising apparatus. Additionally in being given a speaking spot at the Democratic convention, it certainly helped raise his profile, much like it did for (Bill) Clinton in 1988.


You keep forgetting that David hasn't won yet.


-She has always had and still has huge negatives.
-She was able to be elected by carpetbagging to a political liberal state.
Her husband never topped 50% of the vote and with her inability to easily beat Obama, Gore's inability to capture the electoral college or run on the Clinton record, the Clinton legacy is seriously at stake.
-Which lead to the last point, popularity doesn't necessarily translate to electability. Obama is hugely popular yet cannot secure the nomination. Bill Clinton was hugely popular but could not gain 50%. Bill Clinton has been declared a liability instead of an asset on the stump.


Many of us would argue that he has many major connections. He simply desires not to bring them up because there is questionable ethics involved with those people. (Tony Rezko anyone?!)

The rest is just absolutes. You don't get elected to office and hold it for 12 years with a bunch of no's.


Yet the money and donors don't seem to secure necessary wins so mentioning them while A point is certainly not THE point. He outspent Clinton two to one in Pennsylvania and still lost.

He has out-raised Clinton by $40 million yet cannot secure the nomination. He is tied in polls with McCain who he has buried in terms of money. Yet we can all site dozens of elections where fundraising hasn't translated to a win.

It is interesting because anyone else would cite this as a clear sign of weakness, but you cite it as a strength. When Romney couldn't close the deal despite having outspent other opponents, it was proof of him being a weak candidate. It is proof for Obama as well.


It says that the appeal is limited and divided which is exactly my point.


It MUST STOP! ShawnJ has declared so and we don't want to make him bitter!

It isn't just me raising it. I sourced two articles today and could have easily added three more. I can find the articles because it is a relevant point being raise in a number of circles due to the reality of how the votes have shaped up. There are clear demographic lines and it is pretty clear that Obama doesn't seem to scale up well beyond a certain size state seeing as he has won NONE of them.

CNN and other news organizations also noting this are not just pushing an "insanely retarded meme."

You are also welcome to show how "insanely retarded" is not a personal attack.

You do bring skip at the real point which is you cannot ignore reality. In reality money alone doesn't win elections, nor does charisma. At some point the empty suit has to be filled with something besides cash.


Yeah and "months ago" Clinton was expected to have locked away the entire nomination and consigned Obama to the dustbin by now. Only she didn't and this and several wins have been seen as reversals of fortune or proof Obama cannot grow beyond a certain base.

People aren't making it up. The exit polls have clear demographic delineations and people who aren't wearing blinders are discussing them.

A meme (pronounced /miːm or mɛm/) consists of any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that gets transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another. Examples include thoughts, ideas, theories, practices, habits, songs, dances and moods and terms such as race, culture, and ethnicity.

However you are welcome to explain why you are assigning personal attributes to a piece of information. How can information have an IQ and thus be retarded? It can't and we all understand where and to whom those terms were supposed to transfer. You are calling my thoughts and ideas "insanely retarded" and claiming it isn't a personal attack which is just ridiculous.


We all understand that you want to have your cake and eat it too. Clinton was supposed to win PA when she was "inevitable." Now she has lost a lot of states since then and is clearly not "inevitable" but still won PA. Two different contexts but you want us to apply the old information to the new context.


Actually the Democratic primary doesn't feature proportional representation either. It, like much of their thinking actually has a progressive structure to it that penalizes the winner unless they win by large margins. In most states you have to effectively win 60-40 to gain additional delegates.

As for your contention about how it works, we can see by the long legacy of Democratic presidencies since they adopted this procedures that it clearly MUST work well.

I would accept they have already happened and we have the results. We don't need to speculate about what has already happened. We don't need to poll about the past.

No one can lock it up before the convention. They can only argue about what what set of variables should be used to claim a partial and incomplete victory should be a complete one. This is true for both candidates and is true in the "real world" sense, not the "make believe world" sense.


Well the difference though is the odds for both Clinton and Obama are bad. Clinton might need to win an highly improbably 80% of all remaining delegates while Obama only needs to win 65% of all remaining delegates but it doesn't make either of the probably enough to call one realistic. To use your analogy it is like complaining that you ending with Natalie Portman tonight is "real world" while you, Natalie, and Salma are simply "make-believe."

Neither one of them will have the number of delegates and someone is going to have to find a way to extract a pound of flesh from the other in order to have the convention give them the necessary number. The fact that you are more inclined to buy the Obama reasoning doesn't produce a number.


.

No one will pull away and that is what you refuse to deal with in the "real world" sense. No one gets to the magic number. No one.

Since we love analogies, it is like arguing that you and I both lost to the same team that won the Superbowl but in the "real world" you won the Superbowl because you played them a week later...or whatever other strange vagaries we care to put forth because that is exactly what will be happening at the convention.

Popular vote versus delegates
Big states versus small states
Who can raise more money
Etc..etc....

The trends with super delegates doesn't at all matter. They can all choose to switch at anytime. Until they have voted at the convention and had someone get the number needed to clinch it literally swing in an instance. All they have agreed to do is pledge their vote to one or the other before the convention but if the first ballot fails, after that, it is open season.

I'm sure at the end of the convention there will be a measure to make the votes unanimous anyway. The real issue is going to be in how much damage is caused in getting that pound of flesh from one candidate or the other. There is no clean way to do it.


Again no one has produced the numbers that are necessary. Clinton has produced wins of 80%+ and Obama hasn't produced wins of 65-70%. No one gets there unless it is through extraordinary means that somehow occur before the convention. Stop focusing on Clinton being X% more extraordinary and show how Obama gets there in some fashion that ISN'T extraordinary.

Again stop arguing that Portman can happen because it isn't Portman and Hayak. Neither one is happening.


In the strictest sense this is true but if you have the votes, awaiting certification of them is just part of the process. It isn't at all like not having the votes which is what you are trying to claim.


Yes and Obama could get caught sleeping with Clinton and both of them could die tomorrow as well when Bill shoots them in a jealous rage.

Hoping for the impossible for the Republicans won't make the impossible more likely for the Democrats. NO ONE gets to the number to clinch before the convention. No one gets to it without taking someone who is already pledged away from the other candidate. Claiming that one has 49.8% percent while the other only has 49.6% doesn't get you to 50%. It just doesn't.


Telling someone to take an action real or imagined is the not same thing as calling the person anything at all.

Do you really not see the difference?

BTW Grove your post is infantile and stupid. It isn't a personal attack because I'm only describing the post. Sure I am assigning the post personal attributes but apparently we really cannot see the difference. At least if that is the game you want to play, I can play it as well.

First of all I don't giggle when I post. I giggle when you reply.

Second, you really don't appear to realize you are reinforcing Clinton's argument for her. You are making the case that she should be PRESIDENT over Obama.

That sound you hear is giggling.

See Obama is a change agent, only he isn't. No amount of money will make him competitive or change the minds of people in large states, in states that aren't X percent black, that have X percent of people at certain economic levels.

You have just confirmed Hillary's premise. Obama can run well but he cannot close the deal. He cannot win big states. He cannot cross over and win certain independent voters. He can't win no matter what level of money raised or spent. This can be worked on for months and he cannot alter the outcome.

First we all know that numbers are fluid up until pretty close to the election. Then it takes a lot to budge them. Clinton wasn't really ahead by 20 a couple months ago because people just spit out the name they knew. Now when informed because of the election, it is equally wrong to claim that pending a major gaffe or change of events, the numbers would have radically altered from the +10.

People don't pay attention, but when they do become informed, it is harder to change their mind.