• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Why is the media saying Clinton had a "comeback"?

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
I turned on CNN this morning and they basically declared Clinton's success to be a "comeback." Its ridiculous that the Clinton camp has been able to spread this myth around because it's patently false. Obama was never expected to win either of the states and was never even ahead in the polls (except for a few instances in Texas where he was ahead by less than the margin of error). The fact that Clinton lost so much support in the months leading up to these primaries and won by so little makes her victories more of a life-saver than any sort of comeback. She is still behind by around 100 delegates and Obama still has the popular vote. To claim that her victories are a large accomplishment would be to suggest that Obama was expected to win in both states (which has always been false).
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
^ From what I can tell, the CNN coverage is always more favorable to Hillary than the others. And this is completely discounting Fox (I don't watch them as much cuz I'm uninterested in McCain who they talk about too frequently IMO).

MSNBC and others note that Hillary got pretty much nothing in this vote, and wil still trail Obama by a 100 or more elected delegates by convention time.

They all note that Hillary strategy is now to woo the super delegates into overturning the popular vote.

Fern
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,583
430
126
The media wins the longer and bloodier this leadership battle plays out - it attracts eyeballs. It's in their best interest to play up all victories as "dramatic comebacks".
 
May 31, 2001
15,327
1
0
Of course she had a comeback! Before yesterday, she was in second place. Today, however she is in... hmm, I see your point. ;)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,733
3,559
126
What would you say if you were running ads to make money and needed eyes to see them?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,859
8,186
126
Political campaigning is BIG business, and the media are the big winners of it. And it's a recession year and advertising dollars were looking down. No longer.
 

M0RPH

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,305
1
0
Smart people who are not Obama fanboys (i.e. the commentators you speak of) realize something that you can't. While Clinton is losing by a very small margin in the delegate count and popular vote, she has shown quite clearly something which is much more important, that is her ability to win the more populace and important states, battleground states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida. Therefore intelligent, saavy political ananlysts realize that she is doing much better than delegate counts (skewed by non-representative caucas results) would indicate.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,733
3,559
126
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Smart people who are not Obama fanboys (i.e. the commentators you speak of) realize something that you can't. While Clinton is losing by a very small margin in the delegate count and popular vote, she has shown quite clearly something which is much more important, that is her ability to win the more populace and important states, battleground states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida. Therefore intelligent, saavy political ananlysts realize that she is doing much better than delegate counts (skewed by non-representative caucas results) would indicate.
Yup her slime trail has a wake.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: M0RPH
while Clinton is losing by a very small margin in the delegate count and popular vote, she has shown quite clearly something which is much more important....
LOL!! pffft, whatever happens, don't let those pesky little voters get in your way... :Q
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,926
18
81
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Its ridiculous that the Clinton camp has been able to spread this myth around because it's patently false.
And the NY Post (which endorsed Obama) opened with "Call her the Comeback Kid III".
Do a google news search on Hillary Comeback and you may find a hit or 100. I guess Hillary owns all the media outlets. Or maybe there's a story here about a candidate who won 3 of 4 states after losing 11 straight. Nah. It's gotta be the Clinton camp spreading myths.

 

RY62

Senior member
Mar 13, 2005
771
32
91
Originally posted by: blackllotus
I turned on CNN this morning and they basically declared Clinton's success to be a "comeback." Its ridiculous that the Clinton camp has been able to spread this myth around because it's patently false. Obama was never expected to win either of the states and was never even ahead in the polls (except for a few instances in Texas where he was ahead by less than the margin of error). The fact that Clinton lost so much support in the months leading up to these primaries and won by so little makes her victories more of a life-saver than any sort of comeback. She is still behind by around 100 delegates and Obama still has the popular vote. To claim that her victories are a large accomplishment would be to suggest that Obama was expected to win in both states (which has always been false).
They could be calling this a comeback because the latest polls show her ahead in the Dem primary nomination.

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...latestpolls/index.html

Nah...that would be too simple of an answer.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Its ridiculous that the Clinton camp has been able to spread this myth around because it's patently false.
And the NY Post (which endorsed Obama) opened with "Call her the Comeback Kid III".
Do a google news search on Hillary Comeback and you may find a hit or 100. I guess Hillary owns all the media outlets. Or maybe there's a story here about a candidate who won 3 of 4 states after losing 11 straight. Nah. It's gotta be the Clinton camp spreading myths.
please wake me up after she wins nine more... in a row.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
The prospect of 3 more months of this bickering BS has really pushed me to the point of not watching the news anymore. I can't stand hearing anymore of the hourly updates of cheap shots being thrown back and forth.

For everyone's sake I hope it's resolved amicably one way or another, or the D's could end up costing themselves another election due to internal party chaos. The whole Florida/Michigan primary deal is the most asinine thing to come along in a long while. I blame Howard Dean for better or for worse, he should have been working on getting some resolution months ago, instead he pretty much abdicated his position, stuck his head in the sand and hoped it would work itself out.

One thing I did pick up on is that Puerto Rico has more delegates at stake than many of the remaining states, talk about stupid.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,217
11
81
:roll: Everyone was so shocked and amazed when Obama won states he was expected to win as well. She lost a bunch of states, and then won a few, and therefore, it was a comeback. There is no other way to dance around that, or spin it. Its very simple, you're just looking into it too far (and trying way too hard to hillary/mediabash)
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,650
0
0
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Smart people who are not Obama fanboys (i.e. the commentators you speak of) realize something that you can't. While Clinton is losing by a very small margin in the delegate count and popular vote, she has shown quite clearly something which is much more important, that is her ability to win the more populace and important states, battleground states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida. Therefore intelligent, saavy political ananlysts realize that she is doing much better than delegate counts (skewed by non-representative caucas results) would indicate.
Actually, she is showing that she is very susceptible in large battleground states. What was her lead in the polls just a few weeks ago in Texas? What was the margin of "victory"?

Some polls had her up by 16 points in late January and she ends up "winning" by less than 3%. That isn't a sign of a strong candidate pushing on to the end....that is the sign of a horse that is fast running out of gas and is barely holding on just trying to will itself to pridefully finish the race.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Originally posted by: M0RPH
Smart people who are not Obama fanboys (i.e. the commentators you speak of) realize something that you can't. While Clinton is losing by a very small margin in the delegate count and popular vote, she has shown quite clearly something which is much more important, that is her ability to win the more populace and important states, battleground states like Ohio, Michigan and Florida. Therefore intelligent, saavy political ananlysts realize that she is doing much better than delegate counts (skewed by non-representative caucas results) would indicate.
Sorry, but winning against Obama in those states doesn't mean squat. Winning against McCain does. I just don't see fence-sitters choosing Hillary over McCain.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,626
1,872
126
The media wants this drama to continue until the DNC. Think about it.

The media was very kind to Obama in the weeks leading up to Super Tuesday, and then again going into the Potomac region...the critical media coverage of Clinton's campaign arguably helped Obama, and set last night as "Super Tuesday Part II."

Of course, the media couldn't allow Obama to crush Clinton, hence the flood of "scandals" and the critical eye turned against Obama in the last week...he was poised to overcome Hillary in both Ohio and Texas, which the media couldn't allow to happen...which arguably allowed Clinton to take Ohio, and narrowly take Texas...exit polls suggest that the negative coverage of Obama in recent days turned many undecided voters to Clinton...nah, the media had no agenda there.

The voting public fell for it all, hook, line and sinker.

The David and Goliath story of Obama and Hillary is historic and epic...the first viable black Presidential candidate versus the first viable female Presidential candidate, who also happens to be the wife of one of the most polarizing political figures in modern history.

 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
because she went from losing 11 states to winning 3?
Why is that surprising?

Originally posted by: Deeko
She lost a bunch of states, and then won a few, and therefore, it was a comeback.
That doesn't fit the definition of a comeback. She was never losing in the Texas and Ohio primaries in the first place and her victories there didn't put her ahead of Obama.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,217
11
81
She is losing the RACE. She started coming back by winning Texas/Ohio. It isn't really a comeback unless she wins, no, but its the beginning of one.

Again, get off it, you're trying way too hard to make an issue out of nothing.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,826
83
91
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: loki8481
because she went from losing 11 states to winning 3?
Why is that surprising?

Originally posted by: Deeko
She lost a bunch of states, and then won a few, and therefore, it was a comeback.
That doesn't fit the definition of a comeback. She was never losing in the Texas and Ohio primaries in the first place and her victories there didn't put her ahead of Obama.
it's less surprising that Hillary won and moreso that Obama's 11-state momentum didn't seal the deal.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,512
139
106
Also keep in mind Florida and Michigan were uncontested by the major candidates except for Clinton because both states defied DNC rules. In Michigan, Obama was not even on the ballot.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,252
684
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: loki8481
because she went from losing 11 states to winning 3?
Why is that surprising?

Originally posted by: Deeko
She lost a bunch of states, and then won a few, and therefore, it was a comeback.
That doesn't fit the definition of a comeback. She was never losing in the Texas and Ohio primaries in the first place and her victories there didn't put her ahead of Obama.
it's less surprising that Hillary won and moreso that Obama's 11-state momentum didn't seal the deal.
I think it has more to do with everytime the media says Hillary is out with a loss is rallys her base bitter older white women...

Clinton should have won Wisconsin, the demographics favored her much more than Obama. But Obama won her base, so she won. VA shouldnt have been the blowout it was. The problem is her base gets rallied everytime shes going to get knocked out. Obama will win Wyoming and Mississippi. She'll win PA, then Obama will go on to a string of victories, then she'll win PR. Hes going to be ~100 elected delegates.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY