Were Hillary Clinton not determined to drag out the Democratic primary despite considerable evidence that she stands no realistic chance of closing Barack Obama's delegate lead, John McCain would, right now, be groaning under the yoke of a massive advertising campaign designed to define him and Obama in the public eye for the first time. Instead, McCain has what the New York Times rightly deems " a valuable commodity: time he can use to unite a fractured Republican Party, ramp up his lackluster fund-raising and transform his shoestring primary operation into a general election machine." The landscape still strongly favors the Democrats, but it's much less favorable than it would have been were the Clintons willing to set their own interests aside in favor of those of the party and the progressive movement.
« Rapture Ready | Main | The Turnout Myth »
The Cost of Egotism
10 Mar 2008 09:53 am
Comments (165)
the Clintons willing to set their own interests aside in favor of those of the party and the progressive movement
Maybe their interests and those of their supporters are opposed to those of the progressive movement and the party as led by Obama-ites. Then it's just a straight fight for the party; which is to say that the interests of the party remain to be determined. I don't think that the Clintonsites are confused by this, I don't think the Obamites are confused about this. But it appears some progressives/Obama supporters are.
Re Matthew's comment "it's much less favorable than it would have been were the Clintons willing to set their own interests aside in favor of those of the party "
-----------------
ha ha ha snort. cough. choke.
Jay Leno hasn't said anything that damm hilarious lately.
I see you too have read Jon Chait's article in TNR. Seriously Hillary, Go Already!
...were the Clintons willing to set their own interests aside in favor of those of the party and the progressive movement...
Yeah, that's funny.
But you're right, it would certainly be a different scenario if we lived in such a universe with the necessary physical laws to allow such a hypothetical to be proposed.
despite considerable evidence that she stands no realistic chance of closing Barack Obama's delegate lead
Still haven't seen this, despite all the talk about "The Math". You have two major wild cards - superdelegates and Florida/Michgan. Since the outcome of those two things is essentially unknowable, I don't see how anyone can say she has "no realistic chance" of getting the most delegates in the end.
As someone who doesn't have a horse in this race (I would be perfectly satisfied with either candidate), I fail to see the relevance of Mr. Yglesias' comment. The fact is that Senator Obama has no realistic chance of winning a sufficient number of committed delegates from the primary and caucus states to win the nomination either. Thus, both candidates are dependent on convincing a sufficient number of the superdelegates to achieve a majority. For instance, suppose that Senator Clinton wins the Pennsylvania primary decisively. Would Mr. Yglesias then claim that she should drop out? Although, as we sit here today, Senator Obama has a marginally better argument then Senator Clinton has, there are still a sufficient number of contests left that could change this perception, particularly if primaries can be arranged in Michigan and Florida in May.
If the prolonged race is harmful to the progressive movement, and we know Hillary's massive ego won't allow her to quit, maybe, for the sake of the Party, Obama should step aside. But wait, he is all talk and no action, so I guess we will have to tough it out.
"I'm predicting there will be five hundred inane, nasty horse-race comments in this thread by noon."
Well, isn't Matthew leading that particular parade with postings like this?
Were Hillary Clinton not determined to drag out the Democratic primary despite considerable evidence that she stands no realistic chance of closing Barack Obama's delegate lead
I mean, I understand that Matthew prefers Obama to fulfill his upscale goo-goo vision of what the Democratic Party should be like.
But if he's going to make inane and ignorant comments about process that ignore the fact that Clinton has won the overwhelming majority of Democratic votes in the nomination race so far, ignore the fact that Clinton has won the a narrow majority of overall votes in the nomination race so far, and ignore the fact that the Party isn't going to nominate a candidate who finishes second among the voters, well, he's signaling that he doesn't want reasonable commentary.
The fish rots from the head.
If Matthew writes brain-dead posts, he's going to get a lot of brain-dead comments.
And unpleasantly enough, he seems to be pursuing this strategy intentionally. It's the Jonah Goldberg school of selling books by selling out your brain and your soul.
Fun Facts:
Bill Clinton won 79.8% of the available electoral votes (91 of 114 EVs) in 19 states he lost in the '92 Democratic nominating contest, fewer than the 65.8% of the available EVs (279 of 424) of the 31 states (and DC) he won on the way to the nomination.
At the pace she's going Hillary Clinton will win fewer states total than Paul Tsongas, Jerry Brown, Tom Harkin, and Bob Kerrey won in total running against her husband.
In the '92 general election Bill Clinton lost two of the four largest states (FL & TX) that he won on the way to the nomination.
If the prolonged race is harmful to the progressive movement, and we know Hillary's massive ego won't allow her to quit, maybe, for the sake of the Party, Obama should step aside. But wait, he is all talk and no action, so I guess we will have to tough it out.
What do people think about the idea of Obama offering Hillary the VP spot right now. I know it has some drawbacks but it would end the fighting, eliminate the minority chance that she would wrest the nomination from him somehow, and allow them to combine resources to spend the next several months using their overwhelming resource advantage to define McCain a la Dole in '96.
What do people think?
I am a big Obama supporter, and I'd like nothing more to see Hillary gone (preferably for good- no Hillary '12!), and I also agree that she's hurting the party and Obama's November chances by staying in.
However, I do not know of a precedent for anyone dropping out when they were this close - I'm not a history buff, but didn't Kennedy '76 and Hart '84 stay in even after they knew they couldn't win?
So I'm not sure that this egotism is peculiar to the Clinton's. Still, ut's something that the superdelegates should pay attention to. In general, I'm pretty disgusted by the whole message of the Hillary campaign (it's her turn dammit!), but I think a lot of the blame goes to the supers who lined up behind her early. Obama has picked up way more endorsements since the voting started, and if she hadn't started the race +100 things would look very different now.
But wait, he is all talk and no action
as opposed to Hillary's decisive action on the AUMF?
All Snark aside, and apart from the particular motives of the individual candidates, I don't see a clean solution for this in any conventional way.
Whatever may motivate Clinton or Obama, they each have their decidedly devoted supporters, which (a) calls out for some larger party-based intervention of some sort which can manage to retain both groups of supporters; and (b) is why I see Clinton's aims as quite realistic, because given the option of some way of 'winning' which alienates many if not most Democrats, Clinton would in my view be 100% willing to do it, whereas Obama will (rightly or wrongly) hesitate or play along.
Patrick- terrible idea. She's a detriment to the ticket, as she is to the party. He will choose somebody with REAL national security cred. Like Jim Webb. (Or Sinbad!)
Why is Bill Bradley the only voice demanding transparency and investigation of the Clinton tax returns and business dealings?
Why is the press allowing them to buy more time, when exposure of their financial dealings is essential now?
The truth could help turn things around. Why doesnt the media do more?
Why is Bill Bradley the only voice demanding transparency and investigation of the Clinton tax returns and business dealings?
Why is the press allowing them to buy more time, when exposure of their financial dealings is essential now?
The truth could help turn things around. Why doesnt the media do more?
Why is Bill Bradley the only voice demanding transparency and investigation of the Clinton tax returns and business dealings?
Why is the press allowing them to buy more time, when exposure of their financial dealings is essential now?
The truth could help turn things around. Why doesnt the media do more?
Matt, if you or any Obama supporters are insisting that Clinton needs to exit the race for "the good of the party" you need to make a stronger case as to how/if Obama can get those working class/older women voters that have been going so strongly for Clinton into his camp by November. There seems to be a sense that large numbers of Obama voters would sit at home on election day if he is not the nominee, but Clinton voters will ultimately suck it up and vote for Obama if Clinton loses. This seems to be more asserted than proven. I'm in Ohio, and looking at how badly Obama got beat among white voters, white women of all ages, and voters making under $50K gives me pause. The same dynamic will be at play in Pennsylvania.
That is the obvious downside to a prolonged contest, but there are plausible benefits to Obama continuing to campaign (and usually win) in new states. And from what I have seen, it appears that Obama does in fact improve relative to McCain after he campaigns in a state. So, I'm not convinced a full accounting of all the relevant effects would find that a prolonged contest really is that harmful.
"I see you too have read Jon Chait's article in TNR."
Marty Peretz Uber Alles!
What do people think about the idea of Obama offering Hillary the VP spot right now.
It's a disaster.
A big part of Obama's campaign is that he has the judgement to be Commander-in-Chief based on his record opposing the Iraq War. If Obama wants to pick a woman who supported the Iraq War I'd rather he picked Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe. She's pro-choice, won a majority of the Democratic votes cast in her last race, she hasn't spent the last two months lying about Obama's record, and she's a less of a hawk than Sen. Clinton.
but didn't Kennedy '76 and Hart '84 stay in even after they knew they couldn't win?
Yes they did, and it both cases Republicans won the presidency.
As here,
http://pulpable.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/pulp-politics-blank-canvas/
the problem is that Clinton's "narrative" isn't yet complete in her own eyes. For better or worse, she'll fight to the end even if it means puncturing Obama's rise to the detriment of the party.
If McCain rallies the GOP and cements his own image, either way the Dems lose - Obama will be broken by Clinton's protracted negatives or she is the nominee and has given McCain the time to sort out his act into something more dangerous.
We Obama supporters here need to develop a plan on how to proceed IF Monsters, Inc. ® ends up stealing this nomination...I’m not saying the party is going to let this happen (and the Bill Foster win will help Obama with the establishment, no question), but we need to have a CREDIBLE threat ready if this happens.
To this point, no credible threat has been issued, which is why Clinton has been pursuing these tactics, and, more importantly, why the party establishment hasn’t put a stop to it...Clinton’s behavior will continue if there is no penalty for it...They’re thinking, "where else are these people (Obama supporters here and everywhere else) going to go?"
Well, to this point, I’m not smart to have come up with that threat --- but it needs to be articulated and the sooner the better --- six more weeks of Ed Rendell guest-hosting for this show isn’t going to do anybody any good.
Well, isn't Matthew leading that particular parade with postings like this?
Yeah, I guess Matt likes seeing the additional traffic these kind of posts generate. Personally, though, I feel this has all been beaten to death, over and over, already, on every other political blog in America.
The only interesting thing about the comments is the humor in seeing a bunch of middle-aged people with college educations finding new ways to reword the basic sentiment "ZOMG (candidate name) is teh 5uxOr5."
Adam,
Obama has fared better among those demographics outside of certain regions (e.g., see the results in states like Wisconsin or Virginia). This is even true within Ohio itself: he did much worse in the Appalachian parts of Ohio than elsewhere. What I think that indicates is that Obama does not have a fundamental problem appealing to Democrats in those demographics. It is just that the Clintons are particularly popular among those Democrats within certain regions, such as Appalachia, the interior South, and the Northeast Corridor. But I see no reason to expect McCain to somehow do as well among those Democrats as Clinton.
Other than run for President, what exactly has Obama ever actually done? He was put up as a sacrificial lamb against a Republican favorite and only won his seat as a result of a sex scandal. Since he has been in the Senate, where his voting record on Iraq is exactly the same as Mrs. Clinton, the only time he made news was announcing his candidacy.
His wins in caucuses and open primaries make him appear that he is winning when in fact more Democrats have voted for Hillary. Yet, his supporters wnat to short-cut the proceess and anoint him the chosen one. Maybe after Hillary quits you can get McCain to quit too.
It is cheap and easy to suggest that it is her ego that drives her staying in but there is no history of anyone with over 1200 delegates dropping out. She has money, she has support, and no one can get to 2025 without the other via pledged delegates.
Historically races aren't over in early March very often.
The fight between these candidates leads the news and blogs and talk shows everyday: it has ratings power. The race being over until August would provide a huge lull that could easily benefit the republican candidate. All this time on the news is money the candidates don't have to raise or spend to have maximum exposure.
Every other cycle we worry about this down time before the convention, now we want it?
Considering the considerable evidence that Obama stands no realistic chance of closing Clinton's popular vote lead among Democrats, I think it's imperative for the Party that Obama drops out now.
Of course, given Obama's stated refusal to accept the VP slot and given Obama's stated refusal to encourage his supporters to vote for a different Democrat in the general election, I think we all knows how Obama feels about the good of Party.
If he cared about the Party, he wouldn't be basing his nomination campaign around his Goolsbee-esque positions designed to lose Democratic voters in the first place.
If he cared about the Party, he's be taking positions designed to win over Democrats instead of General Electric and Marty Peretz.
Oh, Puh-Leeze! Get over yourself. And stop excluding MI & FL - - whether re-voted or as is - - from your mathematics. What's 'ripping-the-party-apart' is not the contest, but the overwrought rhetoric regarding the 'ripping-apart.' Please try to breathe between now & whenever a Dem is nominated.
Question for those of you more informed on campaign finance law than I: Would it be legal for both Obama and Clinton to agree to give a certain amount of money from their campaigns -- say, $5M each -- to the DNC, so that the DNC can be aggressively attacking McCain while Obama and Clinton continue to fight it out?
Obviously, it would have to be the product of agreement from the campaigns. But if it were doable, wouldn't that solve the "problem" MY has identified, without asking anyone to give up the race? It's not irrational for HRC to think that she still has a shot, and I'm sure there's plenty of egotism on both sides to go around.
phg,
Thanks for the blast from the past--I don't think I have seen a post quite as factually inaccurate as that since before the Potomac Primaries.
"We Obama supporters here need to develop a plan on how to proceed IF Monsters, Inc. ® ends up stealing this nomination"
Well, you could try winning more Democratic votes in the nomination race than Clinton. That would guarantee an Obama nomination.
But, of course, you can't actually succeed in doing that since Obama has decided to take policy position designed to please General Electric rather than Democratic voters...
Possibly if he was being too heavily outspent and attacked it might help him shore up his base. Still I wish the primary were over.
One thing I do wonder, Hillary supporters seem to feel she is a great candidate who is underperforming due to a week team, while thinking Barack is a week candidate overperforming because of a strong team. Besides the obvious (is she really strong if she assembes a week team and vice verse), wouldn't you rather the are both in the Whitehouse with team Barack.
"You have two major wild cards - superdelegates and Florida/Michgan. Since the outcome of those two things is essentially unknowable, I don't see how anyone can say she has "no realistic chance" of getting the most delegates in the end."
If there are do-overs, any plausible victories by HRC still leaves her behind in pledged delegates, for what that's worth.
Post-PA, if Obama is still ahead by 100+. senior superdelegates are going to step in and end it.
BTW - There's another reason I don't understand Matthew's post.
If it were true that The Math is such that Hillary has "no realistic chance of closing Barack Obama's delegate lead", why isn't Barack Obama already engaging in "a massive advertising campaign designed to define [McCain] and Obama in the public eye for the first time". If Hillary has "no realistic chance", shouldn't Obama be completely ignoring Hillary and focusing every bit of his attention on McCain? What's the point for Obama of getting into a fight with someone in his own party who Matthew says has "no realistic chance" - she should be completely irrelevant, right?
But the fact that Obama is not ignoring Hillary and focusing completely on McCain leads me to believe that the Obama campaign, at least, doesn't think that Hillary has "no realistic chance".
I mean, maybe it's the case that Matthew is smarter than Obama's campaign about whether she has a realistic chance to win the nomination, but I doubt it.
mofo,
The math will not change if we include MI & FL, unless Clinton wins by 20% in both states. That will not happen.
"I'm in Ohio, and looking at how badly Obama got beat among white voters, white women of all ages, and voters making under $50K gives me pause."
I don't think anyone disputes that Ohio is a bad state for Obama. Not enough African-Americans to carry an election for him, but enough so that a critical mass of white people know that they really don't like them. And not enough of an educated white upper middle class to offset that.
But Ohio would really be a third tier state for him. He would almost certainly concentrate on Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, Missouri Iowa and the Dakotas -- basically states where there is a large combined population of affluent and/or young white people and African-Americans. By the way, of those states, Obama would be favored to win at least the first three and Iowa, and Virginia and Missouri would probably be toss-ups. Clinton would have a fighting chance in New Mexico, and the rest would have to be written off.
But the real reason that Obama is a stronger candidate is the Democratic states that Clinton would probably not win -- Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Oregon, New Hampshire, maybe Michigan. The only tough hold for Obama would be Pennsylvania (for the reasons you note).
fredbellmore - Monsters, Inc.!
Colin McEnroe had a bit on Samantha Power's comment in his Courant column:
"...what happens then? People start drinking even more coffee to stay awake during conversations about Canadian trade agreements, and before you know it they start blurting out things such as Hillary Clinton "is a monster, too — that is off the record — she is stooping to anything." This was said by Obama foreign policy aide Samantha Power in an interview with The Scotsman, a Scottish newspaper.
Power tried to withdraw her remark, saying she had momentarily confused Clinton with Gamera, a giant armored turtle who shot plasma fireballs and also would not release its tax returns; but, ultimately, she had to resign."
Monsters Inc. starring...
Hillary Clinton as Gamera
Mark Penn as The Blob
Bill Clinton as King Kong
Howard Wolfson as Fenris Wolf
"Considering the considerable evidence that Obama stands no realistic chance of closing Clinton's popular vote lead among Democrats ..."
I dunno, I think this fails to account for Limbaugh Republicans ...
Hillary's only alleigence is to herself and her destructive bid for power.
It's time for the party heavyweights to explain to her it's time to take her ball and go home.
She can't beat Obama; and she certainly wouldn't McCain.
Buh-Bye.
www.opeding.blogspot.com
Matt's main point is that Hillary's only way of getting the nomination seems to be to try and exploit Obama's unifying strategy to go negative (he can't reciprocate) and trash him so badly that the superdelegates will hand her the nomination. The Obama campt won't concede with their (barring some catastrophe) near-unassailable lead in the delegates. Such a strategy is effectively holding a gun to the head of the Democratic party and saying "give me the nomination or else".
Clearly the campaign continues. But (here's the point) the Clinton supporters still need to explain why their candidate deserves the nomination given her campaign's destructive behaviour.
Clinton has won the overwhelming majority of Democratic votes in the nomination race so far, ignore the fact that Clinton has won the a narrow majority of overall votes in the nomination race so far
Ha. I love this "most Democratic voters" bit. What is the relevance of that? You're basically arguing that you'd prefer the candidate who has shown the least ability to woo independent voters to go up against the Republican nominee who, rightly or wrongly, has appeal with independents.
And the "narrow majority of overall votes" line is absurd. That is really playing loose with the facts... you're including Michigan and Florida's vote totals there.
Hillary's only alleigence is to herself and her destructive bid for power.
It's time for the party heavyweights to explain to her it's time to take her ball and go home.
She can't beat Obama; and she certainly wouldn't beat McCain.
Buh-Bye.
www.opeding.blogspot.com
Also, if it's effects on party morale & alienation that are to be discussed, then you should analyze based on what each side's supporters will think or feel or do if one of the two suddenly dropped out without any particular objective event to explain it.
Let's say that Matt's view were correct, and that Clinton looked at the current numbers and decided, hey, I can't win, etc. And quit. Stopped campaigning cold turkey.
Who among her supporters would not feel that this had happened due to some insider pressure? Who among her supporters would agree that that was the 'best thing' for all concerned?
Petey said: "Considering the considerable evidence that Obama stands no realistic chance of closing Clinton's popular vote lead among Democrats, I think it's imperative for the Party that Obama drops out now."
Nice try, to bad its blatently false. Even if you count MI and FL HRC still trails BO in the popular vote lead. The considerable evidence is that HRC stands no realistic chance of closing BO lead in BOTH delegates and popular vote.
When Al is on your side you know your running with the wrong crowd.
The superdelegates are not exactly a black box: they can tell us what they intend to do. Now, it is true they could change their minds despite what they say, as in fact several have already. But the bottomline is that with most of the primaries behind us, once enough superdelegates commit to a candidate to put them substantially over the margin that candidate will likely need, the other candidate is basically waiting for some external event to intervene and hand him or her the nomination.
Al,
I think all the assessments of Clinton's chances depend on there being no fundamental change in the dynamics of the contest, which is a reasonable assumption since to do date there has been no such change. But if one of the candidates decided to radically change his or her behavior, such as by no longer campaigning in the primaries and focusing only on the general election, that radical change in behavior might well cause such a change in the dynamics.
An Obama supporter (!) writes about the general election:
But Ohio would really be a third tier state for him.
Cool! So we'll write off OH, PA, MI, and FL, since they're not 'good Obama states'. I'm sure Obama's strength in Wyoming, Nebraska, and the Dakotas will compensate, right?
Yglesias' post is ridiculous. HRC has a realistic chance of getting FLA and MI back on with mail-in ballots, and with FLA and PA, plus just a couple of overly decent results in MI and/or IND and/or NC (yes there are other Obama states, but there are also other Clinton states as well), and she comes very close in pledged delegates and passes Obama in total vote.
Who has the better claim to the nomination then Yglesias? The person who got more people to vote for her (and way more Democrats to vote for her), or the one who lost the popular vote but won more pledged delegates because of a better performance in caucuses and small states.
To blame this on Clinton's ego is to piss on the millions of people who voted for her. It also (like most things political Yglesias writes lately) sounds like 90's-style irrational Clinton hatred, but maybe Yglesias is to young to remember.
It seems to me that calls for Hillary to drop out of the race have grown in proportion to the negativity of Hillary's campaign and the fodder she's created for the GC should Obama win the ticket. I can completely understand why Hillary's staying in the race even if I don't care for her tactics.
That said, does anyone else feel like some Democrats have a death wish? Why one earth would you want to nominate someone so polarizing? Talk about making things hard on ourselves.
Having voted for Barack Obama, I find the more criticism of Hillary Clinton the more I want her to continue her campaign an the more I am sympathetic to her policies and suspicious of Obama's. I am not ready to dismess Samantha Power and Austan Goolsbee, and the unfair criticisms by Obama supporters are a real problem for me.
Clinton: the Nader of 08.
"Nice try, to (sic) bad its (sic) blatently (sic) false."
I understand that a certain chunk of the Obama crowd has trouble with the realities, but Clinton currently has a narrow lead in the overall popular vote, and a substantial lead in the popular vote among Democrats.
Most observers expect both of those leads to extend in the months ahead, which is why she's likely to be the nominee.
(And since I care about majorities, congrats on getting a narrow majority of your words correct.)
Perhaps we could check the IP of some of these people commenting. Jennifer in particular has a noticeable whiff of astroturf about her.
Actually, I think Obama would likely end up stronger than Clinton in MI and OH, and probably PA, provided the Clintons campaigned for Obama. FL is the one state on Petey's list in which I think she might be a better candidate, but I also think she would still lose FL to McCain. In any event, obviously there is a lot more to deciding who is the stronger overall candidate than those four states.
By the way, socctty, Petey's theory is that the role of the superdelegates is to turn the Democratic nomination into a closed primary, despite the fact the national party rules allow states to conduct caucuses and open primaries. Interestingly, he apparently thinks the superdelegates will more or less uniformly adopt this view of their role, despite the fact that many of them are state party officials who have been supporting the sorts of contests Petey thinks are illegitimate, and elected officials who were themselves nominated in those contests.
Al,
Sure, if Obama decided to stop contesting all future primaries Hillary would win. That scenario is not very realistic, hence the qualifier.
While I do think MY believes what he wrote here, you have to wonder if part of him just wanted to see if comment threads could become heated enough for making s'mores.
Mmmmmmmmmmm. Smores.
"I'm predicting there will be five hundred inane, nasty horse-race comments in this thread by noon.
Posted by James Gary | March 10, 2008 10:01 AM"
I disagree. There will be 501. Therefore you are an idiot who doesn't count.
I love how Hillary supporters like to change the rules mid-stream. There are open primaries in most states, but Hillary wants us to ignore the Obama Independents who would be critical in November. There are caucuses, but Hillary thinks they're too undemocratic for her night shift nurses or something. The little states get to vote, which is unfair because those Democrats should just drop dead and let the NY/CA axis decide what is good for them. Michigan and Florida broke the rules, but keeping their delegates out somehow disfranchises them. Popular vote matters more than delegates, which is why Maggie Williams was crowing that Hillary ONLY lost by 61-38 in Wyoming and prevented Obama from getting 63% and two extra delegates. Republican crossovers are sabotaging Hillary, except when Limbaugh tells them to vote Clinton. Obama needs to reject and denounce Farrakhan, but Clinton can laugh off bigots like Adelfa Callejo. The superdelegates are necessary for Obama to win, except the superdelegates have already been moving en masse to Obama since early February and are unlikely to reverse course now. Only Hillary wins the swing states, as if Obama will fare poorly there despite SUSA shows Obama beating McCain by 10 in Ohio.
There is simply no reason left for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race. Michigan and Florida will not make a difference. She cannot win the popular vote. She cannot win the pledged delegate vote. Her victories in the "big states" say nothing about general election matchups against McCain. She will never be able to win over Independents, while Obama will almost certainly consolidate his support among white women, Latinos and non-Appalachian blue collar whites.
Hillary Clinton has one stronghold: Appalachia and the white South. That's it. Those are the only folks who will choose Clinton over McCain but McCain over Obama. So in a GE she wins AR and WV and he doesn't.
But Hillary Clinton loses Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin and New Hampshire and Obama wins them easily. Obama also has a more than even shot at Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina and a couple of Nebraska's EVs.
If superdelegates care about electability, this is what they'll see. It's over but for the counting. Hillary cannot win without some sort of skulduggery. Leave gracefully. Please.
"It seems to me that calls for Hillary to drop out of the race have grown in proportion to the negativity of Hillary's campaign"
Odd. It seems to me that calls for Hillary to drop out of the race have grown in proportion to Team Obama's realization that they're likely going to lose the nomination due to rejection by Democratic voters...
"Cool! So we'll write off OH, PA, MI, and FL, since they're not 'good Obama states'. I'm sure Obama's strength in Wyoming, Nebraska, and the Dakotas will compensate, right?"
Did I say anything about writing off PA or MI? Or mention Florida (though in truth, I think the odds of any Democrat winning FL are exceedingly small)? If you look at the states I mentioned, I was clearly looking at possible flips from 2004. And if Obama is the candidate, I think that Ohio is possible but unlikely (though much more likely than Florida). Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada are likely. Missouri and Virginia are toss-ups. I didn't mention it, but in case you are asking, I think Pennsylvania would also be a toss-up, and Michigan would likely vote for Obama (people seem to forget that Michigan actually has reasonably favorable demographics for Obama -- it's like Wisconsin with more African-Americans).*
The fact that you are aghast that the Democrats could even conceive of winning the presidency without Ohio and Florida is telling. That sort of idea is what brought us the wonderful Kerry administration that we've enjoyed these past four years.
* So if you're counting, just looking at those states means that Obama does 27.5 EVs better than Kerry in 2004 (splitting the toss-up states down the middle). So he wins the presidency 279-259 or so.
I'm getting sick of people trying to come up with definitions of what "matters", such as the number of votes by registered Democrats, or the number of big states or swing states that were won. This is incredibly silly.
All that really matters is the number of pledged delegates that have been won. Sure, its possible that a few superdelegates will be swayed by these silly arguments, but not many. Obama is going to end up with a healthy lead in pledged delegates, even if there is a re-vote in Florida and Michigan. That's why he's extremely likely to be the nominee.
I have no problem with Hillary continuing to run until Obama has commitments from enough delegates to put him over the top. I do have a problem with her saying that McCain is ready to be president but Obama isn't. How can Democrats support her after a statement like that?
"I understand that a certain chunk of the Obama crowd has trouble with the realities, but Clinton currently has a narrow lead in the overall popular vote, and a substantial lead in the popular vote among Democrats"
On your first point that is a flat out lie, unsupported by any data. As to leading among "democrats" if what you mean is somehow you are not counting votes BO recieved from independants or rep. who were allowed to cross over, well that data isn't keep by the various secretaries of state. So what you are relying on would be poll data, not votes. In any event if someone is allowed to vote in the primary it counts just as much as someone else. If HRC or someone like you have a problem with that maybe you should have worked on getting the rules changed before the primary season, instead of in the middle of the contest.
If Hillary dropped out, most of her followers would support Obama in the general election.
If Hillary wrests the nomination from him through other than democratic means, a good number of Obama's supporters would refuse to support her; some would support McCain instead.
Pressure should rightly remain on Hillary. She cannot catch up to Obama (delegate-wise) at this point (barring Michigan & Florida, as it now stands).
Discerning the Matrix... www.opeding.blogspot.com
It seems to me that calls for Hillary to drop out of the race have grown in proportion to Team Obama's realization that they're likely going to lose the nomination due to rejection by Democratic voters...
Was it Democratic voters Bill Clinton was appealing to on Limbaugh on the day of the Texas primacaucus? Or some other sort of voter?
I agree that HRC has tried to change the rules after the race has begun -- her behavior with respect to MI and FL is particularly problematic (not to mention the NV caucus issue, etc.).
But, can we also agree that the Obama supporters who try to say that it's only pledged delegates that count are also trying to change the rules midstream? Like it or not, the superdelegates were added precisely to be an "undemocratic" bloc, to reflect the supposed wisdom of the party elders. This new-found notion that their votes are somehow illegitimate if not cast in line with the pledged delegates has no basis in either the rules or even the history and purpose for which the DNC created them. I don't like them one bit, but the rules provide for it. Neither Obama nor HRC were out there before the race complaining about it, either.
I'd love to see Obama pick a woman as his VP -- as long as it's not Hillary. What a great snub of the Clintons that would be. Obama/Sebelius or Obama/Napolitano? Realistically though, I suspect he'll go with a white male, perhaps either Mark Warner (to put VA in play?) or Wes Clark.
"I'm getting sick of people trying to come up with definitions of what "matters" ... All that really matters is the number of pledged delegates that have been won."
Do you even think about what you're writing?
Matthew at least has a reason for writing brain-dead things - he's trying to sell a book with Jonah Goldberg's playbook. But you?
i was almost going to stay out of this (and actually, i will after this comment), but every so often matthew reminds us what a youth he is: the idea that in frickin' march, there would be this brilliant series of obama ads that would transform the election if only the horrible clinton weren't hanging around pretty much approaches the dumbest thing matthew has ever typed.
march, for god's sake.
1) Look, people, the solution's simple if you are willing to get off your ass. Simply go and work in Obama'scampaign. That will accomplish a lot more than comments on a blog --it will make reality, versus just watching it happen.
If you want to drive a stake through Hillary's heart, chop off her head, and stick it on a stake, then come to Pennsylvania.
The weather's starting to warm up and spring is kinda nice here.
"If Hillary dropped out, most of her followers would support Obama in the general election."
Multiple polls in the past week have shown that Clinton keeps a higher percentage of Obama supporters in the general election than Obama keeps of Clinton supporters.
But don't let unpleasant facts bother you. Just keep watching General Electric and reading dKos. I'm sure you'll be able to avoid unpleasant facts that way.
Damm, I forgot one of the major reasons to come to Pennsylvania and work in Obama's campaign:
Yuengling Beer.
Petey, you're right. What really matters is the number of popular votes by registered Democrats. I guess the delegates who vote in the convention are just some sort of technical detail.
But it isn't self-interest that's driving Hillary now, because she can't win in any case. It's just vindictiveness.
Odd. It seems to me that calls for Hillary to drop out of the race have grown in proportion to Team Obama's realization that they're likely going to lose the nomination due to rejection by Democratic voters...
Posted by Petey | March 10, 2008 11:03 AM
Petey -
Love the snark. So there's no chance that some folks calling for Hillary to cease and desist or else drop out aren't motivated by the obvious facts that 1) Hillary's campaigning hurts Obama in the general election if Obama wins, and 2) nominating someone with Hillary's sky-high negatives is bad electoral strategy? What I want is for a Democrat to win the general, and I can't understand why some folks insist on making that as hard as possible. I'll vote for Hillary, but it's obvious that her candidacy is a non-starter for a lot of voters.
You can no more expect the Clintons' to set aside their own egos in the interests of their own party - let alone that of a broader agenda of progressive politics - than you could expect a Snopes. The Clintons' are dealing with the Democratic Party the way Flem Snopes dealt with Will Varner - if Hillary can't have it, they'll burn down the whole barn.
"Well, you could try winning more Democratic votes in the nomination race than Clinton. That would guarantee an Obama nomination."
According to RealClearPolitics, Obama has won more of the popular vote, 13,025,003 vs. 12,421,316, unless you count both disallowed primaries in MI and FL, where, of course, Mr. Obama never campaigned.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
So, by your standards, he has the nomination guaranteed.
You can no more expect the Clintons' to set aside their own egos in the interests of their own party - let alone that of a broader agenda of progressive politics - than you could expect a Snopes to do the honorable thing. The Clintons' are dealing with the Democratic Party the way Flem Snopes dealt with Will Varner - if Hillary can't have it, they'll burn down the whole barn.
I don't know if anyone here has seen this, but the latest polls in Michigan show Clinton and Obama tied. In the event of a revote, that one is probably close to a draw.
She's still well ahead in Florida, and -- as a Florida native -- I'd guess she's likely to remain so.
Also, I find it bizarre that Petey thinks the correct way to choose a nominee is by looking at exit polls. Ask President John Kerry what a good idea that is.
There is one thing that I haven't read anywhere yet. If at the convention, Obama is given the nomination, will Hillary run as an independent?
I liked Petey when he was the upbeat Edwards supporter. Heck, he convinced me to be one.
But now the Russert/GE and 'most Democratic votes' lines ring false and desperate.
Amen, Matt. It's time for Sen. Clinton to graciously concede, for the good of the party and the country. Maneuvering to get pledged delegates to switch (her latest trial balloon in Newsweek), claiming that she should get MI/FL, all but endorsing John McCain, exaggerating her trips abroad into major foreign policy experience (USO trip w/Sinbad does not equal peace negotiations)... the list goes on. It's time for her to stop the insanity and salvage her dignity and the respect she deserves.
"Petey, you're right. What really matters is the number of popular votes by registered Democrats. I guess the delegates who vote in the convention are just some sort of technical detail."
Wait. Now it's "the delegates who vote in the convention" who matter?
Just ten minutes ago, it was only "pledged delegates" who mattered.
I tell ya', I'm getting sick of people trying to come up with definitions of what "matters".
-----
Personally, I think the wishes of Democratic voters matter.
But I do understand that getting a majority in Denver is what will matter in terms of winning the nomination. Thankfully, a hall full of Democratic delegates is going to, like me, highly value the wishes of Democratic voters.
Her stuff touting McCain really is disgusting. I don't think the party "elders" need to step in to stop the race, but they do need to step in and tell her to cut that crap out.
Glenn,
You are conflating two different sorts of arguments. I don't think Obama's campaign is arguing the rules should be changed to force the superdelegates to vote in any particular way. Rather, they are offering various arguments to try to persuade the superdelegates it would be better for them to vote in certain ways.
Frankly I'm not convinced that sabotaging Obama’s general election chances is an unintended side effect of Clinton's aggressive tactics. If Obama wins the primary I think Clinton would probably prefer that he lost the general, as that would give her a far better shot in 2012. It’s a win-win for her, she still has an outside chance of getting the nomination (by convincing superdelegates), and she can damage Obama in a way that simply wouldn’t be allowed if she was no longer a candidate.
I liked Petey when he was the upbeat Edwards supporter.
That's because he used to have a coherent argument. Even if you disagreed with him, you knew what the hell he was talking about.
QOTD, Mark Penn: “Independent and Republican support is diminishing as they find out he’s the most liberal Democratic senator… As they get more of a sense that he’s not ready to be Commander-in-Chief, a lot of Independents who were supporting him are disappearing.” Yes, that's right, the Hillary campaign is using "liberal" as a slur. And they're using the National Review's fraudulent Senator librul rating. Please tell me what part of this is ok?
So much fro "Clintons willing to set their own interests aside in favor of those of the party and the progressive movement."
Ok, that's enough.
Petey, I think you do think about what you're writing, which is why I used to defend your Edwards posts, but have now concluded that you have no integrity at all. Your attempts to turn this race into a game of Calvinball are transparent and, frankly, pathetic.
Your repeated assertions that only "Democratic" votes should be considered is offensive to the entire election process.
To select the best Democratic candidate, the party designed a primary system. All the candidates agreed to it. States got to choose btw caucus and primary, and the level of openness to independents or republicans, with the idea that they know their electorates best. All the candidates agreed to this. The party also selected an order, and when 2 states violated this, they lost their delegates. All the candidates agreed to this as well.
The reason you design a system is that when everyone agrees to it, it means people buy into the process. This means that the losing side will accept it because they lost according to rules that they agreed to .
When you piss on this, you piss on the entire system. Losing fairly hurts, but losing unfairly makes people drop out of the game. Especially, in this case, the millions of Obamabots who are new to the game, and don't yet realize that double-dealing assholes like you are the rule rather than the exception.
If your are doing this for pragmatic reasons, vying for a spot in the Clinton network, the you are a lying, contemptible, sack of shit. If you are doing this for idealistic reasons -- ie, fucking up the party for mandates and mandates alone, with no thought of who is more likely get their stuff passed (hence the laughable "I'm voting Nader bullshit -- then you are just dumb as a fucking rock and don't deserve to be taken seriously.
I'm predicting there will be five hundred inane, nasty horse-race comments in this thread by noon.
Posted by James Gary | March 10, 2008 10:01 AM