An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

A Not Good Internet News Media Sign For Hillary Clinton

We’ve written here before on how the news media’s conventional wisdom has now shifted on Senator Hillary Clinton and her chances to get the Democratic nomination — and now there is a sign of a shift in the Internet news media as well: the online magazine Slate has started “The Hillary Deathwatch” page which gauges the odds on her getting the nomination.

Its logo is a sinking ship.

The intro sets the tone:

Hillary Clinton is as good as dead. This became the consensus over the past week, when the media awoke en masse to the dual reality that 1) Clinton can’t close the pledged-delegate gap and 2) Obama has her beat in the popular vote. But the Clinton campaign shows no signs of slowing—she said herself she’s prepared to compete for at least three more months. So the question now is not just “How dead is she?” but “When will she realize it?

And so, the magazine announces, it’ll do this as a daily update — which should a fascinating tidbit for political junkies everywhere (particularly talk show hosts and Hillary supporters).

And her chances today?

To start off, we’re putting her odds at a generous 12 percent. (Last week, a Clinton campaign official gave her one-in-10 odds.) At the moment, polls indicate that Obama has survived the Jeremiah Wright flap (for now). Clinton’s Bosnia blunder has metastasized from a headache into a five-day circus. Bill Richardson finally climbed down from his fence onto Obama’s side. And a Michigan court yesterday deemed the state’s Jan. 15 primary unconstitutional and declined to order a revote, effectively smothering the last glimmer of hope for a deus ex Michigana bailout. Meanwhile, a new poll puts her favorability rating at 37 percent—its lowest since March 2001.

But the magazine (wisely) puts in a journalistic hedge, given the fact that THIS WOMAN clearly has not sung yet.

That said, Clinton does have a shot. A heroic margin of victory in Pennsylvania and every subsequent primary, an implosion of the Obama campaign, a sudden mass epiphany on the part of superdelegates, or some combination of the three could lead to a Clinton nomination. But to be honest, we don’t expect Hillary’s chances to climb much higher than 20 percent. Hence the sinking ship.

In short, the page could be a good reality check for those who get caught up in the crisis of the moment or the seeming Hillary Clinton breakthrough of the moment.

  • GeorgeSorwell
    Slate?

    In 2000, they said "Bush is toast.".

    And how long did that thing for Gonzales go on? Two years?

    This may be a good sign for Clinton.
  • The party is brokered. Obama vs. Richardson.

    Hillary Clinton accepts the VP from McCain.

    McCain dies of old age in the office and Hillary Becomes president.

    What a country!!
  • mw
    I find there is no more certain indicator of impending Clinton Campaign success, than when the msm and Obaama leaning bloggers start saying that the Clinton campaign is dead. It happened before NH, it happened before OH/TX and it is happening again now. The fallacy in the "deathwatach" is that Obama supporters continue to invest a pledged delegate lead with the "will of the people" imprimatur which it certainly is not. Since Obama cannot win enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination the pledged delegate plurality is nothing more than one argument to the superdelegates of why Obama should be the nominiee. A good argument, but just an argument and nothing more.

    The counter argument? - The importance of the pledged delegate plurality has been undermined by Oama winning more delegates than Clinton in states that she won the Primary (like TX) . It just proves what a travesty the caucus process is and how undemocratic the pledged delegates are. The will of the people was thwarted by Obama and his supporters in Tx, and by blocking revotes in MI and FL the Obamba campaign has further undercut the value or meaning of a Superdelegate plurarity. In fact, blocking the revote makes it legitimate for Clinton to count the MI and FL popular vote in her totals for the counter argument to the Superdelegates.

    Despite wishful thinking by Obama leaning Pundits and bloggers, nothing has changed since OH/TX and nothing will change until after PA, IN, and Puerto Rico (assuming Obama fails to win any of those big states like he has failed to win any previous big states except IL). Then the superdelegate argument will take place. Whether this happens at the convention or a pre-convention superdelegate primary is irrelevant. The winning argument will carry the day. May the best woman win.

    It is the same dynamic and nothing meaningful has changed since I wrote this post Is the Clinton Campaign Undead?"
  • Mike_P
    Is it just me - I'm constantly reminded of this whenever I see Hillary:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc2iBcgE6Bw
  • Mike_P

    Not funny.
  • Marlowecan
    GeorgeSorwell... thank you for that suggestion. It was fantastic.

    I immediately Googled Slate+Bush is toast, and got a hilarious read. It should be required reading for everyone during elections.

    Yah, Slate has a liberal bias. Somewhat to the left of the NYT. But it is the definitive tone that is striking. I recall similarly how definitive the media was in 1992 about George Bush Sr. being unbeatable after Desert Storm.

    Wonderful read. Here is Saletan in Sept. 2000:

    "Yes, in principle, Bush could win. The stock market could crash. Gore could be caught shagging an intern. Bush could electrify the country with the greatest performance in the history of presidential debates. But barring such a grossly unlikely event, there is no reason to think Bush will recover. ....it's practically impossible to turn those numbers around."

    Bhahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....
  • Marlowecan
    Saletan's final conclusion on Bush in 2000: "Stick a fork in him. He's done."

    God. What a great piece. I will have this article in mind all year, as I read how "Obama is going down" or "McCain is finished" or "It's all over for Hillary".

    You have made my day, GeorgeSorwell! Thanks.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    It's all about you, Komrad Marlowecan ;)
  • pacatrue
    DWSUWF, we disagree in many places, but I think the primary point is your willingness to use weaknesses in the primary and caucus systems to argue that they are almost meaningless as a representation of the Democratic party members' desires. Just to give an example, I'm out in Hawaii where the state party uses a caucus system. Partly because this is the first time in a long while in which the nomination was still a genuine question by the time Hawaii voted and partly because of Obama's Hawaii connection, the participation in the Hawaii caucuses almost quintupled compared to 2004. Some 35,000 Democrats (only Dems are allowed to vote in Hawaii) showed up one night to vote for a nominee, and the result was about 78% Obama, 20% Clinton. We also have a few superdelegates based here, with one being Sen. Inouye who has already stated he will vote for Clinton and does not think he need be bound by either the national or state Democratic votes.

    Now certainly more people would have voted had there been a primary rather than a caucus. One can say that in a certain respect that the caucus is undemocratic, but it's certainly more representative of the general opinion of Democrats in Hawaii than one Senator's opinion. Now, Sen. Inouye can think that his job is not to represent Democrats' choice, but to represent his own. That's an entirely different issue. But the arguments for this cannot be based upon the idea that one person's opinion is just as democratic as 36,000 persons' opinion. Clearly an imperfect caucus is more accurate of general sentiment in the state that one man's opinion. The argument for superdelegates going their own way must be based upon the idea that superdelegates should overrule their party member's decision when they think it is best.

    We do agree on one point. Clinton has been about 100-150 delegates behind since OH-TX and it doesn't look like that's going to change throughout the rest of the nomination process. She will gain some in Pennsylvania and Obama will make it back up in NC. And we'll be right back where we were before TX and OH, with Obama leading in the pledged delegate race but with many millions of Democratic dollars having been spent to beat up other Democrats rather than the Republican nominee.
  • StockBoySF
    Knock off the Slate -bashing. They have a better track record than David Broder at the WaPo.

    :)

    Speaking of which, I'm betting on an Obama/Clinton ticket simply because a couple weeks ago Broder said in one of his columns that the two would never be on the same ticket. :)
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC