Time to give up?

Obama won a big victory in Iowa.  He is a strong favorite to follow up with wins New Hampshire and South Carolina.  The conventional wisdom on this site and in much of the media is that Hillary is finished.  A couple of strong Hillary supporters here have already switched sides.  Will I be giving up?  Read more below the fold.

No way.  I'm with Hillary until this race is over.  And anyway, only 1/2 of one percent of the Democratic electorate has voted.  After New Hampshire, it will still be about one percent.  Who the heck folds in the first inning of a baseball game?

Here are my predictions, and I challenge anybody to refute them:

As of February 4 (the day before Super Tuesday, when about half the country votes)...

(1) Hillary Clinton will have won the most total votes in the Democratic primaries and caucuses to date.

(2) Hillary Clinton will be leading the delegate count in the Democratic race.

(3) Hillary Clinton will have the polling lead in a number of major states, including three to four of the following four states that make up nearly half the electorate of that day: New  York, New Jersey, Arkansas, and California.

(4) Hillary Clinton will be running an aggressive multi-state campaign with major television advertising pointing out the differences between her and her leading opponent.

(5) Independents will be less influential than they have been in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Does Obama have strong momentum now?  Of course.  Is he the favorite.  Definitely.  But is there any reason to give up on Hillary?  No way.  The Clintons have always done there best when in a crunch, and I fully expect them to come through again.

•  Tip Jar

  Tips for playing the whole nine innings...

  by markw on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:29:27 AM PDT

  •  I defy all 5 points

    I understand your grief, though.

    I supported Dean in 2004.

    - Albert Einstein

    by Walt starr on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:35:38 AM PDT

    •  Bring it on

      Please demonstrate how one of those five points can possibly be refuted.

      by markw on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:37:48 AM PDT

      •  Okay

        1. She will lose NH, NV, and SC. MI and FL do not matter as they lost their delegate seats.

        2)As she loses more primaries, she will lose existing superdelegates and uncommitted superdelegates will break for Obama.

        3. She's already tanking in the national polls and is within the margin of error now, before losing in NH, NV, and SC.

        4. This will look like desperation. Most primary voters didn't start watching until the Iowa results and they see 1 winner and the rest losers.

        5. Not in California. Proving cross demographic appeal will also break for Democrat only primaries as you want a candidate in the GE who has appeal across party lines.

        Hillary Clinton fought for a compressed primary schedule. She got it. She is now losing because of it.

        - Albert Einstein

        by Walt starr on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:43:18 AM PDT

        •  that's the best you have?

          1. I said she will have won the most total votes.  True or false?

          2. OK, let's come back on Feb. 4 and check who has the most delegates.

          3. Which of those four states do you think she'll be losing in?  I guarantee she'll be ahead in New York, New Jersey, and Arkansas, and I expect she'll be ahead in California too.  (But, remember, I said at least 3).

          4.  You disagree with the effect it will have, but you can't refute it.

          5. Overall there will be less impact by independents, including even in California (where they are not as numerous or influential as in New Hampshire.)

          by markw on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:53:18 AM PDT

          •  so on 1...

            you're admitting to counting a state where her opponents are not even on the ballot? That's a nice stacked deck you've given yourself.

            by Kimball on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:02:04 AM PDT

            •  No...

              No, that's a nice stacked deck that Obama and Edwards gave Hillary.  Nobody twisted their arms and told them to take themselves off the ballot.  (And, before you tell me that is because of principal, then why didn't they take their names off the Florida ballot too.)

              You can't hold it against Hillary if her candidates are afraid to compete in a primary in a major industrial state.

              by markw on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:22:23 AM PDT

          •  well, "decline to state" voters make up 22%

            of the electorate in CA, and they are allowed to vote in the Dem primaries, and NOT allowed to vote in the GOP primaries in this state -- so I think they could in fact be very influential here.

            yes, there's a higher percentage of non-declared voters in NH (a quick google shows the number is 45%), in CA, if you're a decline to state voter, and you want to vote in a primary, voting for a Dem is your only chance.

            The Field poll a couple weeks ago showed Clinton's lead in CA already eroded by half, and IMO, headlines like: "Obama surges in NH" which the SF Chronicle site just put up as their top story, will do nothing but continue to erode her support. Most of the people I know personally in my area who support H.Clinton are "professional" Dems, elected officials or Central Committee members, and their support for H.Clinton, in their own words, is largely based on her inevitability and her "toughness", what they thought was her ability to win -- now that her 'toughness' has led to a 3rd place finish in Iowa, and likely more losses ahead, well......

            by jennifer poole on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:22:08 AM PDT

            •  NJ: "unaffiliated" and independents can vote

              New Jersey isn't a closed primary, either.  Maybe the only "firewall" for Hillary Clinton is a very closed primary like New York where only registered Democrats can vote and you had to change your registration before last November if you weren't officially a Democrat.  But in 1992, Bill Clinton was the Democratic establishment candidate and he got only in the low 40's in the New York primary.

              by Lois on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:28:59 AM PDT

              •  Hillary will win New Jersey big

                Independents won't swing the New Jersey vote.

                by markw on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:50:02 AM PDT

            •  california

              Obama might win San Francisco but Hillary will win big in Southern California and win the state.  Independents here are very supportive of Hillary.

              by markw on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:48:47 AM PDT

              •  and you say that because you feel it in your gut?

                because that's certainly not what the Field Poll says about decline to state voters, and remember; this poll was taken in early December, and let's just say, there's no reason to think independent support for Obama has grown weaker since then:

                In California, Democrats allow decline-to-state voters to participate in their primary but Republicans don't. The poll found that 13 percent of the likely Democratic voters will be those independents, and Obama has a slight 3 percentage point edge over Clinton among that group.

                http://www.mercurynews.com/...

                poll results aren't necessarily predictive, of course -- especially given the huge increase in turnout we saw in Iowa! which, as I said, has likely eroded Clinton's lead and strengthened Obama's support here even further. But unless you've got some poll numbers I've never seen showing CA independents "strongly support" H.Clinton I think your thinking wishfully, mark.

                by jennifer poole on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 11:02:20 AM PDT

      •  Well, as of 2/4, if present trends play out,

        Obama will have won more delegates in IA, NH, and SC. He will have split NV, as it looks now. MI and FL don't count for anything. (I'm in MI,and wish our state party had not disenfranchised me, but that is another diary). Superdelegates don't count (yet) because even if a super ANNOUNCES s(he) is supporting a candidate, s(he) is not PLEDGED to that person. Supers can and regularly have reversed themselves when the actual votes start to roll in.

        So by my count, that puts Obama ahead in delegate count by 2/4.

        by memiller on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:48:36 AM PDT

        •  Good argument

          Well, good argument.  Let's reconvene on Feb. 4 to see if you are right.

          by markw on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:54:14 AM PDT

      •  Your points are unsupported assertions

        The polls will give us a better idea of how the campaign will play out after New Hampshire votes.

        So far Hillary's attacks on Obama have backfired. John Edwards slapped her down when she tried to pull him into her attacks on Obama. Unless Hillary can develop a strong positive message her image will continue to tarnish.

        by FishOutofWater on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:49:08 AM PDT

        •  Wow

          What attacks?  Questions and arguments are attacks?

          Toughen up, people.  How squeamish is Obama?

          by Athena on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:53:41 AM PDT

  •  Thanks, Mark!

    Your words are encouraging, and I hope you prove to be right. I want a nominee who will not just create a movement, but sustain progress and make change happen. Best of luck to Hill tomorrow. :-)

    by atdnext on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:38:18 AM PDT

  •  I don't really have a dog in this fight

    so I'm probably the perfect person to tell this story.

    I live in Atlanta and visited both the Obama and the Clinton headquarters on Saturday (just general excitement after iowa and wanted to see what was going on).  There were about 15 people at the Obama headquarters and they could not have been warmer or more welcoming. But then my kids and I drove to Clinton's headquarters and, wow, there were like 200 people there!  There was music and people high-fiv'ing each other and carrying scores of lawn posters to their cars...and, I don't know, but the energy was amazing.   So I understand the polls...and I understand Iowa....but I also understand that that kind of excitement that I felt in the Clinton room was real and can't be overstated.

    So, if I were a clinton supporter, I would be very optimistic.

    by Southern Hope on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:43:37 AM PDT

  •  I support Obama, but I tipped you.

    While I hope Obama rolls through the next few weeks and on through Feb 5, I don't think anyone should give up without a fight (although it should be a  fair one).

    I don't think any less of a voter who switches sides after the votes start coming in, but too many people have worked too hard just to give up. So I hope that the campaigns all give the best presentations that they can and the voters, not the media, should make the decision on who gets the nomination.

    by blueintheface on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:47:53 AM PDT

  •  I agree. It wasn't over when the Germans ...

    ... bombed Pearl Harbor. However, not all of the diarist's debating points are exactly convincing. Hillary is still a formidable opponent, but she will have to prove herself a better candidate to win the nomination now - as Obama must continue to do also. I wouldn't have it any other way. At the risk of resorting to a shopworn cliche, now is the time for us to find out who can best handle the heat when the going gets tough.

    FWIW, markw, all due credit to you for sticking by your first choice. As much as I like Obama, I am also amazed by how many folks have abandoned Clinton just because of one loss in Iowa. Politics ain't beanbag and sometimes one needs to take the long view of things.

    by philimus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:21:50 AM PDT

    •  The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor

      or were you joking?

      by Mulkum on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:50:01 AM PDT

      •  Joking. Remember Bluto from Animal House? n/t

        by philimus on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:59:56 AM PDT

•  Do unto others...

  Every "Hillary should quit" diarist and commenter should ask themselves if they would want their candidate to quit at this point if the numbers were reversed. 'Nuff said.

  by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:32:36 AM PDT

  •  Clinton is different...

    no one has a brand that could be so damaged by a continued, month long assault on the idea that their candidate is "supported" and "popular."

    Right now Hillary can say that Obama is merely more popular.

    Too many more Iowa-like results and she'll be out of the handful popular Democratic leaders.

    Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, etc., none of them could be cast for a decade as an unlikable loser by, you know, losing. Hillary could be. It could be disastrous and if they don't think they could win they should get out and protect Hillary's future involvement in politics.

    by Addison on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:40:46 AM PDT

    •  Nope, nobody is different in this regard...

      ...however artfully you want to make the case!  

      by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:44:42 AM PDT

  •  Real or Not?

    I'm not sure that all these claims of conversion are even accurate.  It's a great setup for a diary, though.

    by Athena on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:43:15 AM PDT

  •  Rich

    If Hillary were kicking Obama and Edwards' ass right now, don't you think you'd be calling for all of us to abandon ship and muster behind Hillary?

    by The Termite on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:52:59 AM PDT

    •  I recognize that some Clintonistas would...

      ...but I think I can honestly say that I wouldn't.  It takes immense ambition to run for president, and I would feel silly asking someone to set aside that ambition unless and until it's completely out of reach.

      Not to make a virtue of a vice, but I think the bottom line is that I don't care enough to be hypocritical about it.  They're all Democrats and they're all fine with me.  I just like one of them more than the others.

      by Rich in PA on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:03:05 AM PDT

      •  Accepted at face value

        Thanks.

        by The Termite on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:07:47 AM PDT

•  I'm with Hill

  until she wins this, or says, "I'm out."  To do anything less is to not fully participate in the process.  

  by Izarradar on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:33:41 AM PDT

•  "The Clintons have always

  done there best when in a crunch."  The problem, dear blogger, is that only Hillary is the candidate.  Bill's effect and influence have likely been as counterproductive as productive in this race.

  by ProduceMan on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:34:02 AM PDT

  •  You know, I tend to agree.

    The less I see of Bill the better.  I'm supporting Hill, and I want to hear what she has to say, and not have to listen to Bill.

    by Izarradar on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:35:16 AM PDT

  •  well

    Well, I see them as a team.  I think Hillary was critical to Bill's successes (including when he was most under attack) and I expect Bill to make contributions to Hillary's comeback.  

    by markw on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:36:36 AM PDT

•  it's OK

  In 2004, I believed Howard Dean when he said he was making a stand in Wisconsin. I may have even given him more money. It's hard to see your candidate imploding.

  But beyond the rhetoric and who's up and who's down, this primary is about political space. Obama and Clinton are going after the same voters. Only one of them can get the majority, and given that a number of the voters they are courting are the "want to go with a winner" type, the outcome is surely tied to who looks like a winner.

  In other primaries, it's possible to lose some races and still win, as long as the person you lose to isn't going after your core constituents. However, since Hillary and Obama are going after the same audience, I believe "there can be only one" in this case...

  by JMS on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:36:16 AM PDT

•  Hill isn't my candidate

  I respect her voice though and appreciate her perspective(even as my guy kicks the bejeesus out of her). I hope her supporters don't give up on her. The nation benefits from a thorough discussion.

  by cwaltz on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:38:34 AM PDT

•  Mike Gravel is inevitable.

  by ben masel on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:39:10 AM PDT

•  If people haven't warmed to Hillary by now ...

  after 16 years in the national spotlight, I don't think that bodes well for her chances.

  I would definitely vote for Hillary if she were the nominee, but the momentum right is for the anti-establishment. Obama, and to a lesser degree Edwards, simply fare better as long as change is the driving factor.

  by jeepdad on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:42:49 AM PDT

•  Your predictions are beyond silly......

  Sounds like you're going entirely on faith.  You articulate no basis for any of those predictions, and indeed there really is none.

  It's all but a foregone conclusion Obama will win NH and SC handily.  Michigan and Florida don't even count, and indeed, Obama declined to put his name on the Michigan ballot thus ensuring the state will be completely ignored.  And Obama might just come in 1st in Florida, too, thanks to momentum.

  Markos pointedly posted the new Rasmussen national primary daily tracking poll numbers, and Hillary's lead is down to 33-29, the lowest since late winter.  So any advantage in states across the country is vanishing, as expected.

  There's still time left on the clock, but anyone not guilty of wishful thinking knows, as long as he's not caught with a live boy or a dead girl, we're headed toward President Obama in January 2009.

  by DCCyclone on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:42:51 AM PDT

  •  by beyond silly...

    By beyond silly I assume you mean completely irrefutable. Look, I'm not saying that Hillary is the favorite, I'm just saying she has some reserve strengths to fall back on.  Your very message points out that she is still in the lead nationally.

    Other people (including the only Democratic president in the last 25 years) have lost both Iowa and New Hampshire and come back to victory.

    by markw on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:48:30 AM PDT

    •  Predictions are not refutable

      I predict I'll fly tomorrow.  You can't refute it, until it either does or does not come to pass.

      Time will prove your predictions either correct or incorrect.  Until then, there are only better predictions.

      by The Termite on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:51:42 AM PDT

      •  OK...

        OK, good point.  Simply tell me which one of those predictions that you think will be proven false, and we'll come back on Feb. 4 and see.

        by markw on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:56:14 AM PDT

        •  how do you suppose she can win

          anything substantial after taking 3 to 4 straight losses? She has already imploded in NH after an IA loss...what could possibly make you think she would come roaring back after losing South Carolina and Nevada and New Hampshire back to back?

          Prediction are just predictions and anything could happen...but yours are perfectly irrefutable, and a long stretch to say the least.

          by michael1104 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:59:58 AM PDT

          •  correction: perfectly refutable

            by michael1104 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:00:40 AM PDT

•  I am an Obama supporter

  but I don't think Hillary or Edwards has any reason to drop out until Feb 5, assuming they have money left to do that.  Let the people decide.

  by mcfly on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:43:04 AM PDT

  •  Yes, a 3 way race will be good

    I am an Edwards supporter, but that Obama supporter makes a great comment.

    I want to see a good national discussion, a 3 way race can do that.

    

    by Roger Fox on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:04:14 AM PDT

•  i support hillary.

  she's got the best policy proposals, particularly my main interest area, mental health care. i'll continue to support hillary as long as her policy proposals are superior to the other candidates'. and those who know hillary know she doesn't change her dedication to providing the best services to the people who need them. she's been doing it all her life.

  by campskunk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:43:18 AM PDT

•  Number 5 is why Hill wont win nationally

  Independents, the people she thinks moving towards the center for will entice arent buying her lines. What Hillary doesnt understand that the center isnt where it was when her husband was President. The center is now much further right. She would have to move considerably "left" to find the center of Bill Clintons day and instead she takes baby steps. This is costing her dearly as people start to pay attention to the fact that she is happy with things the way they are and hasnt "changed" at all. This race will not be won with Dem votes alone... and though she still gets more Dem votes than Obama when Indie's arent allowed in the primary, that will change by Thursday.

  I'd also like someone who supports her to plaese point out this "change" that she claims to have been bringing about.  Would that be her change in voting to support and fund the Iraq War...or her Leibermanesque war mongering about Iran?  And pleasepoint out these changes without mentioning a negative about an opponent.

  by Starve The Media on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:45:25 AM PDT

•  Stay In

  No reason to bank on a relatively unknown and inexperienced candidate when it's only January.

  It's a GOP dream to fold up and hand it all to Obama now.

  by Athena on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:45:27 AM PDT

•  Thanks Mark, not giving up either

  because I sincerely believe Hillary is the best prepared and most qualified to take over and sort out the mess Bush will be leaving behind.

  The terrible way the Clinton's have been slammed here outrages me. People seem to forget they gave the Democrats the first Presidential win and relection since FDR.

  I am appalled at how Democrats on this site eat their own. As bad as Republicans are, even they save their slime for the opposition.

  If attitudes don't change, we'll end up back we started from, and sooner than you think.

  by phoenixdreamz on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:46:21 AM PDT

•  Like Bill Clinton famously promised,

  I am with Hillary until the last dog dies.

  by DCDemocrat on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:47:05 AM PDT

•  The age of political TV ads is nearly over

  the remote control is a factor, HRC is running a 90's style campaign, in the age of Wellstone, Joe Trippi and Carol Shea Porter. AS an ex organizer Obama knows this, Edwards hired Trippi.

  They "get it"

  by Roger Fox on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:57:26 AM PDT

•  I'm still with her

  I love Hillary, but I admit i'm very excited by how well Obama mobilized and turned out new voters.  If Obama continues to turn out the vote in record numbers, he will win the primary despite Hillary best efforts.  It will not be that she lost, but that he won.  

  I'm so glad that Hillary is back to taking questions at sessions.  When she is unscripted, her humor and intelligence really comes across.  If she can show that as well as really point to what she will do as President, then she could still win.  

  by arogue7 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 09:58:41 AM PDT

•  asdf

  Well, I admire your dedication and conviction.

  Like Walt Starr said, I supported Dean, too. I even told those smart-ass polisci students that the Dean Scream didn't mean he was finished!

  by droogie6655321 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:02:37 AM PDT

•  Still with Hillary!!!

  Let's stay there, she still has a shot at this, a serious shot, if we get into defeated mode, especially after a NH loss, we will only make it worse.  Let's stay positive, hope Hillary comes back with a great strategy for Feb 5th, I think she can do it, its about to get harder, but I think she can!

  by rigso on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:23:43 AM PDT

•  Am glad to see this diary

  This is what primaries are all about. Hillary is not my first choice, but I have a great deal of respect for her and will have no problem voting for her if she becomes the GE Dem candidate. It's so important that we continue to speak passionately--although politely, I hope--about our chosen favorites. No one should just "jump on the bandwagon" for a candidate. Any change of heart should come from additional information, not poll numbers.

  by grayslady on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:27:26 AM PDT