Around in circles?

Posted: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:32 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC's Ron Allen
Sen. Clinton just answered questions from reporters outside a polling place in the Philadelphia suburbs. Heading down the stretch in Pennsylvania, it seems Clinton has based her closing argument on a couple of somewhat circular or roundabout arguments, a case that might cancel itself out.

First, with Barack Obama outspending her by as much as three to one, Clinton insists that if he doesn't win Pennsylvania, it shows voters have big doubts. Essentially, she's trying to turn losing into winning and turn winning around into losing. Never mind the fact that Obama can outspend her because he's raised so much more money, from many more supporters, supporters who are responsible for giving him the lead by every viable measure of the race.

What's more, Clinton's case that she's more "electable" than Obama is based, in part, on her ability to win "big states," like Ohio, New York and hopefully, for her sake, Pennsylvania. Those wins, the campaign insists, show she has the support of Democratic voters needed to win in November, while Obama does not. Essentially, she's saying she's more electable, because she can count on the support of the traditional Democratic base while Obama hasn't proven that.

Keep in mind that many in the political pundit class think it’s a stretch to draw conclusions about the fall general election race based on the party primary season. And what's more, when Senator Clinton is asked about the increasingly negative tone of the campaign that concerns some in the party, and polls showing perhaps significant numbers of each Democratic candidate's supporters saying they won't support the other, or will turn to John McCain, Clinton pushes back saying she's sure the party will be unified by November, and rally around the eventual nominee.

If that's true, and it probably is, then what difference does it make who wins the big states during the primary season? Clinton seems to believe the nominee will have the full backing of the party. So, it appears those two Clinton arguments, central to her campaign, do go around in circles, and perhaps end up weakening her case?

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Thank you Ron Allen for this report. And thank you Domenico for posting this (not your usual style).

Steve, San Diego (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:39 PM)

Finally, someone pointed out the obvious!

Joe - STL (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:39 PM)

SUPERS NEED TO COME OUT AND MAKE THEIR DECISIONS KNOWN NOW!!

SUPER D's WE NEED TO KNOW. (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:41 PM)

In November, the very "blue" states will go to the Democratic nominee, the very "red" states will go to Senator McCain.

The swing/purple states are what matters and Barack has won more of those.

Vote with your head, vote for the economy, vote for jobs.

Vote Democratic 2008 -- don't let the corporations and their Republican stooges win again.

Carol, Long Valley NJ (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:42 PM)

Hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the revolving Clinton argument:

Seat Fl and MI delegates because to do otherwise would effectively deprive their constituents their vote, but then simultaneously calling that supers disregard the vote of the people and pick her as the nominee.

Her candidacy has no viability because she would need every rule bent her way, every toss up her way, her campaigning frame would have to rule. When ultimately, none of it makes sense.

Tired of Being Tired (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:43 PM)

THIS IS SO SAD AND PATHETIC. IT IS SO HARD TO WATCH A DYNASTIC FAMILY FALL FROM GRACE. PA, PLEASE SEND THEM HOME. THE CLINTONS OF YESTER-YEAR ARE ALL BUT GONE forever!

MR (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:43 PM)

that is the only thing I disagree with Hillary on
Hillary supporters will NOT vote Obama anyways when the Republicans get a hold of him the race will be over

sharon,fl (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:43 PM)

Wow I am sooooo glad I don't have the warped way of thinking these polititians have! If you've blown all your money and are running in the red how can you call the other guy the "going for broke" guy. And if you win more votes, delegates and states, you're more electable. There that wasn't so hard.

Mark (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:44 PM)

First Read: meet the head of the nail....her case is hollow

sean, atlanta, ga (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:44 PM)

Ron, you're among a handful of reporters who actually analyze the Clinton spin. Good for you! Hillary's arguments have been circular for some time now. The spin is so heavy, we need Dramamine!

Cindy Lou, TX (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:44 PM)

I just saw David Shuster flat out lie to your viewers, telling Janet Napolitano that Barack Obama hadn't answered direct questions about the appropriateness of Jimmy Carter's meeting with Hamas. Three stories down from this one is an entry which explicitly delineates answers Obama gave TODAY regarding that visit. Maybe your anchors should read their own website to stay up to date? Or maybe Shuster should refrain from being so eager to prove his "journalistic independence" after being suspended recently over those Chelsea Clinton comments. Either way, it's pretty ridiculous--and rather outrageous that I haven't heard a correction yet.

Mark S, NC (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:44 PM)

GO HILLARY !!!! msnbc - stop twisting words and trying to spin every word of both candidates. Just STOP. Let the voters in all states decide who the best candidate will be for President of the USA - you - the media is turning this into a circus.

Molly (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:45 PM)

Clinton said today she need to win and she will do everything she has to to win. This is just another spin on her inability to win states, win states by low margins and her further inabiity to financially sustain her campaign. I see the superdelegates really peeling away if she doesn't have a very decisive win tonight. With democratic registration up to record levels and such enthusiams for Obama in some traditionally red states, isn't it more possible than not that many more states will be in play with Obama as the nominee?

katie, boston, ma (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:45 PM)

Excellent article Mr. Allen.

Someone should ask Senator Clinton if she's aware of the fact that Senator Obama is leading in the polls nationally against her.

Also, is she aware of her high negatives nationally and of Barack's low negatives nationally?

Isn't that the fundamental argument here?

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:45 PM)

I loooove this analysis !
Thank you ~

Steve B. NewYork (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:46 PM)

When you say whatever it takes to win, it doesn't really matter that what you're saying has to be logical.

After all, one can claim to have the necessary foreign policy experience to be commander-in-chief based on an alleged landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, only to misremember about such experience in the first place, but can then turn around and blame that misremembering on late-night fatigue at 11 pm, and further turn around and use that late-fatigue as example of readiness to answer the red phone at a much-later-3 am. What's wrong with that?!

Also, why is it so difficult for the media to understand that one can support and vote for NAFTA, advocate for it, have husband and advisers working to effect it, only to secretly wish that it would fail and secretly oppose it comes election time when being confronted with its adverse on the working Americans?

tee (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:46 PM)

MSNBC,

Ron Allen is good. As a reporter he's thinking more analytically than Senator Clinton. Now come one Hillary supporters. She's a lawyer, and has been taught to think like one. Her arguments are clearly nothing but mindless rhetoric.

Obama '08

pgh., pa. (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:47 PM)

Wow. I never thought I'd see such cogent analysis on the part of an MSM blog. I'm sure no one else in the MSM will pick up on this, unfortunately. This is the same method HRC has pulled since 2/5, and nobody has called her on it yet.

Angry Vet, Minn. (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:47 PM)

Ron, only to those of us who think clearly. :)

PS, LA, CA (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:47 PM)

Finally!!! Thank you for putting some perspective on the Clinton Spin.

Here is a repost from any earlier blogger that helps to reaffirm these comments:

HRC and the MSM have this narrative all wrong. HRC wants to show that her winning PA proves she is the stronger candidate and recently is asking "why can't he close this out if he has all this money?" These are the wrong questions. She has been in public life for (repeat after me) 35 years. She and her husband have built a national political machine going back twenty years with organization, supporters and financing. The Clinton Brand has been the Democratic Party brand given that he is the last Democratic President. All of this is worth hundreds of millions of dollars that she has been spending in every state.

Barack Obama? Let's use HRC's and MSM's narrative: an unknown person, brand new on the national stage, no experience, no organization, no BRAND, no DEM support, no money. But....in 15 months this unknown person has made it impossible for the BRAND CLINTON to close this out. So ask, who is the stronger candidate? One who, with 35 years of experience and 20 years of running a national juggernaut or an organization but is in second place?? Or some unknown, brand less guy who in 15 months built the single most impressive organization, grass roots network and financial machine American politics has ever seen and has ridden that right into first place?????

To all of you Clinton supporters: do you have any answers as to why this coronation candidate with everything behind her has managed to lose to a somewhat unknown upstart??? If Clinton had ALL old Democratic support; ALL of the money; her husband's name and record to tout; ALL of the advantages but is still losing, doesn't this say something about HRC herself??? I would like a rational explanation by just one HRC supporter as to how this could have happend.

Woman who would NEVER vote for HRC (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:47 PM)

You Go Girl!!! We as Americans are learning about Mr.Obama and it is not going over well. The honeymoon is over. Hillary will win the White House and start solving the problems that we face today. She is tough and strong and will be an excellent commander in chief. Obama has ran a good campaign but the whole bumper sticker stuff is wearing thin. Hillary will win tonight by a huge margin. Good Luck Hillary!!!!

Kevin,Fl (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:48 PM)

It's a valid point, Ron. But just watch for the blowback. Clinton supporters won't like what you have to say, and the fact you're calling her out on it IS biased reporting.

Nevermind the fact that I feel like you're right. Clinton isn't making herself look too good, is she?

P, CA (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:48 PM)

Why does the argument cancel itself out? It's the truth. If he spends 3-to-1 and 5-to-1 and can pull off PA, he CANNOT win PA and the general.

donna darko (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:49 PM)

Ron, NBC. MSNBC,

If this is the case, why don't you snf the rest of the media pose this contradiction to her and her spin team? This is why she doesn't have to spend or even need money...she and her team throw anything your way and you guys run it for days in all of the media channels and try to make sense ot it...and in the end confuse many of the viewers.

What am I missing here...??

Mike STL (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:49 PM)

*Rubs eyes*

What? Someone in the media notices the complete and utter HILLARY-OUSNESS of the Clinton campaign spin - "I am broke" turns into "He's outspending me" . . . "He's so weak" turns into "Why so negative?" and on and on and on.

Thanks for noticing - finally!

Nashville_fan (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:49 PM)

Here's the full argument. If he puts more money into the PA primary than anyone in history and still cannot win, he cannot win the general:

But after the Obama campaign's "go-for-broke" Pennsylvania strategy, after their avalanche of negative ads, negative mailers and negative attacks against Sen. Clinton, after their record-breaking spending in the state, a fundamental question must be asked: Why shouldn't Sen. Obama win?

Sen. Obama's supporters - and many pundits - have argued that the delegate "math" makes him the prohibitive frontrunner. They have argued that Sen. Clinton's chances are slim to none. So if he's already the frontrunner, if he's had six weeks of unlimited resources to get his message out, shouldn't he be the one expected to win tonight? If not, why not?

donna darko (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:50 PM)

She a dill pickle for brains...Obama had to spend alot of money to make her spin her money right into bankrupt court... I was all part of Obama master plan... She cant keep up with his spending patterns and now shes in debt...NIIIIIIIICE ONE OBAMA..
Keep running circles around her.....

OBAMA 08 PA Voters of America

James, No More Money for HillBilly (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:50 PM)

Hillary's electability arguments are all fraudulent. The widespread belief among Democrats is that she would be a drag on the ticket nearly as bad as Jimmy Carter in 1980. That's why elected Dem-NPLers in North Dakota first supported Edwards and then switched en masse to Obama. We'd like to win, thank you. Hillary polls 20 points behind McCain here, and Obama polls in the lead, or in a statistical dead-heat. That is replicated in Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado, Montana and all of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain West. Probably most of the South and Northwest, too.

She'll win today in PA, maybe by 20 points, but it won't matter. The nomination is Obama's. The superdelegates come from all the states and all politics being local, they will support the candidate who runs best in their areas. Almost everywhere .. that's Obama. And the second reason they'll back him is politicians know instinctively who they can take for granted ... in this case, it's the votes of Democratic women. Those youngsters Obama has inspired are a different story. We don't need to give them a reason to stay home in November.

DemNPL, North Dakota (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:51 PM)

This is one of the more intelligent posts today. Keep this up MSNBC. This is the kind of analysis we're seeking!

Jeff Katzman, New York, NY (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:51 PM)

Let's cut to the real political numbers. Senator Clinton needs to win 64% of the votes in all the remaining primaries to win the nomination. Failing to get 64% of the vote in the "PA Primary" means she increases the number she needs to obtain a winning margin.
It's like watching Willie Mays play that last year with the Mets. Bad baseball and bad for Willie.

DrK (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:51 PM)

Welcome to the Clinton spin zone . . .

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

The Clintons have proven over and over again that they will say ANYTHING . . . they are liars

Independent in TN (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:52 PM)

You won't get a straight statement out of the Clintons and their campaign over the course of a week.

A new metric, a new 'logic' everyday to deny the simple truth : She thought she was unbeatable. She mismanaged her campaign. Her campaign is in debt. She lost the nomination.

Obama won 29 States, Clinton 14 (not including Clinton's victory in the State of Denial)

Frank, Missouri (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:52 PM)

...and, thus, we see the precarious position Senator Clinton is in having to play catch-up.

She's got to argue that he can't win to better her chances but she's also got to keep folks from voting for McPottymouth for sake of the party.

Kinda sucks, doesn't it?

Pete - Albany, NY (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:52 PM)

Regardless of if Hillary wins big or small in Pennsylvania, she still cannot win to become the next Democratic Candidate in the General Election, so why are all these Hillary fans voting for her when realistically and statistically speaking her chances of winning are less than 10% ? The media makes us think she can pull this off, but they are just playing the ratings game. Its not close, it hasnt been close in some time, and frankly after Pennsylvania tonight they will say Indiana and NC are do or die wins for Hillary. The goal post just keeps moving both by the media and by the Hillary Campaign, as Hillary like Huckabee waits for her miracle. Tonight we will see how many Pennsylvanian's vote for a statistical loser. I mean come on, enough already.. Her do or die moment was in Feb, she died, her ghost is the only thing that haunts us right now. Boo !!

Roger Kissimmee (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:53 PM)

Oh Please PA voter put that woman out of her misary!

Anne/Ohio (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:53 PM)

hopefully hillary will be in jail soon for rigging the PA primary today and we can all concentrate on getting obama elected president

MK,MO (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:53 PM)

A politician talking in circles? No way!

Ben, Chicago IL (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:54 PM)

I just got done contributing to Obama's campaign. Want to make sure he has enough funds to finish the job. Trying to follow Hillary's logic is making me dizzy, so I wanted to complete the contribution while I could still type.

All you Hillary supporters, make sure you also contribute. Mark Penn and Ickeys have to get paid yet.

So what is the consensus from Bill's radio experiment of yesterday? Did the memos he read make him issue the stupid statements in SC? Or did Bill not say what Bill said? See Hillary and Bill are the same. They can both talk out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.

MBM Chicago, IL (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:54 PM)

"(W)hat difference does it make who wins the big states during the primary season? Clinton seems to believe the nominee will have the full backing of the party.

Did the media JUST figure this out? Man, I fear for this country.

Jim, Austin, Texas (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:54 PM)

Great post! I agree with the circular argument. I am a political junkie, but I can't wait until this is all over.

Sal Kilmister, San Diego, CA (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:55 PM)

The Obama campaign website is reporting that 29 state legislators from North Carolina have endorsed Obama today. Any news about this and of those 29, are any superdelegates. I know it's PA's day but how 'bout a little info? Thanks!

news (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:55 PM)

Obama needs to go home ans eat his waffle in peace.

Clinton 08

John McCain, The White House (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:55 PM)

If Hillary Clinton is so much more electable, then why is she behind? In summary, she has fewer votes, money and delegates.

She may get a slight advantage over Obama in Pennsylvania, but she'll remain in second place until the bitter end.

Is she just stubborn or foolish?

sg, michigan (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:56 PM)

I-I-I, I'm hooked on a feelin'
High on believin' that you're in love with me

Old song about wishful thinking.

All they way to June 3 and Montana if thats what she needs.

Obama '08

Gary Schear, Bozeman Montana (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:57 PM)

Hillary is electable. Obama is not. Not in November. First the Republicans will stir up a little dust, then a little dirt and then MUD. Obama will fold like a lawn chair.

Delores Rose-Kennedy in TN (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:58 PM)

I voted this morning in a Pittsburgh suburb. A few observations
- The polling place I voted was busy but not crowded. No lines
- Did not see any young folks. Most were middle aged women.
- Not enough Hillary supporters on the ballot for the PA Dem convention. People can choose 5 names but there are only 4 Hillary supporters. In contrary, there are 7 Obama supporters on the ballot.

don, PA (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:58 PM)

I've been arguing this since February.

First, Obama (or any other Democrat not named Lieberman) isn't going to lose New York or California anymore in the Fall anymore than Clinton will win Texas.

Second, a large chunk of Obama's supporters are not Democratic party members. They're supporting the Man and his Message the same way NBA fans would support Michael Jordan and his game. Just because they bought Bulls' tickets and watched Bulls' games, that didn't make them Bulls' fans. Clinton's supporters are diehard, card carrying, Democratic members.

If you had to bet which one would stick to their word and not turn out in the Fall or support John McCain, I guarantee it will be Obama's supporters since most of us weren't loyal Democrats to begin with.

Mister Anderson (The Matrix) (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:58 PM)

Wow, what a great point!! If the Dems are going to unite in the fall then Barack will win all of those big states if he is the nominee.

Carter, Jacksonville, FL (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:58 PM)

Chuck- you are one of the smartest in the business. Can you point out more in the future that one will not get an unbiased answer from Rove and other Republicans on "who will be easier to beat in the fall". Of course they wont tell what they really think. It is after all in their best interest to say Barack is the easier one to beat - because if enough Republican talking heads repeat that they hope that either superdelegates get cold feet and vote for Hillary, or in the least Obama is bruised by a lengthy nomination process. So I think it is not very useful to ask Republicans for their opinion unless someone points out why the answer may not reflect what they REALLY think deep inside. They will tell you what they want you to beleive. Of course Hillary is the easier nominee for them in the fall.

Second, thanks for posting this. Come on. This myth that winning a states primary has anything to do with who will be the better candidate against in the fall is just that. It is not even statisically valid. The result of a race between A versus B, tell nothing about how A+B will do against C. That depends on how many A+B is out there compared to C, as well as how many A's drop out versus B's.

Jim, Minneapolis, MN (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:59 PM)

Thank you Ron... why is it so hard for people to understand this?

I can only chalk it up to good ratings for newspapers, and TV to give her more credit then she deserves. If she stays in then ratings stay up because of all the interest.

I think if Obama were in the reverse situation the "noise" from the Party and media would be unbearable for him to get out.

In short, it is a "Clinton" thing. They have been a spectacle and continue to be a spectacle. Problem is, we have huge issues to address in this country and the last thing we need is "spectacle".

It really is time for everyone to call her bluff and ask her to leave.

http://laststopmidwest.blogspot.com

James, Wichita, KS (Sent Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:00 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=932967