That's not what I mean by "something big". I mean something big. The Clinton campaign has already tried contriving, manufacturing, or dredging up whatever "scandals" they can, from the supposed Obama comment to the Canadians that he didn't mean it about NAFTA, to his neighbor who used to be in The Weathermen, to Jeremiah Wright, along with a bunch of others some of which didn't catch on with the press. None of this stuff has done, or will do, the trick.
To win by campaigning, Clinton needs to shift the voting pattern by more than 20% in under a month. That simply does not happen through normal campaigning, no matter how negative. Only a 9/11-sized event has that sort of effect. In truth, even Spitzer's hooker scandal wouldn't have moved more than 20% in under a month, so a "Spitzer scenario" requires more than just the scandal itself, it also requires that Obama respond to it by dropping out. Anything big enough to move voting patterns by over 20% in under a month, is big enough to give her the nomination even if she drops out.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no, I mean *big*
Date: 2008-05-14 17:08 (UTC)To win by campaigning, Clinton needs to shift the voting pattern by more than 20% in under a month. That simply does not happen through normal campaigning, no matter how negative. Only a 9/11-sized event has that sort of effect. In truth, even Spitzer's hooker scandal wouldn't have moved more than 20% in under a month, so a "Spitzer scenario" requires more than just the scandal itself, it also requires that Obama respond to it by dropping out. Anything big enough to move voting patterns by over 20% in under a month, is big enough to give her the nomination even if she drops out.