To GOP, Obama Has Won

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Democrats, Hillary, McCain, Republicans

They get it, so why not the Dems and the media?

From Politico:

Hillary Clinton’s decisive Pennsylvania primary win last week may have reinvigorated her campaign, but you wouldn’t know it from listening to the Republican party.

The National Republican Congressional Committee has purchased $500,000 in anti-Barack Obama ads for use in two upcoming special House elections. The Republican National Committee is flooding reporters with anti-Obama emails. Presumptive nominee John McCain and GOP surrogates have seized on new remarks by Obama’s controversial former pastor.

From top to bottom, from McCain down to the youthful campaign and party staffers who work nearly around the clock to get him elected, the working assumption seems to be that the Democratic contest is over and Obama has won.

It was over after she lost in 11 straight contests by large margins and didn’t pull off big wins in Texas and Ohio. But the media loves the “underdog” narrative, and so she’s “feisty” and “scrappy” and any other inane adjective they can think of.

FYI Dems…


This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 30th, 2008 and is filed under Barack, Democrats, Hillary, McCain, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “To GOP, Obama Has Won”

  1. mw Says:

    To Justin. No he has not.

    If he wins in Indiana, I’ll agree, its over. The supes will move en masse to close it out.

    But if he fails to close the deal again in Indiana, and Clinton makes it close in NC, then, not only has Obama not won, but you have to say that Clinton is winning. Not in pledged delegates, but in every other important metric. She will win the popular, she will win all the big states (except Ill), she will and she finish will have all the momentum at the end. You can then add another adjective besides “fighter” – add “winner” and “nominee”.

    On the other hand (and I don’t think it will happen), if Obama manges to loses NC, he needs to cut a deal for the VP and get out while he still has some shred of credibility left with the Supes.

    But keep promoting that “inevitability” meme, Justin. It will work as well for Obama as it did for Clinton.

  2. Dos Says:

    I couldn’t agree more w/MW. The smart Dems know that particularly if Hillary wins Indiana and comes close in NC — they will inevitably lose the general with an Obama ticket. The problem now is…the Dems do not have the brass set to take it away from Obama and give it someone with a chance against McCain.

    And I don’t blame them, there will be a monsterous schism in the Dem party between blue-collars and the yuppie bourgeois coffee-house sissies…they’ll be setting their Volvo’s and hybrids on fire in the street — the software industry will come to a grinding halt — organic healthfood stores will be looted — they’ll throw huge chunks of gourmet bree at blue collar workers on their way to work — they’ll will have sit ins and I guarantee: Larry Lessig will release a 10 volume flury of indignant high-minded vidoes.

    It is going to be hell: Imagine the Google building in some post-apocalyptic Mad Max scene with a dissident programmer yelling out the window…”Yes, we can! You want your IP, come and get your fuck’in IP Hillary!”

    MW – you want to make a movie…

  3. Erik Sickinger Says:

    Obama may or may not close in Indiana. But consider this: the Dems care more about winning more seats in the house/senate than they do about who is president. An unpopular president will benefit them nothing but four years of “its all your fault” from the dittoheads.
    Its not just the presidential campaign, its the entire ticket down to the local level. And Obama has/can/will energize voters on a local level in a way that Hillary hasn’t proven herself capable.

    Also: Hillary will NOT win the popular vote. Sure, if you include florida (which doesn’t count) and Michigan (where Obama wasn’t even on the ballot) than she may… But thats like, oh I dont know, but it certainly is not a convincing argument.
    The “big states” argument is rediculous. And has NO merit. Can you really see any dem of worth losing CA, NY, NJ to any GOP candidate? Answering that question honestly is pretty important.

    And if those two arguments are your metric, good luck.

    Clinton’s “inevitibility” argument was based on that she appeared to be the only strong DEM candidate. She didn’t EARN that title, she assumed it by having high name recognition, relatively popular with the left, and being around the block.

    Has Obama lost momentum? Certainly. But to project that onto the GE wouldn’t be exactly prescient thinking.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: