What the headline should be tomorrow, but won’t be.

The AP has called it for Hillary, but the final outcome remains to be seen.  Expect the headlines tomorrow will be “The Comeback Kid” or some such variation of that. 

What the headline should be is “Clinton avoids complete collapse.”  Remember, she had about a 20 point lead just a couple of weeks ago and barely won. 

Everyone grab your Dramamine, the serious spinning is about to start.

One interesting thing about tonight is the growing generation war happening in the Democratic Party.  Young people apparently came out in droves for Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire.  But Hillary brought out the elderly. 

As the exit polls have shown, the Democratic primary is turning into a battle between the people that pay for Social Security and those that collect it. 

One thing is certain, the age of cell phones has killed the art of pre-polling.  If you can’t reach the people…

UPDATE: Wow, welcome Instapundit readers!  (And damn, there are a lot of you!)  Make yourself at home, and check out our weekly podcast.  It’s a pretty fun way to spend some time.

UP-UPDATE: Joe, thanks for the heads-up.  Yes, just saw the Free Republic link, too, and there are a lot of you guys, too.  Wow!  Welcome, and please take a look around.

RE-UP-UPDATE: Welcome to all from the Daily Dish.  Crazy…Anyway, all the same stuff said before applies to you, no point in restating it.  Welcome.


30 Responses to “What the headline should be tomorrow, but won’t be.”

  1. 1 Chloe Saint Peter
    January 9, 2008 at 12:06 am

    Hadn’t thought of that, will be interesting to see how that plays out.

  2. 2 That Freedom Guy
    January 9, 2008 at 12:18 am

    I like the site, and your show.

    I wonder how this will play out. If Hillary wins, will those kids who were fired up by Obama be willing to vote for what they got involved in politics to vote against?

  3. 3 Joe
    January 9, 2008 at 12:22 am

    I arrived from Freerepublic.

  4. 4 F
    January 9, 2008 at 12:24 am

    Remember Edwards’ “two nations?” He must have been thinking of his party, not his country. F

  5. 6 Robert
    January 9, 2008 at 12:51 am

    I wonder if the elderly will realize whom they’re voting against and change their minds or dig in thinking they might want to take away their entitlement?
    Nice site.

  6. January 9, 2008 at 1:47 am

    Just as predicted four years ago in a late-night rant on FR, the Gen-X and Gen-Y voters are showing up and making a difference. They may not be voting the way I would wish, but they are registering and voting.

    You can read the whole boring piece at Move Over Boomers — Gen-X And Gen-Y in the Coming Decades

  7. January 9, 2008 at 4:01 am

    Good to see such hardcore conservatives covering the future of a Democratic White House. The idea that the Democratic Party is divided by age is mythodical. The party itself is divided by by elected progressive/liberal Dems, and Republican “lite”. Hillary, whom I have a handful of issues with. If her experience is 8 years in the White House, then is she not also responsible for anti-union trade agreements that has seen jobs go overseas,war votes as a Senator,Patriot Act support etc. There is not a war within our party by age group, it’s convictions and backbone. For the record, I will say,Hillary offers a nostalgic moment of better times, you offer, you only only hate her cause she is a Clinton with a (D) after her name. Stop the one dimensional “Hate Hillary!” rhetoric. It’s pretty sleepy. By the way, Rotten Rudy ain’t doin so hot either. Keep up your work though, no matter how pissy you feel, your friends, who still disagree with you are proud.

  8. January 9, 2008 at 6:47 am

    Albeit somewhat narrow, an amazing victory – Hillary didn’t draw the large crowds, she didn’t even have the poll numbers – but handily took the New Hampshire Primary nonetheless. Talk about the unseen, guiding hand of providence that seems always to accompany the Clintons. Yet the Clintons, for all practical purposes, appear to divorce themselves from the deity. It’s truly uncanny, a total mystery. Were the situation reversed, I wonder who would be screaming for a recall? Question: a real “comeback” – a repeat performance of sixteen years ago? Answer: more irony on the road to the White House: http://theseedsof9-11.com

  9. 10 Qwinn
    January 9, 2008 at 8:27 am

    But of course. Whenever any of us evil Rethuglicans mention why we can’t stand Hillary, we’re always at a loss of words or reasons as to why. We just stand there and stammer confusedly and say things like “Because she’s a Clinton!” and “Because she’s a Democrat!”. We never provide any details, like cattle futures, FBI files, the absurd “vast right wing conspiracy” meme, playing the feminist card while riding her husband’s coattails, the godawful faux black accent she puts on for black audiences, the transparent insincerity, the manipulation, the anti-semitic comments, the pardon for her brother, Norman Hsu, and on and on and on. Yep, we’re just reflexively opposed to “Clinton’s” with a “D” after her name. You caught us. We’re so busted. There’s no substantive reason to hate her at all.


  10. 11 bandit
    January 9, 2008 at 9:34 am

    She got a big turnout of the crybaby vote bloc.

  11. 12 quipster
    January 9, 2008 at 11:03 am

    Comeback kid? Kid? I’m thinking of a different word starting with a K sound.

  12. 13 firstfriday
    January 9, 2008 at 11:06 am

    Kangaroo? Honestly, there’s no need for that. If you can’t make your point without that language you really have to wonder if you have a point.

  13. January 9, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    If I hear one more ugly, misogynistic slam directed at Hillary Clinton I’m going to scream. “Bitch” is no more an acceptable a term for Clinton–no matter how much one doesn’t like her–than “nigger” is for Obama, no matter how much one doesn’t like him.

    There are many perfectly legitimate reasons to vote for Obama over Clinton, and I hope the gender issue doesn’t end up diverting people from Obama’s real merits and Clinton’s real baggage. That Freedom Guy’s right to question how all of us under thirty are going to feel come November when the Democratic party makes a decisive choice for old, entrenched, divisive politics. The Democratic party has a chance to forge a new majority… but not with Clinton.

  14. January 9, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    I came here via The Daily Dish. I completely agree with a generational issues becoming increasingly important within the Democratic party.

  15. 16 Greggie
    January 9, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    She is a b1t@h. Her husband is an a$$-hole. Now, am I sexist?

    By the way, you can’t undertake the not-so-subtle race-baiting they’ve been engaged in these past few weeks and then cry “Biggotry!”

    EDITOR’S NOTE: Greggie didn’t use the shift key in his comment, we changed it. It’s a personal preference thing here, so hate it if you want, we don’t really care, the meaning is the same. But he does raise an interesting point in the last line, though we’re not saying we agree with it, just that it brings into the debate something that has not been addressed thus far in the process. So if you’re pissed, sorry Greggie, just our preference. Cartoon swear all you want, but don’t take this crap personally, it’s only f@*king politics, after all.

  16. 17 The Cat with the Curious Hair
    January 9, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    I haven’t studied either Clinton or Obama on the issues of entitlements, especially generational
    transfers, but the few times they’ve squared off on the issue in the debates, Hillary has come down on the side of the payers into the system by not supporting an increase in the social security taxable income cap and Obama has advocated for an increase in that cap to soak the rich.

    Hillary, correctly in my mind, points out that a family of 4 with one income living in New York city can hardly be considered “the rich” at that income level. Even if you take a double income couple where one spouse makes $97,500 (the current cap amount) and the other makes ~ $30,000 it’s hard to see how squeezing a few more dollars out of the higher earning spouse is soaking the rich, especially if they have kids.

  17. 18 Chris
    January 9, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    > Kangaroo? Honestly, there’s no need for that. If you can’t make your point without
    > that language you really have to wonder if you have a point.

    Nice, you have a “Douchebag of the Week” award and you lecture other people on their language.

  18. 19 David
    January 9, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    “What the headline should be is “Clinton avoids complete collapse.”
    Remember, she had about a 20 point lead just a couple of weeks ago and barely won.”

    I guess you mean that losing a 20 point lead in the polls, combined with subsequently losing the New Hampshire primary, is evidence that a candidate has collapsed. In that case, since Obama came into New Hampshire with a nearly 20 point lead in many polls then subsequently lost the New Hampshire Primary, evidently he nearly has collapsed.

  19. 20 firstfriday
    January 9, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    Yes, we do. And if you notice, Douchebag isn’t the F-word, or the C-word. Do we use the F-word in real life? You better believe it. But not here. And Douchebag perfectly sums up the winners of that in a way other words don’t. Plus, we’re young, young people use that word all the time, both to refer to people who annoy them and their friends.

  20. 21 firstfriday
    January 9, 2008 at 2:11 pm

    Just to add to what my fellow poster said, Douchbeg is a funny word and there is a lot of sarcastic humor here. That’s just one example. If you don’t laugh at a joke and someone else does, all it means is it wasn’t funny to you, not that is wasn’t funny.

  21. January 9, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    I think you make a good point about the generation war among the old/young Democrats. All the college kids and young professional are for Obama. Everyone else seems to be for Clinton.

  22. 23 PJ
    January 9, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    Everyone please stop calling it the “Democratic” party. Hopefully they are both democratic. Although, one (read: Rep.) is more than the other. The term should be Democrat party. Stop listening to the leftwing media for your definitions.

    Most of the Left did take one thing “W” had to say to heart, “if you aren’t with us, you’re against us” when it comes to OLD Hil’. They want her to win so bad they are praying to Allah. Because of their white guilt they can’t come out and bash Obama either. They have no idea what to do. But when Hil goes down in flames they are going to cry foul no matter what.

  23. 24 Howard
    January 9, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    PJ: with your rationale, should the Republican Party now be known as the Republic Party?

  24. 25 PJ
    January 9, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Howard, get a dictionary! If you want to use proper English that is what it should be called.

  25. 26 PJ
    January 9, 2008 at 4:05 pm

    They are called Democrats not Democratics, right. Look at it this way: Republican party and Republicans it is Democrat party and Democrats.

  26. January 9, 2008 at 8:38 pm

    Interesting question what will the “kids” do if Clinton gets the Dem bid. I am not sure how write-in votes work~different in each state~Camp Obama plans to write in a vote for him. Me? I would find a third party candidate to vote for, unless Ron Paul was the Republican candidate. I do not support Paul, but he is 3rd best of all the candidates.

    As I see it Hillary’s “the guys are beating me up” and the “I am so exhausted” sob, sob, swayed people. They make no mention of how Clinton has been attacking Obama like a rabid dog for months now and brought in her top dawg, Bill to bite some more.

    NH shows me that at least 102,883 Democrats see through her posturing and voted for change we can believe in. From what I understand her win in NH gives her one less total delegate than Obama. Hopefully he gets some landslide wins in other states to widen his lead.

    Not clear on why Michigan is not allowing him on the ticket, but seems with “Detroit the home of the Motown Sound” there is a bit of discrimination going on.

  27. 28 Greggie
    January 9, 2008 at 9:25 pm

    No offense taken!

    None intended either. Just a frustrated Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean, Barack Obama voter who is starting to hate both his party and his country more than just a little bit.

    I’m also just sick of hearing that I’m a sexist for hating her on a deep, personal level when I hate her husband EVEN MORE on a deep personal level. It’s amazing to me that a party could be sold out by its President as badly as we were by him in the 90’s (triangulation is a code word for selling out your base) and then want to vote for his wife. It’s also shocking (for a man with 2 daughters who watched proudly with them as Nancy Pelosi was sworn in) for us to call voting for a former First Lady feminism. When George Wallace was term-limited out of office in Alabama, HIS wife ran for and won the Governorship! That is not feminism! “Marry well, even if he cheats a lot” is NOT a positive feminist message I want to send to my daughters!

    So just know this, Clinton-Crats. There is a good, solid 20% of the Dem electorate who have supported many of the same candidates I have over the years, who backed Howard Dean strongly in 2004 and then vomited in our mouths a little when we pulled the lever for that tool from Massachusetts, who will fight HEART, BODY, and SOUL for every vote for Obama, but will NEVER vote for a Clinton restoration. Many of us (my wife and I included) will vote for the Republican (or Bloomberg), just so that we can have another crack at an open primary in 2012! If we get 8 years of another Clinton and then 8 years of another Republican, this family will be living in Canada/Europe before those 2024 primaries start happening.

    So if you want to tear this country and this party apart at the seams, keep backing Hillary. But if you want to actually WIN in November, pull your head out of your collective A$$ (was that better?) and back a candidate of Change! (Change, by the way, is a code word for NOT ANOTHER G.D. CLINTON!!!)

  28. January 10, 2008 at 12:29 am

    what an amazing job of research you did for this article, so insightful and well written. I admire your in-depth attitude towards political analyzation, and the amount of foresight and work that went into this wonderful piece of journalism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

January 2008
« Dec   Feb »

%d bloggers like this: