Wednesday, March 05, 2008
What A Surprise
The voter demographics that have been in play since the start of this primary, but that the media have pretended didn't exist, remained in place last night, rendering a very predictable result which the media pretended to be surprised at.
On MSNBC, the propaganda wing of a large military contractor, charged with stopping Hillary Clinton at any cost, the euphemism for this elephant in the electoral room has become "white ethnic voters are resisting Obama," and "are available to John McCain," which is a nice way of expressing what we've been saying for a while: that while African American voters will likely support whoever the Democratic nominee is, Hispanic and Luso-American voters -- who have been overwhelming pro-Clinton -- will be just as likely to vote for John McCain as Barack Obama.
And this defines the problem the corporate propagandists in the media have had since Super Tuesday: The inescapable math of Hillary Clinton's wins in the states that decide general elections.
Left, after Super Tuesday, with Clinton's wins in California, New York, and New Jersey, not to mention Arizona -- where she came within 27,000 votes of getting more votes than John McCain in his home state -- the media was left with no option but to try to bully Hillary offstage with an endless stream of negative articles, and reports on how her staying in the race was divisive, and how she couldn't possibly win, etc.
Their fear, of course, was that with victories in Texas and Ohio, Clinton would have completed her sweep of the states that actually decide general elections: California, New York, Texas, Ohio, New Jersey -- and yes, Florida and Michigan, where the votes didn't count, but where the results were unmistakable nonetheless. In Florida, which Poor Readers may recall has on occasion had a roll in deciding elections, Hillary not only got more votes than Barack Obama, she got more votes than John McCain.
Yes, she did. Obama, meanwhile, placed fourth in total votes in Florida, behind Hillary, McCain, and Mitt Romney. And if they have a re-vote in Florida (and Michigan) she'll win again.
Think that matters? You're right.
So now the media's worst fears have been realized: last night Hillary added Texas and Ohio to her column, leaving the corporate propagandists for military contractors with the daunting task of convincing Democratic voters that they should eschew the candidate won won California, Texas, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and Florida, in favor of the candidate who lost them.
No small job.
How will they do it? More of the same. As we've explained before: they'll try to hustle Hillary offstage in the press before the primary in Pennsylvania. The effort started last night -- with an amazing continuity of talking points across the cable news spectrum. (How do they get so coordinated? It was amazing: identical talking points being made by all the talking heads on every cable news channel. Do they blast fax them? Blackberry? Direct satellite feed to brain implants?)
Our morning then started with an email from a Poor Reader with an article that -- surprise! -- hit on every talking point we heard on every cable news channel last night. What a coincidence!
These talking points, which will be ubiquitous at least until the April 22nd primary in Pennsylvania, are:
..well, that would be something. They may yet do it.
In the meantime, amuse yourself by finding these arguments, well, everywhere, in the coming weeks. Our guess is that 90% of what you'll read and hear between now and April 22nd will contain at least three of these talking points.
On MSNBC, the propaganda wing of a large military contractor, charged with stopping Hillary Clinton at any cost, the euphemism for this elephant in the electoral room has become "white ethnic voters are resisting Obama," and "are available to John McCain," which is a nice way of expressing what we've been saying for a while: that while African American voters will likely support whoever the Democratic nominee is, Hispanic and Luso-American voters -- who have been overwhelming pro-Clinton -- will be just as likely to vote for John McCain as Barack Obama.
And this defines the problem the corporate propagandists in the media have had since Super Tuesday: The inescapable math of Hillary Clinton's wins in the states that decide general elections.
Left, after Super Tuesday, with Clinton's wins in California, New York, and New Jersey, not to mention Arizona -- where she came within 27,000 votes of getting more votes than John McCain in his home state -- the media was left with no option but to try to bully Hillary offstage with an endless stream of negative articles, and reports on how her staying in the race was divisive, and how she couldn't possibly win, etc.
Their fear, of course, was that with victories in Texas and Ohio, Clinton would have completed her sweep of the states that actually decide general elections: California, New York, Texas, Ohio, New Jersey -- and yes, Florida and Michigan, where the votes didn't count, but where the results were unmistakable nonetheless. In Florida, which Poor Readers may recall has on occasion had a roll in deciding elections, Hillary not only got more votes than Barack Obama, she got more votes than John McCain.
Yes, she did. Obama, meanwhile, placed fourth in total votes in Florida, behind Hillary, McCain, and Mitt Romney. And if they have a re-vote in Florida (and Michigan) she'll win again.
Think that matters? You're right.
So now the media's worst fears have been realized: last night Hillary added Texas and Ohio to her column, leaving the corporate propagandists for military contractors with the daunting task of convincing Democratic voters that they should eschew the candidate won won California, Texas, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and Florida, in favor of the candidate who lost them.
No small job.
How will they do it? More of the same. As we've explained before: they'll try to hustle Hillary offstage in the press before the primary in Pennsylvania. The effort started last night -- with an amazing continuity of talking points across the cable news spectrum. (How do they get so coordinated? It was amazing: identical talking points being made by all the talking heads on every cable news channel. Do they blast fax them? Blackberry? Direct satellite feed to brain implants?)
Our morning then started with an email from a Poor Reader with an article that -- surprise! -- hit on every talking point we heard on every cable news channel last night. What a coincidence!
These talking points, which will be ubiquitous at least until the April 22nd primary in Pennsylvania, are:
- ¥ Forget the states that Hillary has won; if she stays in the race it will be divisive and a terrible thing for the Democratic Party. Even though she won all the states that matter in the general election, she, and not Obama, should drop out.
¥ÊHillary only won Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island because she "went negative," and "used fear as a weapon against hope."
¥ÊHillary "can't beat John McCain" because "Republicans hate her" even though she received more total votes than both John McCain and Barack Obama in all the crucial swing states.
¥ Even though Hillary Clinton won last night, she really lost because months ago she had a bigger lead in the polls. In fact, every state she wins, she actually loses, because she used to be ahead by more.
¥ Conversely, every state Obama loses, he actually "wins," -- because Clinton used to be ahead by more. Clever, eh?
¥ÊHillary can't possibly garner enough delegates to win, even if she can and even if she does. Trust us.
¥ Forget Texas and Ohio, and most definitely forget Pennsylvania; what really matters now are Wyoming (18 delegates, chosen by caucus) and Mississippi (40 delegates.) Not Pennsylvania (188 delegates).
¥ÊAll electoral evidence to the contrary, Republicans really want to run against Hillary, not Obama.
¥ÊForget that Republicans know that the public has run out of interest in their cottage industry of Hillary-bashing -- about whom every nasty thing has already been said and re-said, a million times -- and that the nomination of Obama will give them not one but two new targets, counting Michelle Obama, to attack with a whole new juicy slew of interesting trash the public hasn't heard yet. No, Republicans really want to run against Hillary, not Obama.
¥ÊForget everything we said about what a travesty it would be if the Superdelegates decided the nominee -- the more the Superdelegates look like Obama's only path to the nomination, the more we're prepared to argue that it's completely proper for that to happen.
¥ÊForget everything we said about "the voters should being allowed to decide the nominee"; the more the Superdelegates look like Obama's only path to the nomination, the more we're prepared to argue that Florida and Michigan should not be allowed to have their votes counted, or to vote again (unless it's in a caucus and not a primary.)
..well, that would be something. They may yet do it.
In the meantime, amuse yourself by finding these arguments, well, everywhere, in the coming weeks. Our guess is that 90% of what you'll read and hear between now and April 22nd will contain at least three of these talking points.
