Drrrrrty Politics

Commenter Jeremy makes a good point about the post below:

"I remember Hillary Clinton's last-ditch efforts to smear Obama in the primary campaign all to well. The scariest part of her brutal campaign: her attacks worked. Conventional wisdom was that if several of the earlier state primaries were held again, Hillary would have won the nomination."

I agree that some of Sen. Clinton's attacks may have been detrimental to Obama's campaign, but I don't think that her efforts had much to do with the outcome of the primaries. There were huge structural advantages for Clinton built into the end of the primary calendar, including the late voting of states with the largest poor, white, Democrat populations (i.e. OH and PA). Obama never hoped to win those states. In fact, by the end of the primary season, Plouffe was looking like an oracle, because the delegate projections the Obama campaign had unveiled in February basically came true. (This was documented in a bunch of places, but the only place I could find quickly was this.)

So, while I definitely respect my friend Jeremy's point that nobody should relax at this point, I think that it's worth remembering that Clinton's tactics probably had little to do with the late primary wins. One might even suggest that the current economic zeitgeist, similarly, will prove to be the inexorable force in the general election. But, as he is a Philadelphia sports fan, I know Jeremy won't be convinced of an Obama win until November 9th or 10th, at the absolute earliest.

-Education Dude