About Me

My photo
Matthew Freeman is a Brooklyn based playwright with a BFA from Emerson College. His plays include THE DEATH OF KING ARTHUR, REASONS FOR MOVING, THE GREAT ESCAPE, THE AMERICANS, THE WHITE SWALLOW, AN INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR, THE MOST WONDERFUL LOVE, WHEN IS A CLOCK, GLEE CLUB, THAT OLD SOFT SHOE and BRANDYWINE DISTILLERY FIRE. He served as Assistant Producer and Senior Writer for the live webcast from Times Square on New Year's Eve 2010-2012. As a freelance writer, he has contributed to Gamespy, Premiere, Complex Magazine, Maxim Online, and MTV Magazine. His plays have been published by Playscripts, Inc., New York Theatre Experience, and Samuel French.

Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Super Tuesday Results

Obama wins more states than Clinton, Clinton wins some of the big states. Delegate count is nearly even.

So how does this shake out?

The Pro-Clinton Spin -

Clinton held off a candidate with momentum to win decisively in states with the most delegates. She won California, she won Massachusetts, she won New York. At this point, Obama can't put himself over the top, and she's winning where it counts.

The Pro-Obama Spin -

Obama is matching her delegate count, he was behind by as much as 20 points not long ago, and has made this a contest. He won more states in more places where Democrats "need to win" to win the nomination.

The Freeman take -

I can't look at this as anything but a good thing for Obama. Basically, he made it close where it should have been a blow out, made her compete in her own backyard, won in more states, pulled close enough in California to siphon off delegates, pulled ahead in Missouri, looks like he'll win New Mexico, and has turned what could have been a coronation into a real dogfight.

I heard last night a very good point - the idea that winning in California or New York as a big deal for Clinton isn't very accurate. It would have been big for Obama to beat her in either of them, but she was always ahead in those states and was always expected to win them. The same goes, despite the spin, for Massachusetts. She was leading in the polls in Massachusetts for a very long time, and winning there should have been elementary.

Obama won all over the country. If he becomes the general election nominee, it's not like he won't win in California and New York and Massachusetts. Either one of them has to win everywhere, and he's shown he can win outside of mainstay "blue" states. He also kept it close.

Sure, there's lots that Clinton can brag about. It's close and he didn't beat her. Not at all.

But we'll be watching this for months, crew. Months. That's got to be something the Clinton camp wanted to avoid.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

He also has shown that he can engage voters in states that the Dems wrote off years ago, and that Clinton apparently wrote off this year (Idaho, North Dakota, Kansas). Does this mean that he can win as the Dem nominee in those states in November? No. But if the DNC under Howard Dean is serious about a 50-state grassroots strategy to build the party for years to come, they should be looking at how well he did in those states very carefully and calculate the ability of an Obama candidacy to bring out the vote for the names down-ticket.