Matthews: "[L]ow 30 percent" result in Iowa for Clinton would mean "reject[ion] ... by two-thirds" of Iowa Dems
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, Chris Matthews asserted that if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton were to "squeak" out a victory in the Iowa caucuses, she will nonetheless have been "rejected here in Iowa by two-thirds of the Democratic Party." Matthews added that she would be "lucky to get 33 percent" and went on to say that a "low 30 percent" result would represent "a resounding rejection" of Clinton.
On the January 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, while discussing possible outcomes of the Iowa Democratic caucuses that evening, MSNBC host Chris Matthews asserted that if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) were to "squeak" out a victory, she will nonetheless have been "rejected here in Iowa by two-thirds of the Democratic Party." Matthews added that she would be "lucky to get 33 percent" and went on to say that a "low 30 percent" result would represent "a resounding rejection" of Clinton.
Earlier in the show, Matthews predicted that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) would win 18 percent of votes in the Iowa Republican caucuses, although in contrast with his comments about Clinton, Matthews did not assert that if he is right, McCain will have been "rejected" by 82 percent of Iowa Republican caucus participants. Indeed, while Matthews characterized a "low 30 percent" result for Clinton as negative, he suggested on the January 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball that if McCain were to receive 18 percent of the vote, he would be "the big hero."
In a January 2 "guide" to "post-caucus spin" posted on MSNBC.com, NBC News political director Chuck Todd foreshadowed Matthews' spin on a "low 30 percent" result for Clinton. Todd wrote that if there is a "three-way tie," Clinton will have to "make sure the media doesn't somehow turn the tie into a '60-plus percent of Democrats rejected her' spin" and added: "While the Clinton campaign believes that they've gotten bad media coverage, they do have to worry about a certain segment of the press interpreting Clinton as the incumbent being rejected by majority margins." From Todd's January 2 post:
A three-way tie: The Clinton camp will have two challenges in this scenario. One is to make sure the media doesn't somehow turn the tie into a "60-plus percent of Democrats rejected her" spin. While the Clinton campaign believes that they've gotten bad media coverage, they do have to worry about a certain segment of the press interpreting Clinton as the incumbent being rejected by majority margins. The second challenge is to make sure they declare victory in this case. With the polls indicating that Edwards and Obama had the juice to win, and Clinton seeming destined for no better than second, a tie may equal a win if her camp plays their cards right.
From the January 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
JOE SCARBORUGH (host): What's going to happen tonight?
MATTHEWS: Well, I said it last night. Here it is, my trifecta. Ready? Mika?
MIKA BRZEZNSKI (co-host): Yeah, I'm ready.
MATTHEWS: Obama wins tonight -- Obama wins on the Democratic side tonight. By a decent amount, I think. [Republican presidential candidate Mitt] Romney squeaks it, and McCain surprises everybody by pulling in 18 percent. That's my trifecta tonight. I think it's risky, but I think that's what's going to happen based upon what I know.
SCARBOROUGH: Then let's break that down, and let's work backwards because that's fascinating. And I think you're exactly right. If John McCain comes in anywhere near 20 percent, that is a huge story that has implications for the Republican nomination for the next several weeks, right?
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: Chris, if you are right and Barack Obama wins the caucus out here tonight, and John Edwards is right, and he has a very strong showing -- both very plausible scenarios, that could put -- and Bob Novak's predicting this and several other people are -- that could put Hillary Clinton in third place.
MATTHEWS: Right, Joe. Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: How damaging is that to her future prospects?
MATTHEWS: I think in terms of world news, it's the second headline. Maybe it's the biggest news domestically. Because if you look at the numbers as they're shaping up, it looks to me like even if Hillary Clinton does manage to squeak it tonight -- I don't think she will -- she's been rejected here in Iowa by two-thirds of the Democratic Party. She is lucky to get 33 percent.
In other words, people who really know her well, have known her since 1991, really know her and can tell you -- they don't even read books about it. Carl Bernstein's written a hell of a book. Sally Bedell Smith's written a hell of a book. Nobody really wants to read about it. They all know enough about Hillary. We are absolutely filled up -- we are saturated with Hillary knowledge, as far as we're concerned.
And after all that knowledge, we say, by 2-to-1, no. I mean, I'm talking about the Democratic Party participants in the caucuses tonight. That's a resounding rejection if she only gets, like, a low 30 percent. Very resounding.
From the 7 p.m. ET hour of edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews on January 2:
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you -- let me ask you this about the John McCain. Andrea [Mitchell, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent], you first. John McCain looks like he might be in the position that Gary Hart was in back in '84. Get a high percentage, a teen number, say, poll 18 tomorrow night and be the big hero tomorrow night?
MITCHELL: And his only -- you know, he's come back here tonight, so McCain is back in state. He could be a big surprise, and that could really change the dynamic of the race, giving him even more of an impetus into New Hampshire.
MATTHEWS: I say McCain gets 18 points or more. Anyway, Andrea Mitchell, Howard Fineman [Newsweek senior Washington correspondent], thank you all. Coming up, the Democratic race in Iowa could be -- not be any closer. We're going to talk to the top advisers from the three top candidates, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. I made my pick. It's going to be Obama. It's going to be Romney and McCain. Watch him, he's up about 18 points.
We'll see more. More coming back on Hardball.
No - it would mean that 70 percent of the caucus-goers voted for someone else. It would only be a rejection if there were just two candidates - Hillary and someone else.
This is just an extension of the right wing/republican talking point that Bill Clinton wasn't a legitimate president because he got less than 50% of the vote.
Who needs Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly/Gibson/Beck/Coulter et al with Matthews on the airwaves?
That would mean that Bush wasn't either, since he lost the popular vote in 2000. But of course, that isn't how President's in the US are decided.
Finally, someone that gets it!!
True. But it's VERY uncommon that the winner not at least carry a PLURALITY of the popular vote. The "under 50%" thing has happened 17 times - where the winner didn't get at clear majority of the popular vote. (10 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 Whig, IIRC)
But only THREE times has the winner ever not gotten a plurality. W. (as everyone knows), Hayes over Tilden (which was also the closest electoral vote in history) and John Quincy Adams who was soundly spanked by Andrew Jackson, but since Jax didn't have a majority of the the electoral vote (split three ways) it went to congress to decide and they voted for "Q." (Now THAT'S stealing an election!)
Consequently, "Q."'s presidency was almost as bis a disaster as "W."'s
I thinbk it's hysterical that mathews was right on about his predictions...the results are now in. They don't like the phrasing of "60% rejection"? how about 60% chose/would prefer someone else? It really amounts to the same thing, but one sounds a little softer and fuzzier. I don't see any misinformation here and I don't know that one result in Iowa is in and of ityself a big story just yet.
LOLO:
Let's put Matthew's "analysis formula" to the ACTUAL results, shall we?
240,000 Dem votes, 115,000 Rep votes, Hucakbee takes 1st place in the GOP race with 40,000 votes.
Ah, but that's not the way to characterize this election, is it? According to Matthews, this should be reported as Huckabee being ROUNDLY REJECTED by 87% of Iowans.
ONLY 10% FOR the Republican, 90% REJECTING him. 90% AGAINST!!!!!!!
Fair enough?
Your math confused me but maybe I'm dense or uninformed so help me out here...Repub's vote for repubs and dems for dems right? Or is their cross voting?
so if huck got 40k out of about 115k votes(going by memory here) thats about 35%. Or, only a 65% rejection. It's not a fuzzy way to say it and maybe it's a bit unfair but it doesn't get me rked up.
Let me also suggest that the reasons these results are potentially more important for Hillary then any other candidate are many. Her name recognition, organization, money, etc shoulc have squashed her competition.
I mean, cmon, Edwards? No chance to win the presidencey. Ever. Period. Obama? He's got a chance but he shouldn't. Too young. No experience. No qualifications(yes, much like Bush). And both beat her(tie with Edwards if u prefer)? Yikes. Let's face facts. This was a big defeat for Hillary
Matthews logic: a low 30% win for Hillary means "rejection," but a low 30% win for Obama is an astounding upset and victory.
And this is the guy who's picking our candidate for us.
It would only be a rejection if there were just two candidates - Hillary and someone else.
Not even then it wouldn't. If I was offered a night of heaven with one of two beauty pageant winners, choosing one of two gorgeous women would not mean I'm necessarily "rejecting" the other. Sometimes you just gotta choose. It doesn't always have to be the lesser of two evils.
Numbers aren't the whole story.
Marv, I wanna caucus with you ! What town are you in where they got them gals?
Good luck to all the candidates! Fun time begins tonight.
Fun indeed! I'll be watching MSNBC tonight, best coverage IMO.
Go Obama or Edwards! Go Romney!
Mostly because I dislike Hills & Huck ;-)
I agree , for all of MSNBCS flaws they have the best coverage. FOX and CNN are horrible covering elections.
Jeter, looks like all this primary stuff doesn't really matter. According ro Pat, God has already told him who is gonna be president.
God also told Pat we're gonna get the Chinese. And by get, I mean convert to Christianity.
And he can leg-press 2000 pounds as well. He is genuinely out of his mind.
Watching election results is like watching paint dry. I'll do something else tonight and by tomorrow morning know the results the same as everyone else. With the added benefit of not having having watched all the bloviating and spinning.
having having? Sheesh.
having having
Must be the "have mores" that GWB was 'joking' about.
Anyway, thanks AA for the quick chuckle. It takes character to admit an error, and talent to make it amusing.
THANK GOD there's election results to watch tonight. I'm sick and tired of watching paint dry. :-)
I spent last night watching the "America's Next Top Model" marathon on VH1....
So that means the two thirds of Democrats that don't vote for Clinton in the caucus are going to vote Republican if she gets the nomination? What the heck is Matthews snorting?
That's right. No other candidate-- dem or repub-- will get treated this way, by this interpretation.
You think if Huckabee "loses" 60% of the R. vote, he will be seen as a failure? Of course not.
I think he's kinda thinking it's Hillary against everyone else. It's a shallow view, but not entirely unwarranted. She has been the "unstoppable force" for so long, it's probably been ingrained into his head.
I thought journalists were supposed to be impartial presenters of both sides of political issues?
--Does Matthews have something "ingrained in his head?" If so, I'm concerned about what that might be.
No, it's called bias. She's being treated differently-- everything she does is either culpable, questionable, or meaningless. If others win votes, it's seen as a positive thing, but if she does, it's discounted.
The MSM hates her because they know she's the strongest general cadidate and they don't want a Dem. in the office-- it'll be bad for business. Look who these guys work for-- you think they got their plushy jobs by tilting windmills?
eggsactly...
This just in: 67% of Americans reject their president.
Dex,
There is a difference between a negative approval rating and rejection. Just ask my wife.
On second thought, don't!
There's a difference between a marriage and being a citizen under a President.
In the context provided, I'm not sure what the difference is between "rejection" and "negative approval rating".
By Matthew's "standard", this President Bush has been RESOUNDINGLY REJECTED by the American People, not just his own party.
That sounds about right.
I wonder if Matthews would advise Hillary, having won Iowa by having 33%, and more votes than all other Democratic candidates, she should view this as a "resounding rejection" and just drop out of the race?
In the same breath, of course, McCain should take his 18% and march on to a hero's VICTORY.
Folks, this is the very DEFINITION of partisanship, with Matthews being the RIGHTWING partisan, making no attempt whatsoever to conceal his bias.
Let's see. According to Matthew's logic, Obama won with 37%, so 63% of the voters rejected him and gave him back the ring. Matthews isn't well.
I think you could make a case for that.
That's just crazy talk by Matthews (suprise?). Whoever wins is going to be "rejected" by a large majority of voters. It goes with the territory at this stage. All the nominees have been embraced by the voters, not rejected. But you only get one vote. Well, in Iowa two.
Very strange sort of coverage for a journalist...
If that's what he thinks he is? Matthews seems to be disgracing himself with this sort of stuff. It's quite sad.
Brab,
Just because the husband didn't take out the trash he has to sleep in the doghouse.
Which is why one's opinion of their President is different from one's opinion of their spouse. Did I not already mention that?
Brab,
The use of the husband analogy was to illustrate the difference betw...
Oh never mind.
Your wife sounds like my wife.
But, if Hillary is in a virtual 3 way tie for first with Obama and Edwards, won't they all get approximately 33% of the vote? And with the other guys scrambling for either small percentages or just the crumbs.
I applaud your ability to state the obvious.
:-)
They don't call me Captain Obvious for nothing after all.
But seriously, it's as if Matthews has lost his brain, yet again.
Couldn;t you say that about 2/3's of the voters reject all of the candiates. Some don't like the word rejected I guess but I'd say if you apply it equally it's no problem. Let's face it. the focus is on hillary because anything other then a landslide is really somewhat of a defeat for the Senator. The reason(s) this is so we all know.
When all the candidates each get 50% of the vote then we'll have a story. And with the voting pencils these Iowans have, it could be possible.
MMFA-
Thanks for showing how biased Matthews is against Hillary Clinton and for John McCain.
There are things I don't like about Hillary. That said, there are things I don't like about other candidates. I'm leaning toward her though since I know there is a pervasive anti-clinton sentiment in the media -- such as the recent admission by Dana Milbanks.
DEMS, please try to find some sense of glory in the excellent roster of candidates we have as opposed to the lackluster candidates on the right. Only we can defeat ourselves. We handed GW two terms becuase of our cynicism. Our opponents have nothing. Hiillary is not a candidate we have to settle for, she's as good as any of her primary opponents and YES the fact that she's a woman should account for something since they've been largely omitted from politics throughout the wonderful, and tragic, history, of this country.
*I* believe that what handed Bungle two terms was the Democratic sense of duty to the nation that prevented digging out, and disclosing fully, the theft of those two elections. Regardless of all the other sites involved in Repugnant fraud, we know for sure that Gore won Florida - if/when the votes were counted; and turns out, along with seven other States that mattered, Ohio went for Kerry. That is why the Repugnant officials had to defy law and court orders to destroy the 2004 ballots before comparisons could be made to reported "counts".
Exactly Conley...
Bush was handed the 2000 election from "on high" by the Supreme Court. They stopped the recount which would have clearly shown Gore the winner in Florida. They did great damage to Democracy.
Many legal experts have opined that this was the "worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court."
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But DEMS -- with the exception of the Congessional Black Caucus -- bent over and took it. So we have only ourselves to blame.
Hitlery doesn't have a chance in hell.
My prediction: the little princess and Mr. Romney
My predictionas to how many states Romney wins--ZERO. Take it to the bank.
Oh come on. Not even Utah?
Hitlery, isnt that cute. WAIT no its just stupid like all your ignorant posts
Well, looks like you suck again. Not even close, just so ignorant you can't call people by their proper name.
BTW, I called it first. Like I said, no way in hell will the right wing allow a mormon president. Stranger and his knuckle dragging friends are making sure of that!
The Pig in a Pant Suit doesn't have a chance in hell.
Quote me.
Pig in a pants suit? I thought Tancredo dropped out already.
No matter how much you beg, no one is likely to ever quote you. Unless it's in the context of "some people hate women so much, they can't even attempt to be civil about it or discuss their reasons for this hatred- for example, there's this drooling moron troll who calls himself 'the Stranger' who says..."
Just like the incredibly ignorant poster called stranger hasnt a chance of being taken seriously as anything but a moron
"Quote me." -- The Stranger
Given your previous factual errors and omissions.
Like the Raven, "Nevermore."
The Cons are being done in by their own crazy. First, they drove off the Independents with their maniac business and war agenda -- neither of which it now appears they do well, go figure. Now they will kill their own because of pandering to an intolerant base. They may not like Hillary, however, a couple of days ago on one of the C-Spans I watched some prejudice old coot (the Ring Wing bread-and-butter) refuse to shake Romney's hand cause he was a Mormon. I hate to see what will happen if the Rep'ers ever run a Muslim for national office the way they have vilified them. Years of divisional religious and cultural rhetoric will now hand the government back to the Democrats.
Good riddance to the GOP!
Everybody knows this asshole Matthews hates Hillary Clinton. He needs to recuse himself from punditry until this thing is over.
This is just ridiculous. MSNBC and CNN are both peddling the same story- Hillary loses! Hillary loses! And Matthews repeats the same inane "points" over and over again, and it's all about how the Clinton "machine" was derailed and how much Iowans loathe Hillary. Oh and did you know that Obama has a different "world view" because his dad was born in "now war-torn Kenya?" Can anyone explain what Matthews means by this? Anyone/
Over on CNN, Cafferty and Bill Bennett are in a contest to see which one can trash Hillary more. Cafferty raises the interesting point that "for three decades there has been either a Bush or Clinton in the White House," which is something I've never heard during this campaign season, unless you include the roughly 10,000 callers to Washington Journal I've heard bleat it in the past two months.
Meanwhile, the fact that Romney, who was up by 2-1 in the polls in Iowa two months ago but is getting beaten by a larger margin than Hillary, is all but ignored. Hell, you'd be forgiven if you didn't NOTICE the GOP caucus.
Operation Destroy Hillary reached a real crescendo tonight. What a disgrace for our national media.
Well Obama one and Hillary came in Third. HOORAY. Chris was off on the Republican side. But still Huckabee has no chance.
Chris Matthews doesn't have a shred of professionalism left. His fear and loathing of Mrs. Clinton is palpable. His hatred of her seeps out of every pore. It's obvious among the press that feminism didn't even scratch the surface, it just drove the pigs like Matthews underground. His show and most of the others on MSNBC belong on Fox.
It's interesting that a 1/3 vote for Mrs Clinton illustrates that 2/3's are against her...but 40% for Obama doesn't mean 60% are against him. If each of the 3 candidates had gotten 1/3 wouldn't that mean that 2/3's of the voters were against each of them?
Let's not have too much praise for the verbose Keith Olbermann. If he had any guts he would be putting Matthews in the 'Worst' segment at least once a week!
During the coverage last night, Matthews kept repeating how 2/3rds of democrats REJECTED Hillary last night in Iowa. One of the panelists they had on, kept trying to remind him that just about 2/3rds of democrats in Iowa rejected every candidate last night because they were almost dead even, Obama a little higher than the other 2, but still. Matthews is insane I think. I lost count of how many times he mentioned Obama's middle name as well. Olberman didn't even try to bring him back to what the rest of us like to call, you know, reality.
What Is Matthews Up To?
After Chris Mathews successfully trashes Hillary Clinton to a lower standing in the Democratic ranking, he will sharpen his Republican tools for Barack Obama. The media's all out attack on Clinton raises a important question: Should a major network campaign against a candidate?
I am a Obama supporter, but I am really taken back at the amount of negative press giving to the Democratic front runner. Hillary Clinton is not only fighting very dynamic and strong contenders, but she is also fighting off a steady flow of media bias. At every turn, she is being trashed, and in some cases, with CNN and MSNBC, they are spending 90% of their shows trashing her. Spare me with the “front runner” line. No other front runner is receiving this kind of media attacks. I want the right-wing media out of the Democratic mix. It confuses things and may be setting up a scenario they prefer.
I truly want Obama to win. However, I don’t want the influence. For all it worth, this media element won’t be their in the general election. We may find out, the best person for the Democratic top spot may of been overlooked. The media reaches millions of people in every corner in the US. No other candidate can buy what the right-wing media is doing to Clinton. I will call a “spade a spade.” This scenario angers me. Especially coming from Chris Matthews. Matthews is on a power trip. He treats every guest based on how negative they are toward Clinton. I have often heard him say “I like those who agree with me.” He will not like me.
Joseph
Happy New Year!Last night was a truly great day for democracy in the USA! And there is absolutely no doubt that it was a BIG win for Obama and a huge loss for Hillary.With Hillary's campaign collapsing I think that MMFA just might be in crisis mode trying to cover for Hillary. I mean, she did not lose in Iowa because of a comment made by Matthews. She LOST BIG TIME because Obama is a much better candidate. The most biased comment of the night came from another Hillary die-hard, Keith Olbermann.Olbermann Downplaying Obama Winby turneresq Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:09:59 PM PSTWhat the hell. I mean, what the hell Keith? Olbermann has continually belittled the Obama win here tonight. How exactly he has done so after the jump.------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obama will be the next Democratic candidate. My question is this: Is MMFA "progressive" or just PRO-HILLARY?
Oh yes your are just another conservative.
Joseph
I wonder whose band wagon will MMFA jump on since the Clinton machine lost Iowa. And who will MMFA blame the GOP or the fact that Obama is a better candidate for the Dems. Looks like Matthews was correct!!
Can't figure out why anyone pays any attention to what Chris Matthews has to say about anything. He seems to me to be a closet neo-con!!! Every once in a while he slips up and comes right out for their philosophy. Hurrah for the banking. corporate, military industrial complex, status quo and the hell with the poor and middle class. As for Iowa, John Edwards said it all, 2 campaigns for change and one for the status quo. We need real change in America.
Matthew's blatant bias against the Clintons is sad and laughable too. He does not seem to realize the extent of his icy coldness towards the Clintons. He, meanwhile, lets Bush off the hook. He blames Hillary for giving Bush authority to enter Iraq, but does not direct this animus at Bush for entering the country. Bush has said so often he benefits from low expectations. Matthews must have the lowest expectations of Bush. To Matthews, everyone is responsible for Bush's inept policies but Bush himself.