A link on Yahoo caught my eye this morning. Here’s a grab of the screen.
See the third link down? “Despite recent losses, Obama campaign sticks to plan”. Recent losses? Really? I thought that the loss in Pennsylvania was the first in a while.
- March 4: Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont
- Obama won in Vermont; he got more delegates in Texas
- Clinton won Ohio and Rhode Island
- Delegate count: Clinton 188, Obama 182
- March 9: Wyoming
- Obama won
- March 11: Mississippi
- Obama won
- April 22: Pennsylvania
- Clinton won by 9% of popular vote; got 9 more delegates
Before March 4, there was an unbroken string of primary wins for Obama. Pennsylvania made it one in row for Clinton.
It’s not just the MSM that makes stuff up to generate conflict where there isn’t any.
The link goes to an article cribbed from Politico. The article is rife with spanning assumptions about the race and results.
The first line:
After Sen. Barack Obama’s third major primary loss and endless media coverage dedicated to dissecting the apparent weaknesses of his candidacy, one of the most striking elements of his campaign this week was what’s missing: any hint of internal upheaval.
The assumption present in this sentence is that somehow “major” primaries are what matters. “Major” is meant to modify primary, but in using it there, it also spans to modify loss. This then validates the “endless media coverage”. Let’s look at those major primary losses. I think the author is referring to losses in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. From those “major losses”, the Clinton campaign gathered a total of 13 more delegates. This is from a total of more than 4000 in play.
There is something else at play here: the election calendar. The author seems to assume that this contest is something like a sporting event where the next event that happens is somehow derived from the previous events, e.g., the pitcher has a pitch count limit and is getting tired or the quarterback banged his hand on someone’s helmet on the last play.
The order of the primary elections was well established and while the ability to win primary elections can contribute to the amount of money one can raise, the author’s premise would fall apart with a different election calendar. The polls in the states listed did not move much since Edwards dropped out of the race. Actually, Obama was able to move the contest from +20% for Clinton to +9% for Clinton. The assertion that the author is pushing is that somehow Obama should have been able to push that to a victory. Whaaaa?
The author assumes that the the first clause is true axiomatically and plunges on with a dissectively comparative analysis. Obama does this, Clinton does that. Bush did this, Kerry did that. Then comes the wrap up:
Less than 24 hours after Pennsylvania voters dealt Obama a sound defeat, Gibbs dismissed any suggestion that a fresh wave of critical analysis would take a toll on the campaign.
I object to the use of the word “sound”. As has been previously noted, Obama moved the margin of loss from -20% to -9%. In Pennsylvania, Obama was going against the support of Gov. Rendell, who was supporting Clinton. As noted by Kos, mayors count.
That’s why Philly mayor Nutter and Gov. Rendell (an old-school machine politician) were able to limit Obama’s gains in the Philly metro area to Clinton’s big benefit. In fact, Clinton had at least 100 mayors working for her in the Keystone State.
Also noted by Kos, Obama made great strides in the central portion of the state. There were voters in Pennsylvania who would vote for Clinton no matter what. To attempt to prove by assertion that Obama should have somehow won them over also defies credulity.
I don’t know if the author, Carrie Budoff Brown, has a need to fill column inches, but this is shoddy(*) writing.
*Shoddy in the initial sense of the word, where wool scraps were combined with some fresh wool to make blankets and uniforms for Union soldiers in the Civil War. The resultant fabric would fall apart very quickly.