I think Hillary may be hitting the sauce
June 1, 2008 6 Comments
Hillary’s been out of this thing for a while now, but they continue forth as if it is neck and neck and she’s got a shot at this thing. However, the complete disconnect may be explained by this photo published recently by the New York Times.
Ah, sweet bourbon.
It also explains recent statements by Harold Ickes at the DNC’s rules committee meeting this past weekend. During his rant on why all the votes from an unfair election – an election that broke the rules he helped write – should count now that his candidate’s campaign has stalled, Ickes said he didn’t believe the committee had the “gall and chutzpah to substitute our judgment for 600,000 voters.”
Of course, for his candidate to win, he has to convince the superdelegates to do exactly that: use their judgement to subvert the will of party voters around the country and choose his candidate as the standard bearer for the establishment.
It would be great to be Ickes’ kids. Imagine, being able to break rules and change your story at will with no repercussions.
But Ickes also did a little foreshadowing on the next step in the Clinton’s campaign, saying – as supporters chanted “Denver! Denver!” like rowdy pledges at a frat party – the candidate reserved her right to take this to the credentials committee.
I am not sure what the credentials committee is or what they do, but this is their move: keep their flailing campaign alive by taking it from committee to committee, arguing every little point and continuing to kneecap the party candidate while raising the specter of assassination all for her own personal glory.
She must be drunk.
It’s also the only way they can look at this graph of polling data and think they’ve run a successful campaign. Running a successful, winning campaign means continually drawing people into your cause and gaining in popularity. Candidates that don’t do that generally drop out.
It just happens that due to tremendous name recognition and brand approval, one of those campaigns has a base that is just under half the party. But that’s to be expected when one has been on the national stage for 16+ years.
A base of 35 to 40 percent? Incredible. What an advantageous position from which to start. Should be easy to secure a majority of the party when your base starting point is that high. You’d have to run an idiot’s campaign not to win. I mean, you’d have to throw away money and ignore half the party rules. Hell, you’d probably have to lie and doublespeak and play dirty tricks and get caught doing it to lose that.
And surely, that wouldn’t hap – oh, my bad.
It is time to recognize how remarkably ineffective the Hillary campaign is. The people that support her now are the same people that supported her when she started. There are no Hillary converts.
She is right now at 43 percent. Which is exactly where she was in early October 2007 and within 10 points of where she was when she launched her campaign. She has a huge base, but she has never been able to grow beyond it.
Just a quick glance at the graph shows you that only one campaign has been been able to gather people to it, to grow, to gain momentum.
Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure. People either like her or they don’t and the tricky thing is that though it looks like a big approval rating and popularity, it is important to recognize that just as strong is the support is the opposition and, well, there isn’t anyone left who hasn’t made up their mind one way or the other about hillary and she can’t even get beyond her base within her party.
And nationally, not just among Democrats, her numbers have gone down.
How could she possibly continue on thinking she is the best candidate in a general campaign when she couldn’t even take advantage of a huge head start within her own party?