The Phony War

I was talking about this while walking to my current location, and I'm glad to see that Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen , Josh Marshall are writing about it, too -- Hillary Clinton's already lost the nomination.

Under the circumstances, I find it maddening that the party leadership isn't acting to push her out of the race. Dragging things out 'till the convention stands a much, much, much higher chance of hurting Barack Obama's chances in the general election than it does of securing Clinton the nomination. I understand the calculation from the point of view of the heart of the Clinton campaign -- McCain beating Obama in the general means the Clintons still control the party, so there's no need to worry about helping McCain and you might as well hold on and hope lightning strikes. But the broader mass of unaffiliated elites and Clinton supporters who aren't literally on her payroll are, in my view, acting in a massively irresponsible manner.

Comments

Amen, brother. Let's hope Richardson is followed by Pelosi and Gore. The only question, I think, is whether the intervention *can* be staged now -- or whether it's safer to wait till after NC.

Speaking for myself, I'd like to see them give it a shot now.

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 3:42 PM

Um ... Edwards?

Posted by Steve V | March 21, 2008 3:45 PM

But the broader mass of unaffiliated elites and Clinton supporters who aren't literally on her payroll are, in my view, acting in a massively irresponsible manner.

I have to second that sentiment. The race is technically over as Obama has mathematically won the nomination. Clinton's refusal to acknowledge that and to stay in the race is, in my opinion, solely for personal aggrandizement and a byproduct of rampant delusion on the part of her campaign to realize that they have squandered the most certain thing in politics in a half century.

My concern is that she actually believes there are possible scenarios in which she can still win. Of course, these scenarios include Bush-league shenanigans such as lawsuits, race baiting, and the super delegates -- not legitimate tactics since Obama has really already won.

Posted by BCM | March 21, 2008 3:47 PM

Shorter MY: the race ends when my candidate takes a lead.

News flash; it's a mile and quarter, not 6 furlongs.

Posted by Gene | March 21, 2008 3:49 PM

"I was talking about this while walking to my current location, and I'm glad to see that Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen , Josh Marshall are writing about it, too -- Hillary Clinton's already lost the nomination."

It's funny how the grimmer things begin to appear for Obama, the more the Obama chorus demands that Clinton drops out of the race.

Clinton is essentially tied in the popular vote as we speak, will almost definitely go ahead in the popular vote after Pennsylvania, and will very likely stay ahead in the popular vote the rest of the way.

The fact that Obama is obstructing re-votes in MI and FL because he understands he'll lose those states won't change the popular vote count.

If, as seems likely, Obama continues to come undone and loses the final three months of the campaign, he's not going to be the nominee.

I understand why the Obama holdouts are trying to steal the nomination in this manner, but that doesn't mean it's a particularly good strategy for them.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 3:51 PM

Popping popcorn and waiting for Petey...

Posted by Pooh | March 21, 2008 3:51 PM

Gene, I don't remember MY saying the race was over after Iowa.

Matt, I don't think if McCain were to win the general over Obama (which is unlikely) that the Clintons would still be in control of the party. I think many in the party would feel that a major reason that she lost was because of the way she ran the primary campaign. The only way she and Bill can maintain any level of power in the party is if she drops out gracefully (perhaps after NC and IN) and does big time campaigning for Obama. Anything less and the Clintons are done.

Posted by john m | March 21, 2008 3:54 PM

"reason that she lost" should be "reason that he lost"

Posted by john m | March 21, 2008 3:56 PM

Crazy thought of the moment: Clinton staying in the race keeps the media spotlight away from McCain until June. She loses nothing by staying in, Obama gains some valuable experience. Obama supports her for Senate Majority leader after he wins the nomination.

Posted by Tel | March 21, 2008 3:56 PM

In a bette world - and party - Clinton would have dropped out a month ago, Edwards would have gotten behind Obama, and both of them would be making sure white working-class Dems stay with the party, not move over to McCain.

Instead, Clintonian interests come first. Bill and Hill will always be more important than the country.

What's Edwards' excuse?

Posted by JR | March 21, 2008 3:58 PM

If the situation were reversed, it's a 100% certainty that Clinton and her supporters would be shouting at the top of their lungs that Obama should drop out for the good of the party and the country.

No human being on this planet can convince me otherwise. Hell, she already floated the "He can be my VP" after losing 11 of 13 contests.

But instead, she'll stay in it regardless of what the facts are because the nomination is her divine right. Or something.

Posted by Mark D | March 21, 2008 3:58 PM

Petey, you silly hack, you've been wrong about every prediction you've made about this race for the last year. Don't you ever just slump in front of your keyboard and think, "God, I'm just full of shit"?

Posted by Christmas | March 21, 2008 3:59 PM

Matt was right to say that we can't really expect the Clintons to give up on their own accord. There *are* still some imaginable (though highly unlikely) scenarios where she could get the nomination. And I accept that they will hang on as long as they can.

But here's the thing: the scenarios that win her the nomination are, at this point, all party-destroying scenarios. They all presuppose that superdelegates will overcome pledged delegates. That's unlikely -- but more to the point, if it did happen, it would absolutely crack the party in two. Petey & co can filter the popular vote in various ways in order to come up with a lot of explanations of why it might happen, why it should happen, etc etc. Okay, whatev. Fact remains, if it did happen, it would be a meltdown. There would be messy demonstrations in Denver, memories of '68 -- not a nice build-up to the general election.

So the party elders really do need to find a way to bring this thing to a close. The question is just how and when.

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 3:59 PM

the race ends when my candidate takes a lead.
News flash; it's a mile and quarter, not 6 furlongs.

Actually it's more like this:

Obama leads Hillary 21 to 10 in a game of football. Hillary is driving with 2 seconds left on the clock. Hillary throws a Hail Mary pass and Obama is called for pass interference. Because the game can not end on a penalty, Hillary gets one last snap with no time left on the clock. Even if Hillary scores the touchdown and converts a two-point conversion, she cannot win the game. The only way for her to win is if Obama runs on the field and kills one of the referees, forfeiting the game. In other words, it ain't happenin'...

Posted by drjimcooper | March 21, 2008 4:00 PM

Matt--exactly. She has done nothing, since the Potomac primaries, other than make winning in November more challenging for Barack. She cannot win. All she can do is hurt the party.

Barack is not blocking revotes in Michigan and Florida. They broke the rules!!! If the powers-that-be wanted their constituents to have a voice in this nomination, they should have thought about that before they behaved so irresponsibly.

Posted by Ilana | March 21, 2008 4:01 PM

I understand why the Obama holdouts are trying to steal the nomination in this manner

That was my laugh of the day!

Seriously, though, there are two very questionable assumptions underlying this post.

First, that Obama has already won. I mean, that's just patently false. Neither candidate is going to clinch this through pledged delegates, so there is nothing wrong with playing the game through the superdelegate stage. Hillary has a rough, but not impossible, road to the nomination.

Second, that this in-fighting hurts Obama. It doesn't. All of the negatives are going to come out, and this gives him a nice long chance to get used to the heat, and craft responses. As a bonus, it is going to make many of these issues feel "stale" to some degree later on.

Breathe, people, breathe.

Posted by Brad L | March 21, 2008 4:01 PM

"It's funny how the grimmer things begin to appear for Obama, the more the Obama chorus demands that Clinton drops out of the race."

No, actually, the demands have accelerated now that it's clear there will be no Michigan and Florida vote, and therefore Clinton has literally no path to the nomination whatsoever.

"Clinton is essentially tied in the popular vote as we speak, will almost definitely go ahead in the popular vote after Pennsylvania, and will very likely stay ahead in the popular vote the rest of the way."

Have you any grasp of basic math skills whatsoever? She is down by currently 800k, will win Pennsylvania by 200-300k and lose that much back in Indiana and North Carolina. Even among best-case scenarios from Hillary supporters she cannot catch up in the vote, or even come close, without Michigan and Florida. If you know something every other person looking at the numbers doesn't, do share.

And of course, the popular vote that Obama will inevitably win is completely irrelevant to how the nominee is decided anyway.

"The fact that Obama is obstructing re-votes in MI and FL because he understands he'll lose those states won't change the popular vote count."

You mean the same way Hillary "obstructed" those votes in January when she agreed they wouldn't count? Or the same Ickes "obstructed" those votes on the RBC by being one of the avid supporters of them not counting?

It's quite amusing that a moral crusade for enfranchisement now exists among a candidate who said the exact opposite back when it mattered.

And of course, even with new primaries in both states, the popular vote is still well out of reach. Your only argument is that Hillary should have 300k to Obama's 0 in Michigan, which is patently ludicrous at its core.

Please provide a scenario under which she can overtake him in the popular vote with these revotes done. We'd all love to see it.

"If, as seems likely, Obama continues to come undone and loses the final three months of the campaign, he's not going to be the nominee."

Loses in which sense? Virtually every projection available have him between 0 and 20 delegates behind among the remaining states. His lead is currently 160. Your mythical "momentum" among racist elderly voters and mountain states does not a nominee make.

And of course, he could in fact lose every single state to come and still have a healthy delegate lead, one that will not under any scenario be overturned.

"I understand why the Obama holdouts are trying to steal the nomination in this manner, but that doesn't mean it's a particularly good strategy for them."

I suppose your doublespeak definition of a holdout is someone backing the overwhelming favorite. Cute. In fact, 98% of Democrats would substitute another name in that paragraph.

Go away, troll. The time when you will have no arguments left is fast approaching.

Posted by John S. | March 21, 2008 4:02 PM

Yes. This is getting more obvious every day. McCain gets a free pass, Dems can't come to the defense of Obama wrt to Wright, and Clinton gets to stay in the race. What a deal.

It is time for the supers to end this and begin pulling together for the general.

Posted by Andrew | March 21, 2008 4:02 PM

Wondering if the phoney war hurts McCain by limiting his exposure. Wondering if the DNC is on to this. McCain is off meeting world leaders somewhere and it is not on my front page.

Posted by Joe | March 21, 2008 4:03 PM

One thing that no one has mentioned -- can the party end it at this point without significantly hurting the nominee's chances in PA in the fall? If they act to put a stop to it now, mightn't that piss off a significant number of PA swing voters who will feel that they were denied a chance to vote for the nominee?

Posted by Joe | March 21, 2008 4:04 PM

Yeah Petey, because obeying the rules the DNC set regarding FL and MI is the *exact* same thing as stealing a nomination.

Are you going to come back here and admit error when Clinton does not, in fact, come out ahead on the popular vote? Or are you just going to move on to peddling the next deluded piece of tripe?

Posted by Francisco The Man | March 21, 2008 4:05 PM

Wondering if the phoney war hurts McCain by limiting his exposure.

No. McCain's poling numbers have been going up over the last couple weeks.

Posted by Christmas | March 21, 2008 4:05 PM

Nobody in the party leadership wants to take the grief from almost half the party that would assuredly come (complete, no doubt, with accusations of sexism) if they look like they're pushing her out of the race. They want the voters to do that. They were hoping the voters of Ohio and Texas were going to do that. But as long as she keeps winning states, there's no "reason" for her to drop out even though she has no chance of making up the delegate gap.

The first thing that has to happen is that the media need to stop portraying the race as "deadlocked" and "neck-and-neck" when it is nothing of the kind. If the conventional media wisdom starts to recognize the reality here (the Politico piece is one step, but there needs to be a lot more than that), then it makes it easier for the party leadership to step in and try to end it. But as long as most Democrats think the race is 50-50 it's hard to convince the rank-and-file that it's all over. And stuff like the Wright controversy, at least in the short term, is going to keep the leaders on the sidelines.

The only hope that it ends before June is if Obama can somehow win both Indiana and North Carolina on May 6. (He could also end it by winning Penn., but I don't see that happening.) Other than that, how do you tell a candidate to drop out if she keeps winning primaries? It's a Hail-Mary type of situation, but if you're Clinton, faint hope beats none at all.

Posted by Dave | March 21, 2008 4:06 PM

the broader mass of unaffiliated elites and Clinton supporters who aren't literally on her payroll are, in my view, acting in a massively irresponsible manner.

Irresponsible, or simply hedging their bets, fearing Clinton vengeance? If Obama loses to McCain and (as you put it) "the Clintons still control the party", it will be politically advantageous to have been a fence-sitter during this period rather than someone who acted to undercut Hillary.

Or at least thus do these people probably calculate things. Don't underestimate their willingness to put their own political futures ahead of the success of their party. (And I don't necessarily equate nominating Obama with guaranteed success in November; just that everything else being equal, terminating the nomination battle sooner rather than later increases Dem chances of success in November.)

Posted by Ryan | March 21, 2008 4:08 PM

Hey, in his defense -- Petey's not a troll. He's extremely persistent, but that's different.

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 4:09 PM

"Other than that, how do you tell a candidate to drop out if she keeps winning primaries? It's a Hail-Mary type of situation, but if you're Clinton, faint hope beats none at all."

It's very simple.

You say: your winning primaries in no way increases your virtually nonexistant chance of winning the nomination. McCain's positives are going up while those of Democrats are going down every day because this is still going on. For the good of the party, step aside, or else we're all going to come out and start declaring for Obama.

They just haven't yet found the spine to do this. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Posted by John S. | March 21, 2008 4:09 PM

"In a bette world ... Edwards would have gotten behind Obama ... What's Edwards' excuse?"

Perhaps he's not happy that Obama has been trashing universal healthcare to win the support of General Electric.

Perhaps he's not happy that Obama is willing to sellout Democratic policy to further his personal ambitions.

Perhaps he's noticed that Clinton has been gotten a clear majority in the popular vote among Democrats so far.

In your "better" world, Edwards would have endorsed the Democratic candidate - Obama - most antithetical to the things the Edwards campaign was all about. But the majority of the Democratic electorate isn't living in your particular little fantasy land.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 4:10 PM

In a bette world - and party - Clinton would have dropped out a month ago

No, in a better world, Hillary would have decided that the path forward would be in proving that she can attack John McCain better than Obama. There would be two potential nominees hitting at their declared candidate, while he would be stuck with a moving target, so to speak.

But this situation isn't nearly so bad as everyone seems to think.

Posted by Brad L | March 21, 2008 4:10 PM

But the broader mass of unaffiliated elites and Clinton supporters who aren't literally on her payroll are, in my view, acting in a massively irresponsible manner.

First, the party leadership (whoever that is in a world in which Bill & Hillary Clinton are personally engaged in an intra-party fight) doesn't have the ability to push her from the race. She raised $35 million last month - despite losing 11 contests in a row. This isn't a case in which nefarious elites keep funding her campaign because of corruption or fear of the grassroots. In truth, and this is what Obama supporters need to come to grips with, Hillary Clinton has huge amounts of grassroots, rank-and-file Democratic support. Rank-and-file Democrats are the ones who lifted her to victory in Texas and Ohio. They're the ones who are funding her campaign at this point. They're the one who are giving her a 20 point lead over the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Are you saying that 56% of Pennsylvania Democrats are acting irresponsibly in saying that they prefer Hillary over Obama???

What you have is a case in which a real cleavage in the party has been exposed: the Obama-crats versus the Clinton-crats. It's not at all clear to me that the Obama-crats actually constitute a greater portion of the Democratic Party than the Clinton-crats, regardless of the technical requirements for winning the presidential nomination.

That's a scary thought. It's a recipe for a McCain victory in November if Obama doesn't actually prove that he has the loyalty of the huge bloc of voters who despite all of Obama's electoral success and fanfare, keep opting for Clinton at the polls in some of these larger states. (The same obviously holds for Clinton as she contemplates her remote chance at being the nominee).

The contest continues because despite "the math" Obama doesn't yet have the full appearance of legitimacy as the nominee. That appearance of legitimacy can't be given to him as long as he loses states with the heft of Texas, Ohio, and California. It's why Pennsylvania, despite "the math," is a quite important test for him. There's a large group of voters (basically, flakey Reagan Democrats) who still need to be convinced, and ultimately, must be if he's to win in November.

Posted by dry_fish | March 21, 2008 4:13 PM

I think Joe is right, the time to end it was right after Texas and Ohio, the rationale would be, Hillary got her big wins, but they wern'et big enough, the math didn't change, it's over. That they waited so long and pretended that PA mattered now they pretty much have to let PA play out, after PA and NC when the math hasn't changed the Supers should declare.

People arguing that Obama hasn't clinched without SDs are right, but there is no date that Supers have to wait for, they can all declare their votes as soon as they want. Enough of them can declare and put Obama above the magic number anytime they want.

Posted by Eric k | March 21, 2008 4:13 PM

"Clinton is essentially tied in the popular vote as we speak, will almost definitely go ahead in the popular vote after Pennsylvania, and will very likely stay ahead in the popular vote the rest of the way."

That's crazy. She'd need to win PA by over 30 points to do that. She only won NY by 17. She might win PA by about 15, but it might be with a very depressed voter turnout, what with the race being over. Then she'll lose NC, and probably be down over 1/2 million minimum in the popular vote, more like 6-700k.

Posted by Njorl | March 21, 2008 4:13 PM

I have no doubt that if HRC were in the lead, her forces would be calling loudly and insistently for Obama to concede and drop out. So I have no qualms when Obama supporters do it. It's a perfectly legitimate tactic. But that's all it is: a tactic. Some of you here try to invest it with something close to moral authority, which is bullshit.

And I ask you to compare how few Clinton supporters say they won't support Obama in November if he is the nominee, vs. how many Obama supporters say -- and have been saying for a long time -- they won't support Clinton if she is the nominee.

Posted by Gene | March 21, 2008 4:15 PM

I'm sympathetic to your broader point, MY, but it's not over until it's over. Clinton still has a shot, and will continue to have a shot until the various party elders decide otherwise. Insofar as your animus is directed at the elders, I pretty much agree.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 21, 2008 4:15 PM

In reply to people who think this all hurts McCain by limiting his press exposure . . . I'd like to think you're right, but the polls aren't showing it. He's been climbing against both of them.

But -- to look on the bright side -- I will say that the volume of negativity coming out of the Clinton camp has quieted down a bit lately. They've seemed very focused on MI and FL. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I wonder if they're beginning to grasp that the odds of success are no longer high enough to justify a "kitchen sink" approach.

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 4:16 PM

"Your only argument is that Hillary should have 300k to Obama's 0 in Michigan"

No. My argument is that Michigan should re-vote within the DNC rules.

- The Michigan Democratic Party was in favor of this.

- The DNC was in favor of this.

- The Clinton campaign was in favor of this.

- Barack Obama was opposed because he understood it might put a roadblock into his too clever by half attempt to steal the nomination against the will of the Democratic electorate.

So Obama has gone to the mattresses to stop legitimate re-votes MI and FL, which means that we're going to have to rely on the original vote. That's not the way I want it. It's the way Barack Obama wants it.

It's a cowardly stance that is going to backfire. If Obama is too craven to face the Democratic electorate, he certainly shouldn't be the nominee. You don't lose and hide your way to the nomination.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 4:17 PM

The funny thing is, the situation for Hillary is even bleaker than Allen and VandeHei make it out to be.

They conflate percent of the vote won with delegates won in their calculations of what percentage of delegates/votes Clinton needs to catch up in the remaining contests. They say that she could catch up with 60% of delegates in every contest if MI and FL were included. This totally implausible scenario is actually not even possible. She would need something like 70% of the vote to win 60% of the delegates.

Why don't Allen and VandeHei know the difference?

Posted by westofrome | March 21, 2008 4:17 PM

People arguing that Obama hasn't clinched without SDs are right, but there is no date that Supers have to wait for, they can all declare their votes as soon as they want. Enough of them can declare and put Obama above the magic number anytime they want.

Sure, but until they do, why should the candidate decide to magnanimously step aside?

Posted by Brad L | March 21, 2008 4:19 PM

The democratic party is pretty screwed right now. Obama and Clinton are just going to keep slashing at each other. Whoever wins will be weakened for the general. Way to go, democratic party. Heckuva a job at shooting yourselves in the foot.

Posted by Helter | March 21, 2008 4:19 PM

I have to agree with my friend MattY. My friends, Hillary has already lost. Moreover, Obama will be the much stronger candidate, my friends.

Posted by John McCain 2008 For President! | March 21, 2008 4:20 PM

It's like being down 16 with 25 seconds to play with the ball on your own 5 yard-line. You could throw a touchdown pass, score a 2-pt conversion, kick an onside kick then do it again. You could win. You're not going to, but you could.

Posted by Njorl | March 21, 2008 4:21 PM

And I ask you to compare how few Clinton supporters say they won't support Obama in November if he is the nominee, vs. how many Obama supporters say -- and have been saying for a long time -- they won't support Clinton if she is the nominee.

(1) A lot of that is talk. (2) Consider the possibility that, insofar as it's not just talk, it's because Obama is a much, much, much better candidate than HRC, who is, after all, the all-but-explicit candidate of stasis and more of the same. If you didn't love the last seven years, or the Vichy Dems that helped the Administration shape those years, that's not all that appealing.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 21, 2008 4:21 PM

"They say that she could catch up with 60% of delegates in every contest if MI and FL were included."

She can catch up in the popular vote if she wins approximately 50.1% of the vote the rest of the way.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 4:22 PM

I think the Clinton surogate calls to superdelegates bringing in the Wright matter moved Richardson over the edge. At least a few suggested it could bacfire -- later -- but I think the rooster came home sooner. He won't be the first, but I fear it won't happen til PA

Posted by randy n | March 21, 2008 4:22 PM

Popping popcorn

No, no, no. We Republicans are supposed to be popping the popcorn. You're supposed to be an active participant here.

Posted by Al | March 21, 2008 4:22 PM

"Perhaps he's noticed that Clinton has been gotten a clear majority in the popular vote among Democrats so far."

What, exactly, do you mean by that? Where are you getting your numbers. Going by realclearpolitics.com Obama is leading Clinton.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Every news story I've read on the subject says Obama is leading Clinton in votes. Could you please provide a link to support your claims? Or are you just making that up?

Posted by justaguy | March 21, 2008 4:22 PM

Njorl,

You gotta use Petey Math, he counts MI and FL and doesn't count Caucus states that didn't report official vote totals.

Petey, seriously give it up, even most Hillary supporters don't buy your BS.

What is also worth noting is didn't Undeclared kick Hillary's ass in MI? When Castro or Sadaam ran an election unopposed they got 90+%, Hillary can't even run a sham election right:-)

Posted by Eric k | March 21, 2008 4:23 PM

Clinton is essentially tied in the popular vote as we speak, will almost definitely go ahead in the popular vote after Pennsylvania, and will very likely stay ahead in the popular vote the rest of the way. --Petey

...where "essentially" = "not"

Posted by goethean | March 21, 2008 4:24 PM

Brad, rebuttals to your two points:

1-Obama has already one both pledged delegates and the popular vote. Contra Petey's dalliance in fantasy land, Obama's 800,000+ lead in the popular vote is basically insurmountable, and he could win only 36% of the pledged delegates the rest of the way and still end up on top of that metric as well. When the only two democratic metrics by which these candidates are measured are basically secured for one candidate, it's safe to say that candidate "won" those metrics.

And the notion that super-delegates are going to break en masse for Hillary in spite of this truth is becoming increasingly and obviously absurd, be it Nancy Pelosi, party leader, re-iterating multiple times, forcefully and publicly, that such a move would be a mistake, or a Dem of standing like Richardson deciding to go on record now that he's behind Obama, or the fact that Obama has absolutely demolished Clinton's lead in s-d's in the last month, gaining something like 60 on her and cutting her lead by more than half. We're at the Edward Edwins "dead girl/live boy" point here...Obama isn't losing unless political lightning strikes. As much as Petey and others might hope that the Wright thing is just that, its not

Further, there is no need for Clinton to actively campaign while waiting out the clock for such a scandal to emerge, unless she hopes to actively provoke one. As we see from the polls above, that might be happening some, though not enough for her to win...just enough to wound Obama.

Which is just a destructive exercise in self-indulgence.

2-I would have to vehemently disagree here. McCain, right now, is going around the country shoring up his conservative support when we could be spending him into the ground. He's getting his message out without any vocal opposition, and even when Obama slams him, it goes uncovered, as that story is secondary to the Clinton-Obama dynamic. Meanwhile, you have Clinton and McCain hitting Obama from the same list of talking points, creating a structural imbalance: the likely Dem nominee is being attacked by the presumptive GOP nominee and a prominent Dem, whereas the GOP nominee is basically running unopposed. That's not good for the party anymore than it's good for Obama to get "toughened up" by having his national security credibility trashed by a fellow Dem in an important GE state. And again, as per above, she hasn't killed Obama to the point where winning is actually a credible possibility for her, she's just made it that much harder for any Dem to win in Nov.

Posted by Michael | March 21, 2008 4:26 PM

Ilana and Others:

You love Obama. Fine. But spare us the spin:the DNC is NOT blocking a revote. They explicitly said the recent Michigan plan would have been OK with them. The rules say that the states have to vote between Feb 5 and June 10. Revotes WOULD be consistent with the rules. I can imagine that some naive Obama supporters don't understand this point, and would prefer not to believe that their hero would do anything underhanded since only Clintons do such things, but the role of the Obama campaign in this really is not ambiguous.

The problem is not the rules, but rather that the Obama people are afraid that their realignment-inducing, everyone-loves-him obviously electable candidate may lose primaries in Florida and Michigan. The same nervous people are calling for HRC to drop out b/c they are afraid that putting Obama through his paces in PA and Indiana will do him such damage. What an electable guy!

The Obama people are all about "the voters" deciding, not the wicked superdelegates. But this is only true for voters in states where Obama will win.

If you are for Obama that's fine, but be honest with yourselves that you are supporting voter disenfranchisement because it helps your side. The difference between you and the GOP is that you know you are good people so when you do it, it's OK.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | March 21, 2008 4:26 PM

"What is also worth noting is didn't Undeclared kick Hillary's ass in MI?"

Using the Obama math, I guess so. 40% kicks 55%'s ass in your little fantasy land.

The palpable contempt the Obama chorus exhibits towards the Democratic electorate really is stunning sometimes.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 4:28 PM

Joe said:

If they act to put a stop to it now, mightn't that piss off a significant number of PA swing voters who will feel that they were denied a chance to vote for the nominee?

I dunno. I spent the first 12 years of my voting life in a state where it was always over (esp. for the GOP) by the time our primary rolled around. Somehow, I found the strength to vote in the general, and for the same party as in the primary.

Posted by cmholm | March 21, 2008 4:28 PM

"You gotta use Petey Math, he counts MI and FL and doesn't count Caucus states that didn't report official vote totals."

But even that doesn't work. According to realclearpolitics.com that leaves Obama with an 80k lead in votes.

Posted by justaguy | March 21, 2008 4:29 PM

Just as there's no crying in baseball, there are no mulligans in elections.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 21, 2008 4:30 PM

You gotta use Petey Math

You mock now, but remember that he was the first among us to recognize Isiah Thomas as GM SuperGenius.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 21, 2008 4:30 PM

With all due respect, guys, it's a waste of time spinning the popular vote, or arguing about FL and MI. We're not going to *make* anything happen by arguing it *should* happen in one of Matt's comment threads.

What we can do is try to better understand what *is* happening.

Personally, I think one thing that's happening is that Clinton's perceived window of opportunity is closing rapidly. Dry_fish is right that party elders can't try to push her out as long as the "Hillarycrats" still think she's got a real chance. But if it becomes clear that she doesn't have a real chance -- they might not wait till after NC to try it.

Here's an important breaking data point: The HRC campaign is basically "in the red" right now.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/hillary_campaign_in_the_red.php

That's not going to help her a lot with the supers, or with the media.

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 4:34 PM

"Obama's 800,000+ lead in the popular vote is basically insurmountable"

You've "accidentally" multiplied by ten. Obama currently has a lead of 70,000 popular votes, which will almost definitely lead to a Clinton lead in popular votes after Pennsylvania.

And if you separate out only Democratic popular votes, Clinton currently holds a significant lead over Obama, which will grow even larger after Pennsylvania.

Obama may be the favorite of General Electric, but he sure ain't the favorite of the Democratic electorate.

But, hey, you folks think 40% is larger than 55%, so why not multiply by ten in your calculations?

After all, since you folks want to disqualify the preference of the Democratic electorate, why not screw with the math while you're at it?

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 4:35 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 21, 2008 4:39 PM

It absolutely baffles me how much of his life Petey has devoted to being wrong on the internet.

Posted by Dave | March 21, 2008 4:40 PM

"But even that doesn't work. According to realclearpolitics.com that leaves Obama with an 80k lead in votes."

Am I claiming anything different in this thread?

I keep repeating that Clinton won't be able to overtake Obama in the overall popular vote until the next state - Pennsylvania - votes.

Where Clinton is currently in the lead is in the popular vote among Democrats only. And that lead is substantial.

She won't retake the lead in the overall popular vote until Pennsylvania weighs in.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 4:40 PM

When the only two democratic metrics by which these candidates are measured are basically secured for one candidate, it's safe to say that candidate "won" those metrics.

But, of course, those are not the only two metrics that a superdelegate might use to decide. There are both objective measures (polls vs McCain) and subjective measures (momentum, volatility of support) that they might use. And SD's are not static -- while many have expressed support one way or another, that doesn't make them fixed in place.

Personally, I think there is some lead in pledged delegates (100 or 150) that is enough to pull the supers out of play, but below which, a case can be made for not going with strict voter results if there are compelling reasons not to.

I would have to vehemently disagree here.

Most people do; I recognize that I am not with the CW on this one. But McCain is deeply vulnerable, and those vulnerabilities are not going away in the next month or so.

In terms of spending, I think we are seeing the shift towards 527 spending being more important than actual campaign spending (and Obama's high-road style mitigates the advantage that he'd have here anyway). That money isn't going away, either.

More succinctly, the target isn't shrinking, and there is plenty of time to go after it.

Meanwhile, I do think that being able to run successfully against a campaign of attacks is a skill that can be learned, and the earlier, the better. There is going to be a metric ton of mud coming from the other side (there always is), and he's already shown improvement in dealing with it.

Posted by Brad L | March 21, 2008 4:44 PM

"It absolutely baffles me how much of his life Petey has devoted to being wrong on the internet."

No. Nothing I'm saying in this thread is wrong.

You just happen to support a different candidate for the nomination than I do.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 4:44 PM

Petey, I give you credit for persistence.

But if you can't convince the media, and the superdelegates, that this is a race for popular votes, and (more importantly) that they should count popular votes by Peteymath . . .

what real difference does it make?

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 4:47 PM

"And if you separate out only Democratic popular votes, Clinton currently holds a significant lead over Obama, which will grow even larger after Pennsylvania."

Every state has their own rules as to who can vote in the primaries, and how those primaries are decided.

Every state has a number of delegates that are decided based on those rules.

The nominee is the person with the largest number of those delegates, plus superdelegates.

You might think that there is a better way to decide the nomination. If so, I would encourage you to get involved with the democratic party on a local, state or national level to try to reform the primary process. Until that happens, the way the race is decided is pretty clear.

Arguing that Clinton is winning based on the rules as you imagine them is pretty absurd.

Obama is leading in the number of delegates. He is leading in the popular vote. It seems rather unlikely that Clinton would be able to make up this in the rest of the campaign - if you can come up with a realistic way in which this could happen based on the rules as they exist now, please share it.

So, the only wan in which Clinton could plausibly win the nomination is if the Democratic party establishment decides that, even though Obama won the state contests, they want to give it to Clinton.

That might be the decision that you would make if you were in control of the Democratic Party. I don't think that it is particularly likely.

Posted by justaguy | March 21, 2008 4:50 PM

Petey, just go the fuck home and take your ball with you.

Posted by banPetey | March 21, 2008 4:50 PM

She can catch up in the popular vote if she wins approximately 50.1% of the vote the rest of the way.

[...]

Obama currently has a lead of 70,000 popular votes...

Petey, you have to know that that number doesn't include any votes from Iowa, Nevada, Maine, or Washington, and that it does include votes from the illegitimate primaries in Florida and Michigan--where Obama wasn't even on the ballot! (Just in case you don't know that, here's the link again.) And even then, that highly arbitrary, sliced-in-every-possible-way-towards-Clinton number is still over 80,000.

Why do you keep posting these deceptive numbers? And what does it say about Clinton's campaign that she only looks like she's within striking distance of the popular vote lead if you use deceptive numbers to make it appear so?

Posted by Marc | March 21, 2008 4:52 PM

I love how Petey counts MI and doesn't count soem Caucus states but accuses us of not respecting the voters.

Sometimes I think he is actually a performance artist.

Posted by Eric k | March 21, 2008 4:54 PM

She can catch up in the popular vote if she wins approximately 50.1% of the vote the rest of the way.

[...]

Obama currently has a lead of 70,000 popular votes...

Petey, you have to know that that number doesn't include any votes from Iowa, Nevada, Maine, or Washington, and that it does include votes from the illegitimate primaries in Florida and Michigan--where Obama wasn't even on the ballot! (Just in case you don't know that, here's the link again.) And even then, that highly arbitrary, sliced-in-every-possible-way-towards-Clinton number is still over 80,000.

Why do you keep posting these deceptive numbers? And what does it say about Clinton's campaign that she only looks like she's within striking distance of the popular vote lead if you use deceptive numbers to make it appear so?

Posted by Marc | March 21, 2008 4:56 PM

Here's something that's wrong, Petey: your insistence that Hillary leads in the popular vote among "the Democratic electorate." The "Democratic electorate" is not defined as "registered Democrats." It's defined as "people who vote in Democratic Party primaries."

There's also the way you're ignoring the caucus states. Yes, those states don't have a popular vote, but that's why it's ridiculous to talk about nationwide popular vote totals. We have no idea who would have won if there were primaries instead of caucuses in those states.

Posted by too many steves | March 21, 2008 4:56 PM

Fortunately, folks, we don't need to attack Petey, or Peteymath, for Obama to win the nomination.

Petey has his reasons for counting the way he does. I don't agree, but that's trivial. The important thing is that the superdelegates don't agree, and neither does the media.

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 4:56 PM

Reasons why Obama will be the nominee:
1) Hillary doesn't have the numbers, that's clear.
2) Florida and Michigan can't count. These states broke clearly defined rules. Letting them count now would encourage a system of anarchy and they should not be rewarded for breaking the rules. When your kids break the rules, you don't bend to their will, you punish them. Besides, the Obama camp won't ever allow Florida and Michigan to count unless it is strategically in their favor.
3) McCain and Clinton are both old hat. Obama does represent a change to young voters. 18 year olds in this country have never seen anyone besides a Bush or Clinton in office.
4) Clinton is a monster. Specifically, she's the abomoinable snowman ... that's how cold and cruel she comes off. The Clinton's are know as dividers and Hillary is a master of rhetoric who constantly adapts her message to what she thinks the public wants to hear. However, new forms of mass media are making it possible to see through her rhetoric. Obama comes off as an INDIVIDUAL with clear, consistent, messages. This is also why he polls better with "yuppies." Those yuppies are making sure Obama is well-funded and are supporting him because he is smart. Hillary comes off as a b**** and really, I've already seen the Clinton soap opera. Yes, Bill was good president, but the Clintons bring to much negative drama with them. I'm tired of it already.
6) We gain more with Obama. He instantly gives the USA more soft power, while Clinto does not. And with Obama as President, Clinton can still push her health care plan while Obama focuses on the war in Iraq.
7) Experience. Billary has lots of experience, Hillary does not, but she sure says she does. The experience she does have is lackluster.
8) The ongoing competition is farce made popular by the news and they have already squeezed it pretty hard. Once this trend of drop out Hillary catches on as a ratings hit, then it will be all the rage. The sad thing is that Hillary and camp seem to have fallen for the media hype.
9) Hillary is physically ugly. We live in a shallow looks driven society and Hillary is not very attractive to look at, especially when things aren't going her way. Obama, by contrast, is a supermodel. He looks and sounds like a president shoud look and sound.
10) Electability. The only way HC gets elected nominated now is with party dividing tomfoolery and a party divided votes for McCain, which is why he is rising in the polls.

HRC is the candidate for the uneducated and uninformed of which there appears to be an endless supply. If you are smart, you will start backing Obama. Hopefully the easter bunny will convince HRC enough is enough.

Posted by Daniel Sullivan | March 21, 2008 5:16 PM

Petey's a smart guy; he's aware that popular vote totals (however figured) won't give anybody the nomination. He's also, I'm sure, aware that Clinton has no realistic shot at securing a majority of delegates based on pledged delegates alone.

He wants Clinton to be the nominee and still thinks she can be.

So though he doesn't say so outright, he clearly believes that the superdelegates should anoint Clinton in Denver regardless of who leads among pledged delegates come convention time.

Now if Clinton leads among pledged delegates (unlikely, but possible), fair enough, I say. But Petey clearly would not stop there. He wants the supers to anoint Clinton even if Obama has a majority of pledged delegates. He's trying to cook up grounds on which they might justify doing so -- 'momentum' or 'Democratic popular vote not counting caucuses' or what have you.

I'd like to hear him defend that on grounds of 'respect for the democratic process'. Obviously it would be consistent with the superdelegates' prerogatives. But that wouldn't make it right. And the party would come out of Denver with a lot of egg on its face, and its November chances sorely damaged.

But hey, we'd have a nominee with a marginally better health care plan, so I guess it's all good, right?

Posted by Ryan | March 21, 2008 5:23 PM

The notion that we should discount Indies and GOP cross-overs because they aren't registered Democrats is laughable. They are allowed to vote in the primaries they do precisely because the STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES in those states WANT THEIR INPUT IN THE NOMINEE. And the DNC? They want the state Dems to decide how to run their own primaries.

You have to against the will of the Dems in order to divine Petey's supposed "will of the Dems". If the Dems want to include Indies and the GOP in the primary, then excluding those people isn't reflecting the will of the Dems, its masturbation. Of course, I was noting the masturbatory nature of Petey's posts back in November, so this is no surprise.

Posted by Michael | March 21, 2008 5:24 PM

Popping popcorn
No, no, no. We Republicans are supposed to be popping the popcorn. You're supposed to be an active participant here.
Posted by Al

All non-democrats can do is pop the popcorn and marvel at how the Democrats and the media failed to vet Obama, and how his Black Messiah-tude made him impervious to having Rev Wright, his Nation of Islam staffers, Rezko and the Hard Left mega-rich and Iraqi billionaires brought to the attention of early primary goers.

It's like 2004 all over again. By all measures, Bush should have, would have lost to a solid Dem with no personal baggage like Gephardt or a Gov like Evan Bayh. Instead, the Dems settled on a never really tested, flip-flopping "war hero" - who was dissected in the General.

So the process appears to be to say Obama's "stunning victories" in caucus states that are solid Republican trumps Hillary's victories in all the Swing States but Missouri that by only a point to Obama, with Pennsylvania pending. Along the way, lose swing ethnics, independent voters, Latinos to Clinton while counting on a near-unamimous black vote and "He is Our Redeemer!!" Lefty Jews and Youth who vote automatically Democrat anyways.

Not vetted, losing swing voter blocks, not doing well in swing states.
Still awaiting uncovery of his baggage, which tends to be cumulative in voter's minds - not deflected by his lofty speeches. What else is in 22 years of Wright speeches? Does the guy even LIKE America? No one has any doubts that McCain loves his country, even the Clintons...

Obama's rhetoric about "transcending race" and the "need to have an honest, open national conversation" also clashes with reality.

Geraldine Ferraro - "I wouldn't have been VP nominee in 1984, nor would Obama been a Keynote speaker or a Presidential candidate given his inexperience - without Identity Politics".

Obama Campaign - "Racist, racist, bad stupid old ethnic woman! Bad remarks. Apologize!"

Hillary Clinton - "It took the courage of Congress and LBJ to make Martin Luther Kings vision a reality".

Obama Campaign - "Racist, racist. How DARE you diminish and diss Saint Martin! Apologize!"

Rev Wright remarks to Obama's cheering family" "God Damn America, &#@ KKK!, AIDs is the &^%!! plot of Whitey! %$!** crackers deserved 9/11!"

Senator Obama on Imus: "He should be fired. No advertiser should associate themselves with him after his unacceptable racist joke at the expense of those wonderful black girls".

On Hahmzi Auchi, arms procurer to Saddam and endpoint donor of 1/3rd of Obama's house:

"Why, I believe I met him once, at a luncheon..."

Yeah, The Redeemer will now finally be vetted, just as he disposes of Hillary. It depends on how much dirt is found, and whether the independents end up considering him a patriotic American all races can trust....Dirt-digging will piss off the blacks, the Hard Left Jews, and idealistic youth who think speeches can substitute for judgment, leadership, and wise policy. What are they going to do if the uncovery of the real Barry O pisses them off? Vote Democratic???
The ones they have to worry about are the blue-collar Lithuanian who voted Democratic except when Reagan was running, the 50 year old Independent woman that admires Ferraro and Hillary (and Obama's grandmother for sacrificing much in raising him after his anti-American mother dumped him off).

Posted by chris ford | March 21, 2008 5:32 PM

"Under the circumstances, I find it maddening that the party leadership isn't acting to push her out of the race."

Put another way: now that the Obama fellow's pastor has been outed as a radical leftist openly professing anti-Americanism which could turn the superdelegate tide toward the Clinton lady and now that the Clinton lady is ahead in the first post-Wright national poll of Democrats which could give her an even better edge not only in Pennsylvania but help her in later primary states we're deathly afraid that the Obama one is going to have to suck up to her just to get the vice presidential nomination.

Posted by Linus | March 21, 2008 6:23 PM

Matt:

Give me a break. This is the biggest fairy tale I have heard.

(Editor note: The fairy tale being that Obama will beat Clinton.)

Enjoy.

Posted by eorse | March 21, 2008 7:20 PM

I think Petey is the most successful Turing Test entry I've encountered.

Posted by klr | March 21, 2008 7:32 PM

If the DNC wanted the race over now they woouldn't have primaries and caucuses into June, would they?
You want the race over because Obama might blow a lead?
many of us think he already blew his lead, that wright's comments were the poison pill.
I'd bet Obama's campaign and Hillary's campaign has internal polls to show this might be true.

Obama can't win it without her dropping out and so fans of Obama now believe she should cave in and not keep fighting.
That is a silly self-serving argument.
Let all the states vote. Superdelegates have no responsibility to decide until the convention, and the superdelegates who have committed to obama or hillary can change their minds.
If the convention yeilds no winner on the first couple ballots aren't all delegates free to vote their will?
Isn't that how we got FDR and Lincoln?
Wouldn't a contested convention be great?

Posted by Michael C. | March 21, 2008 7:44 PM

Daniel Sullivan, you missed one more crucial reason as to why Obama will be the nominee:

11) Petey predicts otherwise.

Posted by Ryan W. | March 21, 2008 7:51 PM

Michael put down the lotion and your copy of the Obama speech.

You are probably wrong and are also confusing the Democratic Party apparatus and the Democratic electorate. State Dems want Indies voting for Dems in the general election. They allow indies to vote in primaries in hopes it will lead to a greater percentage of indies voting Dem in the general. This is appears to be a smart move particularly in red and purple states. The Democratic electorate's views on open primaries appears to be contingent on which candidate they support at the moment.

I voted against Bush twice in 2000, so all things being equal, I think Democrats should discount cross-over republicans.

Posted by Michael enjoys masturbation references | March 21, 2008 8:11 PM

The problem with the superdelegates pushing out Clinton is that it leads to bitterness on the part of the Clinton supporters. If they feel she was jobbed, then they are less likely to come back to support the nominee in the general election.

Nobody likes to lose, but at least if you lose fair and square, then you can walk out and says that those are the breaks.

The worst case scenario would be the superdelegates ending this thing with millions of Clinton supporters still thinking she has a chance at the nomination.

All reasonable people know she doesn't - I think the murdering the ref analogy was closest. The math was an inevitable for Obama after Wisconsin as it was for McCain after Super Tuesday. That is when it should have been ended, but it can't now because of her two and a half wins on March 4.

Until even her supporters know it is over, it has to play on.

Posted by Curtis | March 21, 2008 8:27 PM

"Popping popcorn and waiting for Petey..."

And he posted the same minute you posted that.

Gotta love this blog. It makes Colbert look serious.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 21, 2008 9:35 PM

Petey: "Obama may be the favorite of General Electric, but he sure ain't the favorite of the Democratic electorate."

Shorter Petey: I want the candidate who can't beat McCain.

What's really ridiculous are these "math games": I'll pick these numbers, you pick those numbers, let's call the whole thing off, and let some unknown people called "Superdelegates" decide for MY candidate - despite the fact that nobody knows who these people are or who they are leaning towards now.

Brilliant.

Psychics operating out of storefronts are right more often.

This is how the leaders of the most powerful, richest nation in the world are chosen.

Chimpanzees do it smarter - they just let two parties beat the shit out of each other.

And THEN the loser chimp reconciles with the boss chimp, and supports him. Can you see Hillary doing that? It is to laugh.

Hey, Matt, do us all a favor and don't post ANYTHING on the race until, say, June. Then let's see what actually happened.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 21, 2008 9:52 PM

If Obama loses in November. I won't blame the Republicans or their attack squad. I will blame the Clintons. Obama is fighting a two front war without party support and no one back him up cause the party is in amnesia over the Clintons.

McCain just wrapped up a overseas tour. Barack should be preparing for his right now. The news will be filled with millions of adoring crowds all over the world to see this special man. Instead we here still discussing this primary.

Posted by Sharon Wilkes | March 21, 2008 10:16 PM

I have no respect for Richardson or Obama. Richardson endorsed him for two reasons. First, he wants a cabinet spot. Second, Obama has lost most of the Latino supporters and hope