The Candidates
Featured Archives
And thus, McGovern becomes the first strong ally of the Clintons to ask her to concede. I suspect there are more in the works. Obama’s campaign is probably lining up a mass of 20 or more superdelegates in order to really solidify the “It’s Over” narrative.
Honestly, I’m pretty bummed right now. For all intents and purposes, it is over for Hillary. It’s a shame because she had just come into her own and I was looking forward to seeing her blow him out in Kentucky and West Virginia. Given reports that Hillary donated $6.4 million to her campaign, she clearly has no money left to run the campaign. She may try to just coast along until WV and KY, win them big and then drop out.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:47 am
This is highly disappointing… the longer the Dem primary went on, the better it was for us.
I can’t help but wonder about all the “Stop Hillary” movements at the beginning of this race that Republicans were so gung ho about — did they irreparably damage her, making a comeback impossible for her?
She gave it a shot and prolonged the thing as long as she could, I guess. And for that, we are thankful.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Things are always unpredictable, but if Barack Obama loses this year, his career is basically over, especially if it’s a big loss. Many Democrats will blame Hillary for staying in too long, so even if she runs in 2012 she may have trouble getting traction, plus, to be blunt, women age a lot faster than men and I think she’d have a very rough time in 2012. The Democrats will probably try to run Gore again, but he had his own problems as a candidate in 2000 that they seem to forget about. For all the talk about the Republicans not having much of a bench, when you take off Clinton, Obama, and Gore, the Democrats have a very weak bench also. Who do they go with? Biden? Dodd? I know this is very premature, but things will be very rough for the Democrats if they do indeed lose this November.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Drudge: CONGRESSIONAL SOURCE: Hillary having trouble finding superdelegates who will meet with her… ‘No one wants to see her today’… Developing…
May 7th, 2008 at 11:24 am
If Obama loses in November (I’d say there’s about a 40% chance of that happening at this moment), the Democrats will nominate Mark Warner in 2012. He’s the surest way that the Dems get to the magically 270 out of every other possible contender.
He would have run this year, but he figured Hillary was inevitable and didn’t want to cross them. It’s fascinating because if Warner had run this year, Barack Obama never would have gotten into the race.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I always wondered if Warner had cut corners as a businessman and didn’t run because he thought he’d be unelectable for that reason.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Yep, if Obama loses, 2012 will be the year for a centrist Dem in the mold of Bill Clinton to take the helm. Dark horse pick: Ed Rendell.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Rendell is a possibility. I do think the Democrats will go centrist like they did with Clinton. 12 years of being out of the White House will be enough for them. However, if they go centrist, I predict they will compromise on fiscal issues, not social. They will have a nominee who is solidly liberal on abortion and gay issues but fairly pro-business, not into class warfare, possibly pro-gun. It will be someone in the mold of Warner but probably not Warner himself.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Mark Warner.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Based on her press conference today it looks like Hillary is staying in. Phew!
I think in IN, though, we saw the impact that having the governor and his machine can have on you. In OH and PA, she had both Strickland and Rendell, and much of the stablishment behind her.
In IN, there really is no democratic establishment and the real power is in the hands of the city mayors that Obama had. Sen Bayh, although popular and a former governor, just doesn’t have the control and the pull that a Rendell or a Strickland has in PA or OH.
Also, the demographics, particularly in terms of white democrats, seniors, women, catholics, jews and other groups key to Hillary were all significantly lower in IN than they were in PA.
Add in the fact that IN shares its longest border with IL, that a large segment of its population lives within range of the Chicago media market, and that its midwestern sensibility is different from the rustbelt/northeastern sensibility of a PA or an OH, and you have a 2 pt win instead of a 9 or 10 pt win.
That said, she’ll win WV and and be able to claim that she’s won 3 of the last 4 contests. She’ll win KY big. And because OR is on the west coast and won’t be official until after 11, the networks will all focus on her big win and speech in KY the whole night of the 20th.
She just has to tough it out for a few days until the media starts to accept that she’s still in and starts to focus on WV.
Obama’s win in NC and the closeness of IN ensured that Obama will be the nominee, as beating him in NC was really the last chance she had. But she can still do a lot of damage to him and further weaken him for the fall.
I loved her little digs at Kerry in her presser today.
I’m sure the McGovern endorsement will do wonders for Barack.
Also, her strength among white women and the reaction from many of the white women who are Clinton supporters only reinforced the argument for a woman VP for McCain.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
The Democrats have 3 pro-life Governors, 4 pro-life Senators and 31 pro-life Congressmen.
That’s a small bench if they ever did try to move to the center on social issues.
The only one that would be a likely nominee absent his social stance is Bill Ritter.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Doug, are the four Casey, Pryor, Reid, and Ben Nelson?
May 7th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Do I ask the unspoken question?
What if McCain loses in November, who does the GOP put up in 2012?
May 7th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
12, It seems the GOP has a tradition of nominating people who ran in previous primaries and did well, that would make Romney and Huckabee front runners.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Mitt Romney
May 7th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
“It seems the GOP has a tradition of nominating people who ran in previous primaries and did well, that would make Romney and Huckabee front runners.”
To ever win again (assuming McCain loses), traditions like that should go out the window. Heck, in my fantasy world, FDT would run again, but for the good of the party image and traction, they should go with someone fresh.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Maybe so, but it just seems to be what would Republicans do. Reagan, Bush, Dole, McCain ( He ran for VP at least I guess) all ran in a previous primary. That doesn’t mean its a sure thing, but having run in a previous primaries does seem to be an advantage.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Do we have to bring up Huckabee’s name again so close to supper time?