Who’s Got the Spin?

-->
Obama Administration

Talk about lame spin. What I’ve seen from Clinton’s side is:

1. She’s the first woman to win the Iowa Caucuses! Yeah, and Ted Cruz was the first Latino to win the Iowa Caucuses. And Sanders would have been the first New York Jew to win the Iowa Caucuses. So? Somehow, this seems so … last century. If a rabbit had won for the first time, that would have been a story.

For the record, other than Clinton in 2008 I believe the only other woman to receive any votes at all in an Iowa Caucus was Shirley Chisolm, in 1972.

2. Yesterday a meme was circulating on social media — HRC’s photo with the words, “The people of Iowa gave her their trust.” The population of Iowa is 3.1 million. Of those, 171,109 participated in the Dem caucuses. We don’t know actual raw vote counts, but we know the votes must have been close to a tie. By my calculations, Clinton won the trust of roughly .0003 percent of the people of Iowa.

3. [Gloating] We Won. Suck it up, Berniebots. So endearing.

She’s a terrible campaigner. The woman has her strengths and virtues, but HRC to political campaigning is like Pat Boone to R&B.

Some of the Sanders supporters are not taking the near-loss well. Some of them seem to have expected Sanders would crush Clinton, even though pre-caucus polls mostly predicted she would win. There’s also a lot of grumbling that some precinct captains had their thumb on the scale for Clinton, so to speak, but frankly there is nothing to be gained by going there. The Iowa delegation will be nearly evenly divided between Sanders and Clinton delegates. Who “won” is not going to matter down the road.

The Sanders campaign reports that he received $3 million in donations in the 24 hours after the Caucuses. Now, there’s some good spinning for you. He is also refusing to concede defeat in Iowa (as close as it was, I don’t blame him) and he’s also pushing for more debates. Still, all the data suggest he’s going to be crushed in every primary after New Hampshire.

If Marco “baby cheeks” Rubio is the eventual GOP nominee IMO Clinton (presumably) will crush him. Next to her, he’s going to look like somebody who should be finishing up his homework before he can go to Little League practice. She’s also not going to hesitate in going after him for his hard Right positions on reproductive freedom. But it’s too early to count Trump out, I think.

Couple o’ things to read — Charles Pierce describes an interview of Hillary Clinton by Chris Matthews that sounds, well, horrible. When is Tweety going to retire already? Also, I don’t always agree with Matt Yglesias, but I think he nailed the problem with Democratic establishment here.

 

 

Share Button
16 Comments

16 Comments

  1. c u n d gulag  •  Feb 3, 2016 @12:58 pm

    I think both parties establishments have gotten very sclerotic.
    The GOP’s, more so than the Democrats.

    At least the Democratic establishment acknowledges science, and the nation’s changing demographics.
    The GOP establishment ostriches keep their heads up their own asses – all the better to hear the echo of their own words, reverb through the echo-chamber of their intestines.i

    Both parties are afraid to stray too far from established doctrine.
    The GOP clings to God and guns, and is anti woman, immigrants, and gays.

    The Democrats are for…
    For…
    For what?
    Ok, more inclision.
    But what else?
    The working/middle class? If they are, it’s tough to see, since pretty much every candidate except Bernie, is beholden to Wall Street. He and Elizabeth Warren, and a few others aren’t, and beholden, and are trying to show their party the way through the moneyed wilderness. But it’ll be a long, tough slog.

    It’s tough for the Democrats.
    To run on a truly progressive/liberal platform, is to risk letting the GOP get a Theocratic Plutocrat in the White House. And, with a GOP Congress, take this country back to even before the first Gilded Age.
    And to not run on it, is to run as GOP Light – and we know the old saying from Truman, about how given the choice between a Democrat running as GOP Light and the real GOP, the people will choose the real GOP every time.

    So, to “Blue-dog” it or not?
    Are we willing to live (if you’ll call it that) under a Trump, Cruz, or Rubio?
    I’m not!
    I’ll take half a loaf, instead of being slowly beaten to death be a bread-board.
    Does that make me a coward?
    Yes, I guess.
    But I’m not as worried about me, as I am about my nieces and nephews, and other young people.
    The planet is rapidly heating- up, and the income gap keeps widening.
    I only have X amount of years left. They have decades.

    I’d love to see rapid change, but it ain’t happenin’!
    At least not in a forward direction. Progress in this country has usually been slow, while regression only takes a few years.

    Ok, now that my own word-turds have depressed me, I think I’ll lie down, and think about tomorrow, when, hopefully, after minor surgery, I come home with my right ankle OUT of this metal halo – after 4 1/2 month’s of agony – and in a standard cast.

    Please keep your fingers crossed!

  2. Dolorous Stroke  •  Feb 3, 2016 @12:59 pm

    I think your math is wrong.

    Half of 171,109 is 85,554.5.

    85,554.5 into 3,100,000 is 0.028, or 2.8%.

  3. maha  •  Feb 3, 2016 @1:55 pm

    Dolorous — My math is nearly always wrong.

  4. uncledad  •  Feb 3, 2016 @1:02 pm

    “She’s a terrible campaigner”

    Right. I hope this doesn’t sound sexist because it is not meant to be but Hillary really needs help. She needs to sit down with a vocal coach, her tone of voice is abrasive, angry and irritating, especially when she is yelling over a crowd at a rally, its gonna cost her votes? Is it just me? I read that Pierce piece he is spot on, Tweety is such a boot-licker, especially now that his wife is running for a house seat, totally useless.

  5. Dolorous Stroke  •  Feb 3, 2016 @1:06 pm

    In my previous post, “into” should be “divided by”.

  6. Ed  •  Feb 3, 2016 @1:10 pm

    Looks like Trump is back to normal this morning, going on a Twitter rant about Cruz cheating and stealing the Iowa caucuses and wanting a re-do of the whole thing. The other night when he appeared “gracious” in defeat, I wondered what had happened, if he fell and hit his head or had a mini-stroke or something. Maybe he was just momentarily stunned. Anyhow, he is himself again, for which we can all be thankful.

  7. joanr16  •  Feb 3, 2016 @2:03 pm

    It’s to be expected that the GOP will sneer and snipe and backstab one another; to counter that, wouldn’t it be great if Hillary and Bernie made their peace and worked together to ensure that Dem nominee Whoever soundly defeats GOP nominee Who-Must-Not-Be-Named?

    Wait… hold on… checking the thermometer that was just under my tongue: 99.2 degrees. Nover mind; I’m feverish.

  8. Tom_b  •  Feb 3, 2016 @4:20 pm

    A couple of points:

    The “losers” also got delegates. Iowa is not “winner take all”. Bernie got about as many as HRC. Hard to say he “lost”.

    Cruz cheated. His minions (less cute than the movie minions) were telling people Carson dropped out, and Carson, being the most severely mentally ill candidate, would be more likely to have Cruz, the 2nd most mentally ill as a back up choice. Sorry if I offended any run-of-the-mill psychopaths out there. Really sorry, gulp.

    The Donald is by definition more moderate than the rest in his party, if only because he changes his opinion whenever convenient. Hard to believe, but I really think he would be the least terrifying choice if HRC continues to be HRC and loses. Kasich—allegedly the least crazy according to the media– said on the radio the other day he wants boots on the ground to fight ISIS. I repeat he wants TROOPS in the Middle East. And he clearly thinks saying this in public won’t send voters running for the hills. Trump might say something like that, but later decide that would mean shelling out combat pay.

    Trump is also the easiest Republican for us Democrats to beat, because GOPpers are all about id and we Democrats just aren’t.

    Rubio is good looking. Shades of Nixon vs Kennedy. HRC could eviscerate him on stage and it wouldn’t move his numbers. Rubio is beloved by the donor class, as he is a dull-witted, completely manipulable ass. And he’s not Ted Cruz. He will pull in bucks.

    That said, with the field narrowing, a high-“unfavorable” candidate like Trump is likely to fade fast as mainstream-ers consolidate.

  9. grannyeagle  •  Feb 3, 2016 @4:33 pm

    Uncledad: You are right. Hillary screeches and it gets on my nerves. I think she is trying to project her voice by getting louder and appearing more passionate. This can work with men but with women, at least her, it’s a disaster. She could benefit from some speech training. She can learn to deepen her voice and project by using the bones in her face for resonance. I am not a fan of Carly Fiorina but she knows how to talk and present her point. Even if it is wrong, it sounds authoritative.
    Ed: Trump is a Gemini which is the twins so you are going to see the two sides of his personality at different times. Not to be fooled by which one is the real one. They both are.

  10. maha  •  Feb 3, 2016 @6:00 pm

    It’s possible for a woman to speak loudly and project her voice without being screechy. It’s basically the same way opera singers learn to project their voices without straining their vocal chords. I’m sure classically trained actors learn the same technique.

  11. Swami  •  Feb 3, 2016 @4:43 pm

    Well, seems the clown car is getting more spacious..Once they get Christie’s fat ass out of the back seat there’ll be room to breathe.

  12. Doug  •  Feb 3, 2016 @7:07 pm

    Every serious strategist has their own electoral college map. The GOP strategists know their goose is cooked. The GOP experts know that the only chance of taking the WH was (past tense) a moderate Toast!-style candidate who can take Florida and appeal to moderate voters. There is NO republican strategy to the WH that doesn’t go through the Sunshine State. There are many paths to success for democrats even if they lose Florida.

    Trump or Cruz will cause independents to sit out the election in droves. They won’t vote for Clinton – some would vote for Sanders. But the predictable outcome with the mix of toxic republicans v competent democrats with the formulation of the electoral college as it is almost guarantees a democrat in the White House. I want a president who will use the veto pen til it runs out of ink and use executive authority to the edge of impeachment.

  13. uncledad  •  Feb 3, 2016 @7:12 pm

    I’m not sure Hillary is speaking in her own voice, she seems overly prepared? Maybe she needs less coaching and should just be herself? Who knows but the more I see of her the less I like! Can’t these people (Clinton’s, Bush’s) ever just goddamn retire already?

  14. Swami  •  Feb 3, 2016 @9:01 pm

    Maybe she needs less coaching and should just be herself?

    That seem to be a big part of her problem..at least for me. Her history makes it difficult to know who she really is. When I look at the history of Obama, and Sanders also for that matter. I see a history that has a consistency of working to improve and empower the lives of others. True service..not soup kitchen photo ops.

  15. goatherd  •  Feb 4, 2016 @8:42 am

    The irony of women’s voices is that people hear and attend them better than a man’s voice. That is why the voices in airports and on translating devices are almost always women’s voices. But, when they have to make themselves heard, they are perceived as abrasive. You can sense a corollary to the myth of Cassandra.

    I don’t find HRC’s voice particularly grating, but since we don’t have TV, I only hear about two snippets per day. That’s not enough to get on anyone’s nerves. I have to admit that Sarah Palin’s voice, particularly in her endorsement of Donald Trump, was difficult for me to listen to. I try to focus on content instead of tone, but, when the content has gone missing, there isn’t much choice.

    On the lighter side, I get a kick out of the voice on my phone’s translation application. She has a clear midwestern nasality to her voice in English. I imagine that her accent is how we sound to people from other countries.

  16. grannyeagle  •  Feb 4, 2016 @2:34 pm

    Babies and animals also respond better to women’s voices. Interestingly, whenever men talk to babies, they tend to raise their voice. I don’t know what the “research” says but I think it is because the higher voice is more nurturing and the lower voice is more authoritative.
    As for Palin, she screeches too. Rachel Maddow has a nice voice to listen to but she talks too fast and that is annoying for me. Some men’s voices are hypnotic as I could listen to them all day. An example is James Earl Jones.



    About this blog

    About Maha
    Comment Policy

    Vintage Mahablog
    Email Me
















    eXTReMe Tracker













      Technorati Profile