1-Actually tried to compete in the caucus states instead of just ignoring all of them and then afterwards arguing that they don't matter anyway (a very insulting talking point that backfired on her totally. Probably one of the reasons for her brutal February losing streak.)
I don't think it was meant to be insulting. I think the argument was that caucuses aren't necessarily accurate predictors of electability in the general election, also that caucuses aren't necessarily accurate predictors of the popular will either. Penn statement about "significant states" might have been insulting, but it was also part of a strategy. He wouldn't have said that if the situations were reversed.Her wording of it was in the worst possible way however. The basis premise is valid, a win in California is more important than a win in Kansas, yes. But you don't need to argue this by saying "I won all the states that count and Obama won all the states that don't count." Some of the periphery talking points were also ridiculous, like that she's the only candidate who can win California and New York in the general. No caucuses aren't accurate predictors of electability in the general election, but neither are primaries, was Phil Angelides the best candidate for California Governor? Was Randy Graf the best candidate for AZ-08?
She also took it way too far. It wasn't just caucuses. That state doesn't count because it's too black. That state doesn't count because there's too many latte liberals. That state doesn't count because it's a red state (Oh and then she went and staked her entire campaign on Texas and Ohio.) It basically boiled down to "The only states that count are the ones that vote for me" and it became a joke. People began to talk about how they were proud residents of a state that didn't count. Remember Joe's old sig?
1) I doubt they were looking forward to a long and divisive primary. Who can blame them? It's not good for the party. It would have been better for everything to have been resolved on Super Tuesday-- one way or the other.
This is politics. You can't assume that things will go the best way or that you'll get what you want. Maybe resolving things after Super Tuesday would be better. But that doesn't mean you can assume it'll happen and put on blinders to the scenario if it doesn't happen.
Besides as I said, even I saw that coming. Hillary actually achieved her Super Tuesday goals, which was to win all the big states (except Illinois) and then figure that'll propel her to the nomination. And she did, but it didn't work. And it's not surprising either, did she really think she could say "OK, Obama has slightly more delegates and won more states and still has broad support but I won California so let's just anoint me and then pack up and go home."?
2) The post-super Tuesday states were not favorable. She might have had a chance in Maine, but even with stronger organizing, Nebraska and Washington were likely out of reach. Still, it's true that she could have cut down the margins.
Yes. But you can't play Rudy Giuliani in politics and just ignore everywhere that doesn't favor you. If she had kept down the margins a bit, she might've been able to come back in terms of delegates in a scenario that's actually realistic and not J. J.'s masturbatory fantasy. The problem wasn't just that she lost, it was that it was all blowouts. Much like how Giuliani would've been on better terms if he had actually won a non-negligible portion of the vote in the pre-Florida states even if he didn't win any. At least look like you have strong support. And she didn't wash all of that away on March 4th either, especially considering she barely made a dent in Obama's delegate lead and led by much bigger margins before the brutal streak in those states. Had she made post-Super Tuesday plans, she could've lost by moderate numbers, then bounced back with landslides on March 4 and at least have been competitive in delegate numbers now instead of being told to drop out because it and all potential future wins are too little, too late.
Poll
