Staying In

Via Marc Ambinder, it seems that Hillary Clinton's consultants have won the spin war and two-thirds of Democrats want her to stay in the race if she wins either Ohio or Texas.

That said, this is the kind of thing that public opinion is just poorly informed about. Here's the reality of the situation. If Wednesday morning the only shot Clinton has at winning the nomination involves getting the superdelegates to overrule a large Obama lead in pledged delegates and/or somehow getting the Michigan and Florida delegations seated, then Clinton's chances of winning the nomination will still be extremely low, and the prospects of either person winning the general election would get quite a bit lower. Basically, Clinton would be completely burning years worth of goodwill built up by her and her husband in the progressive community and ending her shot at playing a leadership role in the Senate in exchange for a very marginal increase in the odds of her becoming president in January 2009. A choice like that would be bad for the country, bad for the party, and bad for Hillary Clinton. It would be good, primarily, for her campaign's highest-paid operatives who would keep getting their checks, and it would be good for John McCain.

I've thought about it, and I don't think she'll do it. I don't think she and Bill are that out of touch with reality, and I don't think that most of her key supporters are either. If her results today are good enough to give her a realistic shot at winning the nomination through winning primaries, then of course she'll stay in. But if the delegate math isn't there, then I think she'll get out.

Comments

Well then...

Texas: You gave the world George Bush.
Ohio: You gave the world four more years of George Bush.

Don't drop the ball again.

Posted by Tony | March 4, 2008 11:16 AM

I've thought about it, and I don't think she'll do it. I don't think she and Bill are that out of touch with reality, and I don't think that most of her key supporters are either.

Another classic Yglesias prediction!

Posted by Christmas | March 4, 2008 11:20 AM

Supposedly, the Obama campaign has 50 superdelegate endorsements they're waiting to roll out, presumably tomorrow to try to end this thing...

Posted by John | March 4, 2008 11:24 AM

Christmas:
I wonder what odds MY will take on that bet? I'm really close to wanting to bet MY that she won't get out tomorrow regardless of what happens.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 4, 2008 11:24 AM

I wonder how much the Obama campaign cares. Obviously, they'd love to have Hillary concede so that Obama can be the official winner. But if the Pennsylvania primary is hotly contested, the Obama campaign will spend 6 weeks recruiting and training activists, who will talk to Pennsylvania voters about their candidate, and who will get real-world practice in voter ID, precinct and phone work, and GOTV. And that kind of experience is likely to pay off in November.

Posted by Pesto | March 4, 2008 11:24 AM

I've thought about it, and I don't think she'll do it.

She will continue till the last "automatic delegate" either gives her a victory or tells her no.

Posted by bjd | March 4, 2008 11:24 AM

Matt,

You obviously weren't on the Clintons' all-Rezko conference call this AM. These are the people who lost us Congress in the 90s. What's one promising young candidate to them?

Posted by neilrlca | March 4, 2008 11:25 AM

But if the delegate math isn't there, then I think she'll get out.

The only conclusion to draw from Matt's prediction is that Hillary will butch it out to the bitter end.

Posted by Lucy | March 4, 2008 11:26 AM

I think it could be good for the Dem. party if the candidates spend their time bashing Republicans and McCain rather than each other. But, it's not helpful when Clinton uses McCain's 'experience' as a rhetorical crutch to enhance her credibility and bash Obama.

We will see in tonight's speeches which direction they'll choose. I think things will be ugly all the way through April.

Posted by Mike | March 4, 2008 11:27 AM

Clinton would be completely burning years worth of goodwill built up by her and her husband in the progressive community and ending her shot at playing a leadership role in the Senate in exchange for a very marginal increase in the odds of her becoming president in January 2009.

Oh bullshit. Clinton could screw over progressives and be the Senate Leader. The Senate doesn't give a shit about bloggers, see: Joe Lieberman.

Also, exactly what is the hurry about having her get out of the race? Even if she loses in Texas, she'll still win two other states tonight. Neither her nor Obama can get the delegates without Superdelegates swinging one way or the other. And for every 10 delegates Obama has won, she's won 9.

Clearly the Democratic Party has some strange rules, but given the rules it's just not obvious to me what the rush is.

Moreover, her staying in the race arguably helps Obama since it keeps the attention in this comparatively exciting contest and off McCain.

The one downside is that she or her surrogates could launch all kinds of attacks on him over Rezko. But, again, what's the big deal? It's not like the Republicans are going to let Rezko slide. Better to have a full airing of that now.

You know, vet and test, that's what the Democratic Party should do. No coronations either for Clinton or Obama.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 4, 2008 11:29 AM

"If her results today are good enough to give her a realistic shot at winning the nomination through winning primaries, then of course she'll stay in."

It depends what you mean by realistic. I tend to think the Clinton campaign would say it means are they in a position Wednesday to have a realistic shot to win the nomination if they then also win PA by 20 points.

Of course, if they've spent all their money in TX and Ohio already, that would be a major factor as well.

Posted by Andruw | March 4, 2008 11:30 AM

Why would she get out? She's managed to stop Obama's momentum and bloody him pretty good the last week. She's got tons of cash and a feeling that if she can continue to pound on Obama and then win Pa. by a substantial margin, the party will come to her. I'd like nothing more for her to quit the race, but if I'm in her camp, I keep going, at least for a little while. It's possible the press, along with McCain and Billary, could cripple Obama, and the party would see her as the only shot in November. It's not likely this will happen, but it's possible. And if I'm Hillary Clinton, that's all I need to keep going.

Posted by NHCt | March 4, 2008 11:31 AM

Matt, thanks for saying this. Instead of just calling the horse race, people need to start stepping up and challenging the Clinton campaign on the reality of the numbers. If the results tonight are as expected, the first question out of every reporter's mouth to Hillary's campaign tomorrow should be, "Mathematically, how are you convinced that you're still a viable candidate in this race?"

Posted by SDinIA | March 4, 2008 11:31 AM

I think she's staying in and I think that's fine. I just don't think that Clinton saying negative things about Obama really hurts the party or the chances of the eventual Democratic nominee. I'd rather have Hillary running ads about 3AM telephone calls and Obama's links to Rezko now rather than letting that lie until the general.

If the attack works, well he wasn't ready. And if the attcks don't work, they will be old news when the general rolls around.

Posted by IMU | March 4, 2008 11:35 AM

No claim today is binding. There is no reason to say "we're dropping out on Wednesday" on Monday if you hope to get your supporters to the polls on Tuesday.

I'm glad you're not repeating the idea that Clinton will sabotage Obama to save 2012 for herself. That's very nearly Redstate-comment-thread-level Clinton-paranoia. To my mind, the Clinton team isn't maniacally ambitious; they just think that a Clinton campaign will be more likely to win and a Clinton presidency more likely to net the right policy outcomes.

Posted by SDM | March 4, 2008 11:36 AM

"two-thirds of Democrats want her to stay in the race if she wins either Ohio or Texas."

Given that more Democrats have voted for Clinton than for Obama so far, why should that be a surprise?

Clinton is the choice of Democrats. Why wouldn't we want our candidate to stay in the race?

-----

"A choice like that would be bad for the country, bad for the party"

I think we can all agree that Obama choosing to run a candidacy based on trying to win the Democratic nomination through independent voters rather than through Democratic voters is bad for the country and bad for the Party.

Perhaps there is some Obama/Bloomberg/Peretz party that Obama can seek the nomination of.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 11:36 AM

I think the key factor here is that, if Hillary wants to stay in the race, it would require six weeks of living in Pennsylvania.

And no one would really want to do that, right?

Posted by Alex | March 4, 2008 11:38 AM

Clinton had a conference call about Rezko?

I wonder how long Obama can go before he brings up the cattle, Rose Law, Monsanto, Travelgate, tax returns, Afghanistan, Monica, the library, etc. He's a bigger man than I am.

Posted by Tony | March 4, 2008 11:39 AM

I think we can all agree that Obama choosing to run a candidacy based on trying to win the Democratic nomination through independent voters rather than through Democratic voters is bad for the country and bad for the Party.

I sure as hell DON'T agree. Do you really think a Democratic candidate can win in Novermber with only the votes of committed Democrats?

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 4, 2008 11:39 AM

Petey, you are soooo adorable when you use that type of rationale. Mmmmmm...I just want to stick you in my pocket and take you home with me. That's so cute.

Posted by Wade Garrett | March 4, 2008 11:40 AM

Matt, if that were true, why would they be pushing the idea that they only need to win one of Texas or Ohio to stay in the game? Under what conditions would winning one state and losing the other appreciably narrow Obama's delegate lead? Winning one by 75-25% and losing the other 51-49%?

I predict her vanity and self-importance will keep her in the race even if she narrowly wins just the popular vote in only one of the states...

Posted by Rob | March 4, 2008 11:41 AM

"To my mind, the Clinton team isn't maniacally ambitious; they just think that a Clinton campaign will be more likely to win and a Clinton presidency more likely to net the right policy outcomes."

And they're correct about that, of course.

I think that's why a majority of Democratic voters have supported them so far.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 11:43 AM

P.S. And whether you believe in open primaries or not, they're open for ALL the candidates. If Hillary's people were not smart enough to understand the rules and what they meant for how the campaigns needed to be run, too bad, so sad.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 4, 2008 11:43 AM

Matt, you've gone a bit crazy here. The general election campaign genuinely doesn't start till the conventions. So long as neither candidate goes super-negative there's no harm in both of them staying in.

Posted by william | March 4, 2008 11:43 AM

It is sad to see Petey become a parody of himself. First Edwards was the guy to back because he had "crossover appeal" (aka was a White Southern Male). Now Obama's actual proven ability to win over independents and R's is a liability?

PS: who you got between GS/Houston and the Powder Blue's?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/standings

Posted by dan k | March 4, 2008 11:45 AM

"Do you really think a Democratic candidate can win in Novermber with only the votes of committed Democrats?"

Nope. But I think the Democratic nomination ought to be determined by the will of Democrats, not by the will of General Electric and Andrew Sullivan.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 11:47 AM

Petey is still hurting badly from the burial of his sanctimonious and blinded support for his losing candidate!

Posted by Justin X | March 4, 2008 11:48 AM

Petey is just a Nader voting troll whose remarks should be ignored.

Posted by bjd | March 4, 2008 11:48 AM

The majority of Democrats who voted for Clinton have voted for her out of nostalgia. I would bet money on that.

Posted by Tony | March 4, 2008 11:48 AM

wonder how long Obama can go before he brings up the cattle, Rose Law, Monsanto, Travelgate, tax returns, Afghanistan, Monica, the library, etc. He's a bigger man than I am.

Don't forget Norman Hsu or Hugh Rodham, Marc Rich and the rest of the pardons, plus current adviser Sandy Berger convicted of stealing and destroying classified documents.

Or he could mention she leads the pack in donations from health insurance companies and Wall Street executives. Big campaign donors have a pretty good track record of getting what they want.

Posted by Mike in KS | March 4, 2008 11:49 AM

If her results today are good enough to give her a realistic shot at winning the nomination through winning primaries, then of course she'll stay in. But if the delegate math isn't there, then I think she'll get out.

But that begs the question: what is a "realistic shot"? You may disagree with the Clinton campaign about what this means. I don't know what the math is - or might realistically be after today. But if it is, say, necessary for Clinton to win 60% of the delegates in the remaining states after today, is that a "realistic shot"? I would think so.

Posted by Al | March 4, 2008 11:50 AM

Matt, you should also remember that candidates invariably say they'll fight all the way to the convention, and they keep saying it until mere hours before they drop out.

So ignore whatever Clinton's people are telling you today--as you say, if things look hopeless tomorrow, they'll quickly change their tune.

Posted by gustav | March 4, 2008 11:52 AM

On the one hand, Obama supporters like to tout the cold hard delegate math to try to get Hillary out of the race, but then they turn right around and make a (reasonable) complaint about the undemocratic nature of the superdelegates. But you can't have it both ways -- if Hillary wins a majority of the popular vote once all of the voting has ended, coupled with momentum from winning the last several big primaries, I think a big spotlight will be turned on all of those caucuses where Obama racked up his delegates and it becomes much less clear who the true "winner" is. In my opinion, one of the worst outcomes for Obama tomorrow would be for Hillary to win majorities in Ohio and Texas, but for Obama to actually win more delegates in Texas due to the allocation process. If this happens, I'd be careful about constantly pushing the delegate math, because the media is already primed for the argument that the whole process is flawed and a movement to seat FL and MI and other pro-Hillary developments could suddenly be deemed "necessary" for the party. Obviously this is a long-shot, but I can plausibly see a scenario where the spin is actually successful and the media makes it seem like it's unclear who actually won -- then the superdelegates will feel free to vote for whoever they want. That might be Hillary.

Posted by Ryan | March 4, 2008 11:52 AM

I don't think she can possibly get the Florida and Michigan delegations seated as is unless she already has enough votes to make them irrelevant. It's just not in the cards. I think that there is reason to believe that HRC would have won there anyway had they voted on Feb. 5, but clearly this will never be accepted as it stands.

But what about re-running the primaries? I think that would be the best solution. People there should not be disenfranchised. Obama would have a fair chance and certainly has the money to compete. If the DNC wants to have a delegate penalty like the RNC exacted that's fine. But to exclude Dems from two large swing states is not a good idea. I think the candidate who could prevail there would strengthen their case for electability.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | March 4, 2008 11:54 AM

I love that Petey has become such a virulent (and accurate) press critic. You know, one who actually calls out the people who have been destroying our public discourse for 15 years.

And of course, going back to the poll itself, it also makes sense that Democrats would want her to stay in if she has any kind of shot--the majority of them have already voted for her, or plan to vote for her.

Posted by Andruw | March 4, 2008 11:55 AM

"Now Obama's actual proven ability to win over independents and R's is a liability?"

If I thought Obama was more electable than Clinton, it would be a point in his favor in my book. In actuality, I think the electability equation is about even.

But whichever, that's a decision for Democrats to make. The Democratic nominee should be chosen by the will of Democratic voters.

And Democratic voters so far are clearly going for Clinton. That's why it's no surprise we want her to continue fighting for the White House.

-----

"PS: who you got between GS/Houston and the Powder Blue's?"

Ugly times for the Powder Blues at the moment. I still have the audacity of hope, however.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 11:55 AM

Al,
Yes, I think your view of a realistic shot is much different than most. You think Hillary has shot to win 60%(!) of the remaining delegates? Where is the evidence of that? Just curious. Really, I'm not being sarcastic.

Posted by TheBulge | March 4, 2008 11:56 AM

Also, what "IMU" said. I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that this primary campaign is damaging either candidate for the general. I think it provides tons of free media and a chance to practice the attacks and counterattacks for the general. She says "he's not ready to be commander-in-chief," he calls her a "polarizing figure who can't unite the country." If that's as rough as it gets, I'm happy to see this go all the way to Pennsylvania and beyond.

Posted by Ryan | March 4, 2008 11:57 AM

"The majority of Democrats who voted for Clinton have voted for her out of nostalgia. I would bet money on that."

I think the majority of Democrats have voted for Clinton because of universal healthcare.

When Obama started running Harry & Louise ads, that was the moment it became clear he was ceding the Democratic vote to gain the support of General Electric and Marty Peretz.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 12:00 PM

But Petey, why would anybody think you know anything about electability that the rest of us don't? You've gotten some things right this season and some things terribly wrong. I don't think your record justifies the confidence of your pronouncements.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | March 4, 2008 12:01 PM

To those of you who think Hillary will drop out, you are so silly! She will not do this for the good of the party. Nyet! THIS is her election. Obama has proven to be susceptible to negative campaigning, Hillary has found her voice, she is the attacker, the negative one. She will continue past OH and TX, past Pennsylvania.

She will not stop until every legal means is tried. I simply don't get the obtuseness of commenters here who think otherwise. Why should she stop? She is a scrapper, she has sunk her grip into the party and no one and nothing will make her let go. She will change the rules, incur ill will, etc. You better believe she will go past Penn, and sue for MI and FL. Just watch.

It is not that Clinton can't win mathematically, it is that OBAMA can't win mathematically, to her. It is the Clinton's party. Do not forget this. She will remind you. Tonight, she will win both OH and TX, not by huge margins, but still. Maybe by 1 to 3 %. Watch.

Posted by chump | March 4, 2008 12:02 PM

Clinton is the choice of Democrats. Why wouldn't we want our candidate to stay in the race?

It seems like just yesterday that Petey was arguing that caucuses rightfully gave more influence to the party base. Despite being 10-1 (if you give HRC Nevada, despite coming away with fewer delegates) I guess Obama's massive caucus victories are different.

I think that's why a majority of Democratic voters have supported them so far.

And of course, now caucuses don't matter as much because they don't record as many voters.

Posted by Brad L | March 4, 2008 12:03 PM

I think its possible that if Hillary wins TX and OH narrowly she will continue. The superdelegates would then say "fine if this is really the start of a massive wave of momentum in your favor win in WY and MS."

Posted by Mike | March 4, 2008 12:04 PM

"But I think the Democratic nomination ought to be determined by the will of Democrats, not by the will of General Electric and Andrew Sullivan."

Wow, I didn't know Mark Penn read this blog!

Posted by Shawn | March 4, 2008 12:05 PM

"The Democratic nominee should be chosen by the will of Democratic voters."

Who exactly decided to make certain Democratic primaries open to other voters? Why, it was Democrats, wasn't it? It seems like the Democrats running the Democratic Parties in all these states seem to think having open primaries are a good idea. I wonder what those Democrats know that Petey doesn't?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 4, 2008 12:05 PM

Petey is just having a fun time refighting the 1984 nomination race. That's right Petey, go out there! Walter Mondale all the way!

Plus, he's a bit angry that Obama is (was?) winning using tactics that succeeded, not tactics that Petey, personally approves of. Petey, now isn't a time to throw the African American base and the growing youth base of the Democratic party under the bus in order to feed your southern-white-male fixation.

Posted by Tyro | March 4, 2008 12:07 PM

Petey's bitter about crossover votes for Obama, but our countrymen at redstate are crowing over their votes this morning for Hillary.

In addition, I agree with Ryan.

Posted by Lucy | March 4, 2008 12:08 PM

Yes, I think your view of a realistic shot is much different than most. You think Hillary has shot to win 60%(!) of the remaining delegates? Where is the evidence of that? Just curious. Really, I'm not being sarcastic.

It is possible I'm not being realistic - I could be one of the low information people that Matthew is talking about, since I'm not following the delegate race in the Democratic party as closely as he is. But she won almost 60% of the California delegates allocated to her and Obama - and I think the same in NJ. I don't think it wrong to say that a "realistic shot" includes something just a little ahead of where she ended up in California and NJ.

Posted by Al | March 4, 2008 12:08 PM

I have no idea what the Clintons will decide, but I don't care. Attacks from the Clintons are like attacks from George Bush - they help Obama's credibility more than they hurt.

Posted by Gary Sugar | March 4, 2008 12:10 PM

Thinking you can get away with banging an intern in your office pretty much shows how detached from reality Bill is. Likewise with HRC and the cattle futures trading.

Posted by Chris | March 4, 2008 12:10 PM

"It seems like just yesterday that Petey was arguing that caucuses rightfully gave more influence to the party base."

As I repeated throughout 2007, I support a primary/caucus mix in the early states only. Early caucuses do a good job of giving activists a larger voice in winnowing a large and unknown field.

But once the field has been winnowed and once the larger public is familiar with the candidates, caucuses only serve to advantage upscale voters over downscale voters, which I don't support, and which I didn't support in 2007.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 12:14 PM

Also, I too agree with Ryan that I don't see too much evidence that a primary fight hurts Democrats. If I were a Democrat - even if an Obama supporter - I would want Hillary to stay in the race. You get a lot of free media by having an actual contest!

(The exception is if you think that the fight is driving up negatives in a way that wouldn't occur in the general election. Is there any evidence of this?)

Posted by Al | March 4, 2008 12:15 PM

My influence has never been higher! Thanks, Barack!

Posted by Marty Peretz | March 4, 2008 12:19 PM

There is something odd about the wording of what Clinton has to gain by staying in. "a very marginal increase in the odds of her becoming president in January 2009" After all the odds of staying in vs dropping out may be small overall, the difference between none and some is a pretty significant one.

That said, I think Yglesias is not as far off as many commentaters are indicating. I suspect a lot of superdelegates are waiting until the tallies tonight to come out for Obama. So the announced totals after the next couple of days may be fairly large.

In a normal year it would not much matter if the campaign lasted until the convention. But two facts make that a bit different this time around. One is that Clinton seems to think her only chance to win is to make ads for McCain, which oddly could work as well for him running against her as against Obama.

The more unusual is the spector of a fight over Florida and Michigan. I expect many party dignitaries will try to force a resolution to the presidential race in time to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations. And that would only be possible by coming out in big numbers for Obama.

Candidates usually are in it to the end until the drop out. So the fact that Clinton is may not be significant.

Posted by Lon | March 4, 2008 12:20 PM

"in order to feed your southern-white-male fixation."

I had no idea Senator Clinton was a southern-white-male. I learn something new every day!

"Plus, he's a bit angry that Obama is (was?) winning using tactics that succeeded"

I'm angry he's running against universal healthcare. And I'd be angry about that if he were winning or losing by doing so. Selling out the Democratic base makes me angry.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 12:21 PM

Chris, you forgot to mention that Bill and Hillary had Vince Foster murdered and that Bill was running drugs out of Arkansas and that Bill raped Kathleen Wiley and sent his political operatives out to intimidate her on the streets of Washington, DC when she spoke out. Oh, and the billing records. And that dirty Hillary fired the White House travel office. What will we tell he children?

Posted by Rob Mac | March 4, 2008 12:26 PM

Tell you what, the very fact that Republicans want this to drag out until the convention is enough evidence for me to decide that I DON'T want it to. No?

Posted by Todd Doug | March 4, 2008 12:27 PM

A few responses to some comments here:

NHCt says, Why would she get out? She's managed to stop Obama's momentum and bloody him pretty good the last week. She's got tons of cash and a feeling that if she can continue to pound on Obama and then win Pa. by a substantial margin, the party will come to her.

This is where cognitive shortcuts fail us. "Momentum" and "bloody"ing are not what wins primaries. Delegates are. Firstly, there has been little to no indication that momentum exists much in this race. How did that huge Obama momentum coming off of Iowa work for him in New Hampshire? How did Hillary's suprise comeback in New Hampsire work for her on Super Tuesday? How did the wash on Super Tuesday lead to an eleven wins in a row blowout for Obama? Further, even if Hillary wins PA by a substantial margin, where is the opportunity for the party to "come to her"? To use Plouffe's words, she's out of field. Is she going to stage a delegate comback with blowout wins in Indiana and Puerto Rico?

Petey says, I think we can all agree that Obama choosing to run a candidacy based on trying to win the Democratic nomination through independent voters rather than through Democratic voters is bad for the country and bad for the Party.

Umm, no, I don't think we can. Independents have this thing where they sometimes vote for Democrats and sometimes Republicans. Democrats, on the other hand, usually vote for Democrats. Thus, if you are a Democrat that can pull lots of independents, your chance of victory against a Republican are much greater.

Petey goes on, Nope. But I think the Democratic nomination ought to be determined by the will of Democrats, not by the will of General Electric and Andrew Sullivan.

As neither General Electric nor Andrew Sullivan can vote as they are not citizens, perhaps it would be better to focus on all those independents who are citizens, can vote, and would vote for Barack Obama over John McCain.

Next, William with So long as neither candidate goes super-negative there's no harm in both of them staying in.

Three words, Rezko conferece call.

Finally, Al, with But that begs the question: what is a "realistic shot"?

No, it doesn't beg the question. It raises the question. I may lose this battle, but at least by continuing to fight it, I am not increasing the odds of John McCain winning in Nov.

Have fun all, and don't forget, if the groundhog pops out of her hole today and smells even the faintest whiff of victory, it means six more weeks of slimeball attacks.

Posted by Shochu John | March 4, 2008 12:31 PM

As I repeated throughout 2007, I support a primary/caucus mix in the early states only.

So I'm guessing that Super Tuesday wasn't early enough for you, then? At least Iowa must have meant something...

Posted by Brad L | March 4, 2008 12:33 PM

"At least Iowa must have meant something..."

Yup. Iowa put Obama on the stage. I've got no problem with the caucus process that allowed him to achieve that. I actually support that process.

But I do have a problem with the later caucuses that have allowed Obama to assemble a delegate advantage despite his losing the popular vote among Democratic voters.

To repeat myself, early caucuses are good for allowing activists to winnow the field. Late caucuses are bad because they serve only to advantage upscale voters when attention to the race is already high among the larger Party electorate.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 12:41 PM

I don't understand this blather about all other candidates must drop out before one candidate gets the mathematical number of delegates to clinch the nomination - or else they are only "self-serving" or they "hate the party" or some other some-such nonsense.

Maybe people are too used to recent nomination fights that just ended too early - but there is nothing wrong or self-serving or "hating" the party to fight it out until there is an absolutely clear winner and it is rediculous to ascribe nasty personal motivations to anyone who stays in a fight until there is a clear winner.

Say Obama never does get over the majority of the pledged delegates and convention does get deadlocked and goes additional ballots beyond the first where all delegates are freed from their pledges. Look at history and several leading candidates have fallen just before the convention and ended up losing the nomination. Why should Hillary drop out now and give up her chance at winning at the convention - that's one of things that the convention is for.

The only thing that matters is that the party unites behind the candidate after the convention - are Obama supporters willing to do that if Hillary does get the nomination? Talk about self-serving and hating the party...

Posted by Ethel-To-Tilly | March 4, 2008 12:46 PM

One more on Petey, I'm angry he's running against universal healthcare. And I'd be angry about that if he were winning or losing by doing so. Selling out the Democratic base makes me angry.

Being opposed to mandates only makes one opposed to universal health insurance in the most technical sense. "Everyone who wants it get's it," is close enough to "Everyone gets it" for my tastes, and is politically more palatable. I remember the right wing attacks on the 90's Clinton health care experience. The mandates were a big one.

I consider myself part of the Democratic base, and for my money, selling us out was voting for the Iraq war, not this minor policy difference on health care.

Posted by Shochu John | March 4, 2008 12:47 PM

But she won almost 60% of the California delegates allocated to her and Obama - and I think the same in NJ.

She won 54% of the CA delegates (207 to 163, do the math), and 55% in NJ. She came close to 60% in NY and MA, but the only place she actually topped it was AR. And there aren't many NYs or ARs left on the calendar for her. There's no way she takes 60% from here out or even comes close to it. The only way Clinton wins is to get superdelegates to overturn the pledged delegate outcome.

Posted by J.B. | March 4, 2008 12:55 PM

"I consider myself part of the Democratic base"

Sure. But if you voted for Obama, you're a minority of the Democratic base.

The Democratic nomination ought to be determined by who the majority of Democrats support, and that's Clinton.

"Everyone who wants it get's it," is close enough"

But, of course, the free rider problem means that Obama's "plan" is untenable, and we'll get no healthcare bill at all if he's elected. You seem to be fine with that. Most Democrats aren't, which is why Clinton is getting the majority of Democratic votes.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 12:56 PM

Apparently no one told Matt there would be math involved.

Here's the thing: there's no pledged delegates only path to the nomination for either candidate. The super delegates are going to decide it either way, from a numeric standpoint. The only question is whether the Clinton campaign can claim to have regained momentum or not.

We'll know the answer to that question sometime this evening.

Posted by James Robertson | March 4, 2008 12:58 PM

So Petey wants to have the nomination by exit poll? First people go to vote in the primary, but the ballot doesn't count. Only the exit polls that tell how many Dem party members voted, and for whom, really count.

Better trolling please! Or at least provide some detailed info on how you come up with this metric, state by state.

Posted by kvenlander | March 4, 2008 1:02 PM

"But I do have a problem with the later caucuses that have allowed Obama to assemble a delegate advantage despite his losing the popular vote among Democratic voters.

To repeat myself, early caucuses are good for allowing activists to winnow the field. Late caucuses are bad because they serve only to advantage upscale voters when attention to the race is already high among the larger Party electorate."

Those caucuses were held because that's the way the DEMOCRATS in those states decided to run things. It was DEMOCRATS who decided to hold caucuses and it was DEMOCRATS who decided to let independent or non-Democratic voters participate.

Furthermore, it was the Clinton campaign that basically decided to abandon those states and let Obama run up huge victory margins. If Obama had only won those races 55-45, which certainly seems possible if Clinton had really fought him state-by-state, Hillary could be walking away with the nomination now.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 4, 2008 1:05 PM

Right, Petey. If Obama wins the nomination the way he's doing it, it's illegitimate because he's gaming the system by, um, getting people to vote for him.

Posted by hello | March 4, 2008 1:10 PM

This is an interesting discussion. And by interesting, I mean somewhat naive. The reasons for Hillary to stay in the race are 1) she has a significant and legitimate base of support and 2) there is always a chance that Obama will fall on his ass between now and the convention. The Right is prepared to throw everything at Obama and his wife and the idea that Obama misplays, something sticks, America questions its love affair with this young African-American with the foreign name, and the wheels come off (I know, mixed metaphors) is not unrealistic. Don't forget, the Clintons have first-hand experience with unpleasant campaign surprises--like Gennifer Flowers. So the idea that Obama will continue his royal procession to the coronation I mean nomination on a carpet of rose petals is possible. But to assume it's the only outcome is...kinda naive. And if he slips, then Hillary is there with a sizable chunk of delegates to bargain for, if not the nomination, then respect and clout in return for her support. And also remember, the big beef with Gore and Kerry was that they didn't stick it out and folded when things got down and dirty in Florida and Ohio. I hope that's a factor in Hillary's determination. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I'll be happy if she keeps on fighting and enters the convention as a genuine political force. "Heir and a spare" if you know what I mean.

Posted by China Hand | March 4, 2008 1:10 PM

"The Democratic nomination ought to be determined by who the majority of Democrats support, and that's Clinton."

That's not the way DEMOCRATS have set up the nominating process. I'm not sure why you have such a problem with the way DEMOCRATS decide to select the Democratic candidate.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 4, 2008 1:10 PM

J.B. - all these sites use different numbers. With 207 to 163, my math says Hillary won 56% of the pledged delegates assigned to BO and HRC. I was using WaPo, which gave her about 57% in both states. But in any case, I don't think an increase of 4% or 5% from her CA and NJ totals is completely unrealistic.

(I acknowledge that I'd prefer Hillary over Obama, so take that for what it is. But I'm not one of those Redstate people voting for Hillary just to lengthen the Democratic race - as I said above, I think a longer primary probably helps Democrats.)

Posted by Al | March 4, 2008 1:11 PM

Thus, if you are a Democrat that can pull lots of independents, your chance of victory against a Republican are much greater.

Not if you can't pull in Democrats. Obama hasn't. And the Republican candidate will be attractive to Democrats who opposed Obama--about 60% of white Democrats, closer to 70% of Hispanic Democrats.

And please, people, who independents and Republicans vote for in primaries has no bearing on who they vote for in the general. They are a nice add-on. They aren't the sale. It's not even a matter of fairness. Just common sense.

Pledged delegates are irrelevant. Either the Democrat leadership genuinely think the Democrat base is irrelevant, and they go for Obama, or they are sane, and they go for Clinton.

The whole notion of delegate math is so risible that I'm stunned that even Obamabots are still clutching to it. The man can't win California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, and (presumably) Ohio and Texas, and you all think delegates decided by fewer than a million voters are going to sway superdelegates?

If they do, then they've gone mad. They risk the presidency on a candidate who lost the base.

Firstly, there has been little to no indication that momentum exists much in this race.

This is absolutely true. Unfortunately, what that means for Obama is that he has had absolutely no increase in support with white or Democrat Hispanics--close to two thirds of the base. So if everyone holds to the same preferences, then the Democrats are fools not to put up Clinton.

Posted by Cal | March 4, 2008 1:12 PM

Petey, has someone been able to demonstrate that universality and mandates are the reason that Dems who support Hillary are supporting her and not Obama? I believe that it's why you support her. But it's kinda hard for me to reconcile that assertion with actual primary results so far.

As for Obama having sold out the Democratic base...so has Clinton. So has pretty much the whole Party. Proving that Obama favors centrist, corporate-friendly public policy does nothing to demonstrate that Hillary is worth supporting, either. And it's not like she's out there campaigning on Medicare-for-All or anything.

I personally give a President Obama about a 10% chance of accomplishing something really important, and a President Clinton about an 8% chance. If someone wanted to claim that the numbers should be reversed, I'd argue with them, but I wouldn't care about it much. This is the country we have. If anything is going to change it, it won't be an election.

Posted by Pesto | March 4, 2008 1:20 PM

Petey sez, The Democratic nomination ought to be determined by who the majority of Democrats support, and that's Clinton.

In other words, between a candidate a few percentage points more popular in-party and one that has much greater potential to bring new people into the party (inluding, may I add, young people who have not yet self-indentified either way), you would choose the former? Sounds like a formula for, um, success.

But, of course, the free rider problem means that Obama's "plan" is untenable, and we'll get no healthcare bill at all if he's elected. You seem to be fine with that. Most Democrats aren't, which is why Clinton is getting the majority of Democratic votes.

Asspumptions piled on top of one another make for shaky conclusions. It could just as easily be the case that Clinton will once again fail to get any health care plan because of a failure to come down from her maximalist demands. I don't know and really, neither do you. I see potential ups and downs for both health care plans. One's concluson on this count hardly makes the other path a betrayal of the base.

I hate to have to keep harping on this, but do you not remember late 2002 and early 2003? I along with everyone I know opposed the Iraq war. Where were our voices in Washington? Where was even the hint of questioning of the march to war? Hillary Clinton was one of the worst of them, as pro war as they come, only slighly less bad than Joe Lieberman, and a source of endless quotes for Republicans to use in arguing against the anti-war base of the Democratic Party. If THAT is not a betrayal, I don't know what is.

Posted by Shochu John | March 4, 2008 1:20 PM

To repeat myself, early caucuses are good for allowing activists to winnow the field. Late caucuses are bad because they serve only to advantage upscale voters when attention to the race is already high among the larger Party electorate.

and

But I do have a problem with the later caucuses that have allowed Obama to assemble a delegate advantage despite his losing the popular vote among Democratic voters.

This relies on two things: expanding the definition of "late" to include Super Tuesday, which is a little peculiar, and flat-out ignoring the size of the victories in those caucuses, thereby rather conveniently dismissing the results in those states in favor of a "popular vote" argument.

Yet and still: even if those are upscale voters, by the earlier logic, they should still be representative of the base, as they are the more committed voters. So, it's not that "Democrats" decide in primaries but "Others" decide in caucuses. It's that yet a further subgroup of Dems holds sway in caucuses. But Dems they are.

Posted by Brad L | March 4, 2008 1:28 PM

"Petey, has someone been able to demonstrate that universality and mandates are the reason that Dems who support Hillary are supporting her and not Obama?"

Not that I've seen.

But I definitely believe that Democratic voters have been able to correctly perceive that Clinton stands with them on economics while Obama doesn't, which is how she's been able to rack up her majorities in the Party.

But I haven't seen any data to be able to prove that, other than vaguely worded exit poll questions indicating that Clinton voters are more concerned with economic matters than Obama voters.

-----

"I wouldn't care about it much. This is the country we have. If anything is going to change it, it won't be an election."

And that's why you support Obama. It's the audacity of hopelessness.

I think we can pass universal healthcare in the '09 - '10 Congress, which is why I support Clinton.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 1:29 PM

There is that weird electricity in the air, kids - like before a storm - Hillary is going to take Ohio and Texas tonight. I can feel it comin'... just like the revitalization when she won New Hampshire.

Posted by la tormenta | March 4, 2008 1:30 PM

"There is that weird electricity in the air, kids - like before a storm - Hillary is going to take Ohio and Texas tonight. I can feel it comin"

Lorne Michaels saves the Republic.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 1:35 PM

Cal - "Pledged delegates are irrelevant."

You know, I'd say that Hillary should be able to stay in the race as long as she wants no matter what happens in Texas and Ohio...if it weren't for BS like the above. The efforts of folks like Cal to change the rules and redefine the argument so that the only legitimate outcome is a Hillary victory is, at its heart, exactly the sort of mindlessly partisan venom that has to be sucked out of our political bloodstream.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 4, 2008 1:36 PM

"I think we can pass universal healthcare in the '09 - '10 Congress, which is why I support Clinton."

Petey, you ARE bright enough to understand that neither Hillary nor Obama are offering universal healthcare? They're both talking about universal health insurance coverage...which really isn't the same thing if you think about it.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 4, 2008 1:41 PM

You're a loon, MBunge.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 1:44 PM

Cal, you said: The man can't win California, New York, New Jersey, Florida, and (presumably) Ohio and Texas, and you all think delegates decided by fewer than a million voters are going to sway superdelegates?

You seriously believe Obama couldn't win California, NY, and NJ? Then I guess by your "logic" Hillary can't win Wisconsin, Minnesota, Connecticut, Maine and (probably) Vermont.

And throwing Texas in there makes no sense. It is irrelevant in a general election. So now, by your "logic," Hillary can't win ANY of the 20+ states Obama has won.

Also, arguing that superdelegates should ignore elected delegates and overturn an ELECTED majority, no matter how small, is a sure-fire way to split the party. Add a demoralized and bitter Democratice base - which you ridiculously claim is all that's needed to win in November - to independents repelled by the idea of Bill back in the White House and a fired up horde of wingnuts eager for the chance to finally beat the Clintons, and you've got a recipe for a GOP blowout.

I guess under your scenario, winning California, N.Y. and N.J. actually is an open question.

Whatever it is you're puffing on, pass it over here, bro!

Posted by John | March 4, 2008 1:51 PM

You're an asshat, Petey.

Posted by blah | March 4, 2008 1:54 PM

Seriously, Matt. You're a great analyst and terrible prognosticator. Is this a double-down bet on the Hillary will win prediction.

Posted by asl | March 4, 2008 1:55 PM

Petey, I think the only way we get universal health insurance after the 2008 elections is if significant parts of establishment power believe that doing so is necessary to keep the Great Unwashed from showing up in DC with the torches, pitchforks, and nooses.

I think Clinton is actively hostile to this possibility. If she were a labor leader, she'd be a classic, 3rd-party, business unionist. She has no interest in the members' activism or input -- she wants to cut a deal with the boss by herself, and then tell the members what she got for them.
As President, she'll feel too threatened herself by the exact forces that need to threaten established power -- she'll prefer the status quo over what's necessary to actually accomplish anything.

But I really disagree with Obama over how social change takes place. He seems to think that it happens when we lay aside our differences and agree to sit together and discuss the Common Good. I think it happens in reaction to existential threats to the elite who benefit from the established order.

My slight nod to Obama is based on the possibility -- maybe a 1/50 chance? -- that the campaign organization he's built will go off program once he's in office and start attacking him along with the rest of DC.

As for hopelessness...yep. That's where I am. And what little I have isn't focused on electoral politics, that's for sure.

Posted by Pesto | March 4, 2008 1:56 PM

"Also, arguing that superdelegates should ignore elected delegates ... is a sure-fire way to split the party."

Arguing that superdelegates should ignore the popular vote of Democratic voters is a sure-fire way to split the Party.

Since a majority of Democratic voters have voted for Clinton, she ought to be the nominee.

-----

In the general election, the problem states for Obama would be OH, PA, MI, and FL, not CA, NY, and NJ.

If Obama loses OH and either PA or MI, getting to 270 is going to be close to impossible.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 1:56 PM

Cal: Unfortunately, what that [lack of momentum being a factor in the campaign] means for Obama is that he has had absolutely no increase in support with white or Democrat Hispanics--close to two thirds of the base

Well, there's a difference between gaining because of momentum and gaining because people have actually come to like you. We'll know more, tonight, I suspect.

In any case, this is a good reason for Obama to put Bill Richardson on the ticket. He's Latino enough for Latinos, white enough for whites, Catholic enough for Catholics, experienced enough for the elderly, and young enough to be president in 8 years.

Give him some camapigning lessons and he's perfect to fill in all of Obama's weak spots.

Posted by Shochu John | March 4, 2008 1:58 PM

"If she were a labor leader, she'd be a classic, 3rd-party, business unionist. She has no interest in the members' activism or input -- she wants to cut a deal with the boss by herself, and then tell the members what she got for them. "

I'm not a big fan of Senator Clinton. If you'd told me a year ago that I was going to vote for her in the primaries, I'd have laughed at you.

I don't think your assessment of her is that far off the mark, but politics is an odd game. For a variety of reasons, it's become in Senator Clinton's political interests to pass the Edwards/Clinton universal healthcare plan, so I think she'll get it signed into law.

At the end of the day, I don't care about her motives. I just care about getting the damn thing passed.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 2:03 PM

"Since a majority of Democratic voters have voted for Clinton, she ought to be the nominee."

That is not the way DEMOCRATS have chosed to run their nomination process. I suspect those DEMOCRATS have quite a few good reasons for setting up the process the way they have.

"If Obama loses OH and either PA or MI, getting to 270 is going to be close to impossible."

Which is even more true for Hillary. The difference is that there's a much greater possibility of Obama putting other states in play that Hillary doesn't have a chance in hell of getting.

Mike

By the way Petey, I would have bet you were smart enough to know the difference between universal health care and universal health insurance coverage. I guess I should have taken the intellectual quality of your posts here as a clearer indication.

Posted by MBunge | March 4, 2008 2:12 PM

Petey: "Since a majority of Democratic voters have voted for Clinton, she ought to be the nominee."

Care to back that up? Even if Florida is included in the total, Obama has more popular votes - 11.0 million to 10.4 million. I guess if you want to count Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, Hillary might pull close.

http://realclearpolitics.com/

Posted by John | March 4, 2008 2:24 PM

"Care to back that up?"

Try separating out Democrats from Independents and Republicans, John. You'll find Clinton with a substantial popular vote margin over Obama among Democrats.

The Democratic nominee ought to be determined by the will of Democratic voters. I know Obama has been flirting with Bloomberg and talking about all the Republicans he wants to put in his cabinet, but he's still seeking the Democratic nomination at the moment.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 2:30 PM

Petey assumes that any state the Obama lost in the primary season is unwinnable by him. By that logic, HRC cannot win Wisconsin, a necessary piece of the electoral puzzle, or likely Vermont, either - another important piece of the electoral puzzle. Never mind that swing states like Virginia'd be out the question.

Of course, this may all be based on a fallacious assumption. Maybe Democrats will come out in force for whoever the Democratic nominee is. Maybe then, the nominee with the best chance to line up not only the necessary Democratic votes but also a majority of Independents and even a few Republicans. Maybe that'd not only guarantee traditionally 'Blue' states staying blue but a few 'Red' states trending 'Purple' like Colorado and Virginia voting for a Democratic candidate. Just sayin'...

Posted by Shawn | March 4, 2008 2:41 PM

Petey that's some pretty weak logic. Are you TRYING to drive independents and disaffected Republicans into McCain's arms?

You people in the Hillary camp have spent waaaay too much time arguing which votes are "real," which contests are "real," and which delegates are "real." Them's some sour grapes. That kind of argument is no way to win a nomination.

Play by the rules you agreed to, that's all we're asking.

Posted by John | March 4, 2008 2:57 PM

Petey must have had a very bad experience with a lightbulb.

Seriously, it's some pretty crazy cherry-picking to decide that Rs and Independents who vote in Dem primaries don't count. Open primaries tend to be very popular in the states where they exist. If there were no open primaries, many of those independents would probably be registered Democrats, so you can't assume that Hillary is "the choice of Democrats" when in many states, there's no reason for a Democratic voter to be a registered Democrat.

Posted by too many steves | March 4, 2008 3:02 PM

"That kind of argument is no way to win a nomination."

The way to win the Democratic nomination is to win more votes among Democrats. Obama has failed in that task so far.

You don't win party nominations by losing among party members.

"Play by the rules you agreed to, that's all we're asking."

Last I checked, the rules are that the first to 2025 wins.

Obama's inability to win Democratic votes is going to make it very difficult for him to get to 2025.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 3:06 PM

"The Democratic nominee ought to be determined by the will of Democratic voters."

Unfortunately for Petey, the Democratic Party doesn't think of itself like the Communist Party (there's Party members...and then there's everyone else). Democrats have decided to conduct their nominating process this way. I'm not sure why Petey has such a problem with Democrats deciding how to select the Democratic candidate for President.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 4, 2008 3:09 PM

"The Democratic nominee ought to be determined by the will of Democratic voters."

Unfortunately for Petey, the Democratic Party doesn't think of itself like the Communist Party (there's Party members...and then there's everyone else). Democrats have decided to conduct their nominating process this way. I'm not sure why Petey has such a problem with Democrats deciding how to select the Democratic candidate for President.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 4, 2008 3:12 PM

"it's some pretty crazy cherry-picking"

I understand that you're a centrist, too many steves, so you may not be familiar with how party processes work.

But Democrats get to pick the Democratic nominee, whether you like it or not.

Posted by Petey | March 4, 2008 3:12 PM

Obama's inability to win Democratic votes is going to make it very difficult for him to get to 2025.

I agree completely. But it's going to be difficult for the superdelegates to overturn a majority of pledged delegates, and claiming that only some of them should count is a pretty tough sell.

And the idea that Obama has an "inability" to win Democratic votes is ridiculous. Just look at Wisconsin and Virginia, where he beat Hillary among every demographic, including Democrats. She's never beaten him in every demographic.

Posted by John | March 4, 2008 3:14 PM

No, Petey, that's not how the party process works. *Democratic primary and caucus voters* get to pick the nominee. Most, but not all, of those people are registered Democrats. As others have pointed out here, if you want a party where only card-carrying members get a vote, good luck starting one or taking over the Democrats and changing their rules.

Posted by too many steves | March 4, 2008 3:15 PM

Petey's 3:06, taken together with the rest of his fusillade, is incoherent. On the one hand, he's asserting that Obama can't legitimately win the nomination unless he can get to 2025; on the other hand, he's arguing that HRC should be installed as nominee even if she has fewer pledged delegates and loses the overall popular vote.

Why Petey continues to attract any interest is a mystery. I don't even know why I am bothering to type this.

Posted by hello | March 4, 2008 3:16 PM

Clinton won white Democrats, which is the majority of the voters in Wisconsin. It was closer than usual, because of the larger than usual number of college kids taking advantage of same day registration.

While only 5% of the primary voters were black, it was black voters who put him over the top.

That doesn't mean it wasn't a legitimate win, only that it doesn't provide evidence that he's closed the sale.

His percent of the white vote is always based on the percentage of wealthy or college students skewing it. He is not winning any more of the base white Democrats.

Posted by Cal | March 4, 2008 3:17 PM

"But Democrats get to pick the Democratic nominee, whether you like it or not."

Democrats decided on the very rules about which you're now complaining. If you really think that Democrats should run the Democratic Party, then you should be perfectly happy with the current nominating process on that basis.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 4, 2008 3:18 PM

I guess we'll see after tonight how politically attuned the Clinton's really are as well as how astute the Democratic Party power structure is as a whole.

If the Clintons win anything tonight and choose to stay in the race against the delegate odds, it will show what they really want out of this.

If the Democratic Party doesn't pull the Clintons aside and warn them that slash and burn Rovarian fear and smear will cause the plug to be pulled, it will show the level of courage they have as a party.

I don't care if the Clintons go on....I care that my nation isn't continually be subjected to the tactics of Rove and Penn...I care that divide and conquer be stopped at all costs.

Posted by G Davis | March 4, 2008 3:21 PM

"His percent of the white vote is always based on the percentage of wealthy or college students skewing it. He is not winning any more of the base white Democrats."

C'mon, Cal. I know the Clinton campaign's declarations that only certain states and certain results "count" has produced a lot of laughter, but I think saying "only certain white Democrats" count is taking the joke a bit too far.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 4, 2008 3:23 PM

Anyone have a link for the popular vote totals between them--not the delegate counts?

Thanks.

Posted by ally's gift | March 4, 2008 4:11 PM

Go to realclearpolitics.com. It's in the upper righthand corner.

Posted by John | March 4, 2008 4:50 PM

OK. I guess I can start setting my clock: another day, another "why I wish the candidate I don't support would withdraw" post.

Posted by Andrew | March 4, 2008 5:21 PM

Win, lose, or draw, one thing's certain; the Clintons will never, ever bow out of the race. It's just not going to happen. But before Hillary makes more vainglorious boasts about her level of experience, consider: the person with the best and most recent experience is George W. Bush. Problem is, he's already been elected president twice. He can't run for a third term. I'd hope America wants more than the opportunity to aid & abet the Clintons in their de facto end-run around the 22nd Amendment: Bill Clinton running for a third term as president – but I could be wrong. However, I am 100 percent correct about this: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 4, 2008 6:24 PM

Ah, I toldja ... Clinton is going to win Ohio (easily) and she will probably win Texas....

You could just see Obama losing the momentum the past few days, a damn shame.

Posted by chump | March 4, 2008 10:54 PM

Matt: "I've thought about it, and I don't think she'll do it. I don't think she and Bill are that out of touch with reality,"

But you are.

What part of Bill pardoning Marc Rich at the end of his last term and thus giving the finger to the entire country for trying to impeach him don't you get?

Burning the goodwill of the Democrats?

You bet they will.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 5, 2008 12:01 AM

Just like journalists have to give equal time to creationists and real scientists, liberal bloggers have to think (or actually say they think) that Hillary is 'good' or 'as good' for the country as Obama is. "They're both strong candidates.'

But there is no comparison - Hillary is a completely different political animal in terms of what she is willing to do to win. Her motives are clear at this point, yet Yglesias hasn't quite realized it yet.

The worst, of course, is Kevin Drum, whose bland, neither here nor there posts on the race really are starting to seem like he's posting with his hand over his eyes while squinting through the cracks.

Personally I'm disappointed that Obama got beat by such tripe as 3am calls and Hillary stating that she's not 100% that Obama isn't a Muslim, that McCain has more experience, etc. Good grief.

But if the O-bubble had to get popped, it had to. He had to learn that negative campaigning worked, and who else to learn from than the Screecher herself?

I still think she'll win it. She's too resourceful and unlimited in her ambition. Maybe the bloggers will start to realize this after it's too late. We'll see.

Posted by chump | March 5, 2008 5:47 AM