Firewall?

12:37 am EST January 7th, 2008 | News | 7 Comments

Chris Bowers has the idea that Sen. Clinton’s superdelegates along with her lead in states like California will present a firewall of support for her. Maybe that’s true, but it was only a few weeks ago that New Hampshire was being discussed as the Clinton firewall. If we reach Super Tuesday with Sen. Obama winning Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, relying on the big states to win it out for Clinton begins to echo the logic behind Rudy Giuliani’s campaign. That is, sure anything is possible, but what’s likely to happen?

There is a reason why sports teams like to roll up enough points for a big early lead. Ask the freaking Patriots how that tends to work out.

(Calling people “sheeple” certainly doesn’t make sense. Most people who aren’t paid political professionals have far better things to do with their lives than pay attention to the ins and outs of politicians a full year before a primary election.)

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

7 Responses to “Firewall?”

  1. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    January 7, 2008 at 12:58 am

    I think it will be much harder for Obama to eat away Clinton’s national numbers than it would be for someone on the Republican side to eat away at Giuliani’s numbers. (We will never know cause he died well before Iowa.) I’m hoping Obamania (Obamamania?), kills McCain in New Hampshire and gives Romney the win there. I still think Clinton is more electable overall, but without McCain, I don’t think it will matter.

  2. James E. Powell says:
    January 7, 2008 at 1:51 am

    I don’t agree with Bowers at all. Those ‘leads’ in Feb 5 states can evaporate pretty quickly.

    A fair portion of Clinton’s support, and I have no idea how much, is composed of sheeple who said they supported her because they thought she was the inevitable winner.

    I agree that ‘sheeple’ is an insult, but I think in many cases it is an apt name.

  3. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    January 7, 2008 at 6:13 am

    “A fair portion of Clinton’s support, and I have no idea how much, is composed of sheeple who said they supported her because they thought she was the inevitable winner.”

    Actually, she has the highest core support. People who will vote for her no matter what. This support could still lead her to victory.

  4. Jay says:
    January 7, 2008 at 9:36 am

    New Rasmussen poll has Clinton’s national lead shrinking from 42% for her and 24% for Obama before Iowa to 33% Clinton and 29% Obama. I’m sure some of that support went to Edwards as well.

  5. August J. Pollak says:
    January 7, 2008 at 11:24 am

    I think “sheeple” is sort of apt, actually. It’s not like they decided a week ago to have a presidential election, and for godssakes, the candidates have been visiting New Hampshire and being in the news and holding events for an entire year at this point.

    The sudden boom for Obama is exactly why the same states each cycle shouldn’t get the first primaries- for all the talk about how New Hampshire “really cares” about taking the primary seriously, they sure pissed away a year’s worth of public appearances and campaign analysis to decide just to vote for the popular kid.

    If you base your vote on who someone else voted for a week earlier, you deserve to be at the back of the line in the primary calendar, not the front.

  6. Quaker in a Basement says:
    January 7, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    I have nothing against Ms. Clinton, but when I listen to her campaign, I can’t help but think of Gov. LePetomaine in Blazing Saddles: “Have you gone berserk? Can’t you see that man is a ….?”

  7. duros62 says:
    January 7, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    I always thought “sheeple” referred to the 28%’ers.