Stupid: Obama camp spinning Nevada loss as delegate win
posted at 8:25 pm on January 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Why, it’s almost like a victory. Except for the fact that he lost the popular vote by six points, lost the culinary worker sites he had banked on, lost hugely among Hispanics, lost in a caucus state, where he figures to do better than in states with secret ballots, and now has to deal with headlines like this with South Carolina suddenly a must-win. TalkLeft is slightly over the top, but not by much. To believe the spin you have to believe that one extra delegate is worth more than the momentum and buzz Hillary earns from outpolling him. Anyone not in the tank for Obama want to make the argument that it does?
In fact, we don’t know yet for absolute sure that he did win that extra delegate. A friend sends this:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Kirsten Searer
Saturday, January 19, 2008 (702) 236-1498
Statement by Nevada Democratic Party Chair Jill Derby
Regarding the Nevada Caucus
(Las Vegas, NV)
“Today, two out of three Nevadans who caucused chose a Democrat instead of a Republican for president. That is an overwhelming majority vote for a new direction. Just like in Iowa what was awarded today were delegates to the County Convention. No national convention delegates were awarded. The calculations of national convention delegates being circulated are based upon an assumption that delegate preferences will remain the same between now and April 2008. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support.”
Exit question: I wondered in the other thread if Obama will use this defeat to appeal to black voters in SC to be his firewall. Can he do that or is it too risky, lest the Clintons seize on it to start depicting him as the “black candidate” ahead of Super Ultra Mega Tuesday? I bet he lays off.
Update: First the spin, then the delegitimization of the result.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
For a Democrat to admit that the delegate selection rules matter is tantamount to admitting that Gore lost. Not going to happen.
pedestrian on January 19, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Primaries are about momentum AND delegates.
bnelson44 on January 19, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Yes. And what the Obama camp would have you believe is that a 13-12 delegate win over Hillary is hugely significant compared to a 13-12 delegate loss in which she beat him by six points.
Allahpundit on January 19, 2008 at 8:32 PM
FOX News has Edwards saying the same thing.
SimplyKimberly on January 19, 2008 at 8:33 PM
agree totally AP great post. Obama is a sore loser.
zane on January 19, 2008 at 8:34 PM
It’s worse than that for Obama; the 843 super-delegates, most part of the ‘machine’, can only be turned away from the vindictive Glacier with a commanding overall win in delegates selected by vote. Think of how many dirty little secrets the Clinton have on many of those ‘supers’, and everyone knows the Mafia generally shows more compassion than a ticked-off Hillary.
michaelo on January 19, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Amazing what one quote of respect for Reagan does…one of the most popular presidents of all time, and one little acknowledgment, and it sinks his campaign.
They (his opponents) will hammer him forever on this, and he can’t defend himself, he’ll just make it worse.
One misstep and the campaign could be over…
No wonder Hillary doesn’t speak to the press, her handlers know, one, one mis-statement and she is done for.
right2bright on January 19, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Wait a second AP,
If Obama doesn’t beat Billary by 20% of the delegate count he is done. This is not a 50%+1 deal. He needs 60%+1 to win. Spinning this 1 delegate as a win is OK, cause he’s going to need every last one come convention time.
dung.
Moose Dung on January 19, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Depression.
That’s what I’m feeling, and I’m afraid that’s what we’re all in for…in more ways than one.
Hillary, is the worst candidate …evah.
She will win and take power during a frightening economic time for this country.
If you don’t have a very large box…get one. We will all be living in boxes soon.
I wonder what squirrels taste like.
Dorvillian on January 19, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Shenanigans!
ninjapirate on January 19, 2008 at 8:56 PM
The super delegates can switch. they favor hillary now; but that could change.
lorien1973 on January 19, 2008 at 9:00 PM
lorien1973 on January 19, 2008 at 9:00 PM
If I had to put money on the DNC establishment vote, I wouldn’t put it on BO.
dung.
Moose Dung on January 19, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Fascinating situation. Democrats worrying that being labeled black is too “risky” to run for national office. This from the party that demonizes GOP politicians for off-handed remarks made at 100-year birthday parties.
The real question here is if the “rats” are liberal enough to have a black candidate without the campaign devolving into a race v. gender war. My guess is not.
highhopes on January 19, 2008 at 9:16 PM
“They’d have you believe …” Nope, Axelrod and Plouffe are just putting the best face on it. While not determined yet, the 13-12 arithmetic adds up, and it’s what all media sources have done for the earlier contests. All the state conventions come later; see the Green Papers site. Everyone makes these estimates of national delegates based on the caucus/primary results and the allocation rules.
Back to the the spinners. In a conf call, per TPM, someone asked Axelrod or Plouffe if the delegate count meant they “won,” and the reply was “that’s up to you guys.”
There’s less here than meets the eye. The spinners have to make these points. If I were running for Pres, I’d sure want my guys to get it out there, if there was a case to be made that I had prevailed in delegates.
commissar on January 19, 2008 at 9:17 PM
I’d have a hard time believing that if obama did win the delegate count; that the party would go against their wishes. May happen but it’d be suicide in the general election.
lorien1973 on January 19, 2008 at 9:17 PM
In a rational world, that would be true, though; it should be how many delegates you get in the primary and how many electors you get in the general, not how many people pulled a lever this way or that. Only with the present state of media coverage does Mitt come off as having any less than a huge lead and do Democrats still get to run around in denial about a legitimately elected President Bush, over seven years after the electors voted.
calbear on January 19, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Hispanics, especially union Hispanics, will NOT vote in large numbers for a black candidate. Not in Nevada or anywhere else. Not today. Not tomorrow.
Barak’s campaign will need to recognize this, and go about winning the moderate black vote from Hillary. I think it’s readily do-able, without being ugly racist and without alientaing whites. But he’ll need to take off the gloves now in attacking Hillary.
petefrt on January 19, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Really? He figures that?
Nonfactor on January 19, 2008 at 9:21 PM
What are you basing that on?
terryannonline on January 19, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Lorien,
The delegate counts in the states are weighted for the rural counties. A lot of the pre-Iowa spin noted how Edwards had worked the rural areas hard, with this exact angle in mind.
In fairly close (5-6%) contest, such a result is entirely possible, and certainly worth some spin by the camp it benefits.
commissar on January 19, 2008 at 9:30 PM
lorien1973 on January 19, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Do you actually believe that the Clintons would hesitate to take that gamble?
“The most dangerous place to stand is between a Clinton and an elected office.”
dung.
Moose Dung on January 19, 2008 at 9:33 PM
Absolutely. They’re putting lipstick on a pig, but that’s their job.
Allahpundit on January 19, 2008 at 9:34 PM
What am I basing it on? Any number of polls over the last decade or two. Plus my own reading and experience in talking with folks in the Southwest.
I’m not going to Google it, but you might check the analysts’ articles about the voting preferences, along racial lines, of blacks and Hispanics, who normally divide along racial lines even more than whites.
In fact, it’s this proclivity that leads many, including a number of Republican strategists, to say that blacks and Hispanics connot be united within the same party.
petefrt on January 19, 2008 at 9:36 PM
What you say is interesting. I will look it up.
terryannonline on January 19, 2008 at 9:44 PM
Not a pig, merely an extremely unattractive prom date. :)
commissar on January 19, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Probably Rove has talked/written about this. A frequent comment is that Hispanics generally have stronger traditional values, akin more to Reaganites than any modern (‘progressive’) Democrat. Blacks seem more willing to tolerate the Democrat relativist philosophy, even though it may go against the grain of their religious affiliation.
Today, the Hispanic-black divide is integral to the larger culture war. But a decade or two ago, it was just another illustration of racial conflict. In the Southwest, the pecking order was whites, blacks, Mexicans, Indians. And the lower classes would usually much sooner vote for a white than someone in a competing lower class. I’m thinking that attitude persists, and probably will for the foreseeable future.
petefrt on January 19, 2008 at 10:14 PM
I like turtles!
Captain Scarlet on January 19, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Donna Brazille got this memo, obviously. She was saying the very same thing on CNN while the SC primary was too close to call.
SouthernGent on January 19, 2008 at 10:27 PM
True. Most Hispanics are pro-life. If Hispanics were one-issue voters the majority would vote Republican.
terryannonline on January 19, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Most blacks are pro-life, too. That either of them support democrats is still baffling to me.
SouthernGent on January 19, 2008 at 10:33 PM
I love how this racist ideology seems to be a commonly accepted Republican talking point, and then Republicans wonder why they don’t attract more African Americans to their party.
Nonfactor on January 19, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Re: proof that hispanics will not vote for a black.
In prisons blacks and hispanics must be segregated lest the death count count become unacceptable. In mixed neighborhoods in Los Angeles members of the hispanic gang MS 13 murder people on the street merely because they are black (takes some of the sting out of driving while black).
A few second, third or more generation hispanics will vote for a black. But it’s a very small number.
snaggletoothie on January 19, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Woah! You’re talking about prison and gangs. I hope you don’t think they represent the Hispanic community, which is largely middle class.
terryannonline on January 19, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Hillary has a pollster in Vegas who did the most recent minority poll out there. I found a press release from 12/27. It confirmed the AA/hispanic suspicion.
funky chicken on January 20, 2008 at 1:19 AM
Make NO Mistake, Hillary WILL be the dem nominee..
They have NO Real Choice, they NEVER DID..
Now what do WE do about it?
I believe that we need someone that can make her spend HER Money in The Expensive Media Markets that we usually never even compete in… NY, CA, NJ, MN ETC..
WE cannot.. just shrug off the blue states and let them go uncontested, make the dems have to defend their own territory, so that they cannot attack US on our own ground.
Also, we have people coming up for re-election in the Senate and the House, if we have someone that cannot compete NATIONALLY those people will Not get the support that they should..
I know of one candidate that will make Hillary spend TONS of
her money in the expensive Media markets of NY, NJ, and CA, without him needing to spend very much of his own..
And doing so, We can concentrate on our base and Purple States..
Rudy Giuliani..
Chakra Hammer on January 20, 2008 at 1:26 AM
I predict that the dems will let Obama win South Carolina on January 26th because Florida is on January 29th and they want Hillary out of Republicans mind, while they cast their votes..
Chakra Hammer on January 20, 2008 at 1:33 AM
I usually don’t blog-pimp, but in a guest post at Protein Wisdom, I had a post about the Black-Hispanic divide up on the 13th. Polling data and every thing. Heck, here’s a poll on it I found via Google based on a comment here at HotAir.
Didja know Hillary has a pollster who specializes in the Hispanic vote?
Karl on January 20, 2008 at 2:28 AM
Karl, it’s a significant part of the population..
Ignore it at your own peril.
BTW..
Roy Jones wins one-sided decision over Felix Trinidad
;)
Chakra Hammer on January 20, 2008 at 2:46 AM
Chakra Hammer,
I don’t know how you could get that I’m ignoring it when I was writing about it almost a week ago, before everyone figured out today that HRC has a huge lead with Hispanics.
Karl on January 20, 2008 at 3:54 AM
The Good The Bad and The Dirty Politics , you be the judge.
gr8inferno on January 20, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Sorry Karl, that second sentence, really wasn’t addressed to you..
But, to some of the others here that feel, we should NOT even try and speak to this portion of the population.
(most, very family oriented, religious and hard working.)
Chakra Hammer on January 20, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Hey, we thought you had moved to Canada or something. And here you are — your white liberal self — slumming over here to HotAir to lecture Hispanic women and blacks on racial relations. How very liberal of you, NF!
Maybe you can explain this to us racist conservatives, while we mull over our Republican talking points. I have been trying to find the “politics of hope” angle in a self-declared black politician calling for all blacks to support him for office because of the color of his skin, in a show of “unity”.
Take your time.
Jaibones on January 20, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Funny how you’d think that. My post had to do with petefrt’s claim that African Americans are more likely to abandon their “traditional” values and Hispanics weren’t and how they are willing to “go against the grain” of their religious beliefs (like the right-wing Christians have a monopoly on what religious beliefs and values are).
Nonfactor on January 21, 2008 at 12:47 AM
In that part, at least, of the country, blacks don’t like Hispanics, and I think Hispanics like blacks even less. I’ve got to agree with petefrt & al.
Tzetzes on January 21, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Just ask Hucklebee. He used to cook them in a popcorn popper.
Tzetzes on January 21, 2008 at 1:16 AM
I’ve killed many Squirrels but never ate any of them, people at the hunting camp do though. gross.. tree rats.
Get rid of the suckers because they pester you during deer season. ;)
Also, they get over-populated very easily.. grr >:|
Say No to Tree Rats!(Squirrels Booo!) ;)
Chakra Hammer on January 21, 2008 at 5:00 AM
For some reason, voters of both ethnic groups are racially demagogued by radical elements in their community to great effect. They have the local agitator and some white liberal telling them that whitey is keeping them down, and they are supposed to vote as a racial block in order to overcome something.
Why they buy this crap, when the Demorats are almost always pushing a policy that is in contradiction to their own values? Who knows. Either way, the only ones who don’t campaign on racial profiling are the conservatives.
Jaibones on January 21, 2008 at 8:54 AM
I shouldn’t have agreed with petefrt statement. I was agreeing with the part were Hispanics were “more to Reaganites than any modern (’progressive’) Democrat.” I just wanted to clear that up. Nonfactor is right.
terryannonline on January 21, 2008 at 11:30 AM