Matthew Yglesias (May 19, 2008) - Nothing is Over! (Politics)

At this point, Clinton's best bet is probably to stay in through PR & SD and then not try any kind of stunt. Dropping out earlier might have made some kind of sense after OH & TX, or after PA, but by this time why bother?

Posted by Tom Scudder | May 19, 2008 1:21 PM

I think Obama needs to lay off on this victory low. Especially since the polls in Oregon show the race to be tightening and a lot of Clinton supporters are pissed off with Obama.

Posted by MGJ | May 19, 2008 1:22 PM

I think the best bet is for Matthew Yglesias not to be a sexist creep and continue to snarl at Hillary Clinton. That is what I think.

I am so tired of the sexist tripe.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:25 PM

There's a lot of strategy here - this phenomenon of Clinton voters growing more dedicated as she gets closer to defeat is sort of unusual, and Obama might have a better chance of preventing Montana/South Dakota upset losses if he lets her play out the string.

However, if she winds up claiming, on June 2, that the Puerto Rico popular vote should decide who the Democratic nominee is... at that point I think we need a cane to take her off stage. Like, a real oak cane, wielded by a Vaudevillian with a straw hat.

Posted by David Weigel | May 19, 2008 1:27 PM

"by the math and on the merits, he's entitled to do so"

You're like a broken record. Math is an exact science: 2 + 2 is 4. Obama's at 2 + 1.7, and you're saying he's at 4. Unless you're a true dickhead or dumb as shit(take your pick), you wouldn't use this line of argument.

"be to bow out with some grace rather than staying in through Puerto Rico & South Dakota and then trying some kind of stunt, but I guess that's not going to happen"

What stunt? Like winning the popular vote and forcing superdelegates to vote against the "popular will." Oh I forget, the real "will of the people" measure is the pledged delegates, right? What do I know, I'm just a dumb, over-educated 27-year-old.

Posted by Israel | May 19, 2008 1:28 PM

If she's not attacking Obama then I don't really care whether HRC pretends to still have a chance at the nomination. I think Josh Marshall said something to the effect that Cliton has decided to stay in the primary despite the odds, and Obama has dropped out of the race to move on to the general election. Works for me... I'm ready for some McCain bashing as it's a lot more fun then what we've been going through the last few months.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | May 19, 2008 1:32 PM

I could not be more angry with Obama supporters, and I have been an Obama supporter, but the sexist tripe encouraged by snarling Yglesias and the like is too much.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:32 PM

"on the merits, he's entitled to do so"

Just like how "on the merits" Matthew thought invading Iraq was a good idea.

Yglesias just loves to declare Mission Accomplished.

Posted by Petey | May 19, 2008 1:33 PM

"by the math and on the merits, he's entitled to do so"

You're like a broken record. Math is an exact science: 2 + 2 is 4. Obama's at 2 + 1.7, and you're saying he's at 4. Unless you're a true dickhead or dumb as shit(take your pick), you wouldn't use this line of argument.

"be to bow out with some grace rather than staying in through Puerto Rico & South Dakota and then trying some kind of stunt, but I guess that's not going to happen"

What stunt? Like winning the popular vote and forcing superdelegates to vote against the "popular will." Oh I forget, the real "will of the people" measure is the pledged delegates, right? What do I know, I'm just a dumb, over-educated 27-year-old.

Posted by Israel | May 19, 2008 1:33 PM

"on the merits, he's entitled to do so"

Just like how "on the merits" Matthew thought invading Iraq was a good idea.

Yglesias just loves to declare Mission Accomplished.

Posted by Petey | May 19, 2008 1:35 PM

She's been running a bash-McCain campaign for the past week or so. And I haven't heard anything about "X counting so she should win". She's already running a campaign that's lost. But it's also only two or three weeks left. Just let it run the last few weeks, declare defeat and praise Obama, and thank the Democratic party for a robust primary system. There's definently some value to herself and her supporters for sticking to the fight until the end.

Posted by Alex | May 19, 2008 1:35 PM

I could not be more angry with Obama supporters, and I have been an Obama supporter, but the sexist tripe encouraged by snarling Yglesias and the like is too much.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:36 PM

"However, if she winds up claiming, on June 2, that the Puerto Rico popular vote should decide who the Democratic nominee is... at that point I think we need a cane to take her off stage. Like, a real oak cane, wielded by a Vaudevillian with a straw hat."

Or a gong.

Posted by Peter K. | May 19, 2008 1:38 PM

It looks likely that Obama tomorrow will pass the majority of delegates that are available overall, so he pretty much will be at 2+2=4. The worst he'll be at will be 2+1.9 repeating, which is pretty much equal to 4. Clinton's equation looks like 2+ magic = 4 + ponies at this point. Obama needs just 16 pledged delegates away from an absolute majority, which he should easily get tomorrow between Oregon and Kentucky. After that, all you have left to argue on is superdelegates, who have been breaking for Obama over Clinton as of late. Obama has passed her in superdelegates as well even after she entered this race with over a 100 point lead in superdelegates.

"I think the best bet is for Matthew Yglesias not to be a sexist creep and continue to snarl at Hillary Clinton. That is what I think.

I am so tired of the sexist tripe.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:25 PM"

I'm usually pretty quick to whip out the sexist card, including on behalf of Clinton (especially against Chris Matthews), but name one thing about this that was sexist.

Posted by Reality Man | May 19, 2008 1:39 PM

sexist tripe? What sexist tripe?

Posted by bjd | May 19, 2008 1:40 PM

Jennifer, I don't think you understand the word "snarling".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 19, 2008 1:40 PM

I wouldn't say you're dumb, Israel, just a little misinformed.

You know how they call elections before _all_ the results are in, even though, say twenty-percent of precincts still haven't reported?

Like that.

Not that I think this much matters--our opinions or disagreements about who will or won't, or has or hasn't, won.

If Clinton beats Obama, she can beat McCain. If she can't, she can't.

If Obama beats Clinton, he can beat McCain. If he can't, he can't.

I guess we won't have to wait -too- long.

Posted by gussie | May 19, 2008 1:40 PM

Just like how "on the merits" Matthew thought invading Iraq was a good idea.

So apparently did HRC. The difference, of course, is that HRC directly enabled this distaster with her vote on the AUMF (as did JE), whereas MY... has a blog.

Posted by SavageView | May 19, 2008 1:42 PM

I'm a bit leery of the idea that he's going to be speaking in Iowa on Tuesday night, as a kind of complete-the-circle thing. But Oregon is weird because it's all postal voting, so there's not the same 'election day' experience there.

He's also going to have the disadvantage of time zones: if he tries to gazump Clinton's walkover victory in Kentucky, that's going to look classless. So he'll have to wait his turn -- the deadline for returned ballots is 8pm Pacific.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 19, 2008 1:43 PM

"Dana Goldstein explains why Barack Obama won't be able to just "declare victory" after tomorrow's primaries. "

Well, today's email from the Obama campaign forecasts taking the lead in pledged delegates and, while it does not declare victory, it did promise a major speech and encourages all Obama supporters to watch.

Posted by Scott de B. | May 19, 2008 1:43 PM

Each time Yglesias and others post such sexist tripe, I come closer to deciding not to vote for President because of the attacks on Clinton.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:44 PM

Those accusing MY of sounding like broken record would be served better by not making double posts.

Though I agree it does not make much sense for Clinton to drop out now - that would be like exiting the marathon at the 25 mile mark.

Posted by MS | May 19, 2008 1:46 PM

What do I know, I'm just a dumb, over-educated 27-year-old.

Well I'd certainly agree you are dumb. Let me try to explain this to you. The rules of the Democratic party's nomination process are such that a combination of elected and Superdelegates determine the party's nominee: i.e., whoever ends up with the majority of these delegates will be the Democratic nominee for president. All of the major candidates were aware of these rules before voting began.

One of these candidates worked within the rules and currently maintains an insurmountable lead among total delegates. The other candidate continues to argue that some other metric should be used in determining the party's nominee. This line of argument ignores 2 key points. First, that under a different set of rules, candidate A would have campaigned in a different manner by trying to run up vote totals in favorable states, and/or trying to reduce candidate B's vote margin totals in other states. Second, the rules of the nominating contest were well known prior to the beginning of the contest.

Candidate B has nobody to blame but herself and her campaign staff for losing the nomination battle under the agreed upon rules. Candidate B could graciously accept that she has been bested and work hard to help Candidate A consolidate support within the party and win the general election. Candidate B has instead chosen to argue that, "I would have one under a different set of rules." While this could possibly be true (although, again, it ignores that Candidate A may have utilized a different set of strategies under different nominating rules), it is akin to arguing that the Georgetown Hoyas would have won the NCAA championship game in 1982 if Patrick Ewing had not been called for goaltending on Carolina's first several possessions.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 19, 2008 1:46 PM

I think the best bet is for Matthew Yglesias not to be a sexist creep and continue to snarl at Hillary Clinton. That is what I think. I am so tired of the sexist tripe.

There's a paradox here, because it is good for the Democratic Party if the resolution of the Clinton-Obama race doesn't leave Clinton supporters feeling cheated. So there's good reason not to answer points like this.

But on its merits, this is offensive. Personally, I don't mind if Clinton stays in the race (see this: http://dilan.blogspot.com/2008/05/if-hillary-wants-to-stay-in-let-her-i.html ).

However, the argument that anyone who calls for Hillary to get out is a sexist is both false and truly evil. It is false because one can make a perfectly valid feminist case for getting Hillary Clinton out-- women will benefit from a Democrat's election, Hillary is hurting the party at this point, etc. One can also make a valid, though more controversial, feminist case against Hillary Clinton's candidacy, i.e., that Hillary married into power, has too little experience, leapfrogged over far more qualified female politicians, and would enshrine a principle that the way for women to get ahead in politics is to marry well.

But worse than false, this sexism charge is a really mendacious argument. There are huge issues of sexism in society that deserve our attention. The pay gap is still huge. Abortion and contraception rights are under threat. Domestic violence is still a gigantic problem. Women are still forced to work a second shift in the home.

Making the test of sexism whether one supports Hillary Clinton or not trivializes the entire concept of feminism.

Posted by Dilan Esper | May 19, 2008 1:47 PM

Jennifer,

What's sexist about what Matt said? You may find it insulting to Hillary Clinton, but there's no coded language there, just a level of frustration.

I think what Alex says is pretty valid, but after hearing Hillary Clinton say John Goddamned Fucking McCain 'passes the Commander-in-Chief test,' I can't blame anyone for being sick of hearing her.

Posted by Persia | May 19, 2008 1:48 PM

Jennifer:
So you'd rather John McBush be President? How childish is that?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 19, 2008 1:48 PM

"However, if she winds up claiming, on June 2, that the Puerto Rico popular vote should decide who the Democratic nominee is... at that point I think we need a cane to take her off stage. Like, a real oak cane, wielded by a Vaudevillian with a straw hat."

I have no words for this. Coming from an Obama supporter, the irony is asphyxiating.

Posted by Israel | May 19, 2008 1:49 PM

Maybe Hillary is staying in on the off chance one of Huckabee's friends in the NRA will (no, she's not hoping for it) take care of her problem. There are probably several million whack-jobs with both the animus and the means to deliver Hillary the nomination. It's nauseating to contemplate but the dynamic of this election screams 1968, a very poor year to be revisiting.

Posted by steve duncan | May 19, 2008 1:50 PM

"Hillary married into power, has too little experience, leapfrogged over far more qualified female politicians, and would enshrine a principle that the way for women to get ahead in politics is to marry well."

Sexist tripe amid sexist tripe.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:51 PM

The memo went out a long time ago that any criticism of HRC is by definition "sexist". This does take on a certain "boy who cried wolf" quality, after a while, though, where it becomes harder to make a legitimate distinction between real sexist tripe and excuses made by the candidate and her supporters for underperformance or bad campaigning on her part.

I do think that the more Clinton talks about winning the nomination, the faster the SDs will endorse in some vain hope that she'll stop talking about winning the nomination. In fact, I expect that enough SDs will have endorsed Obama BEFORE THE END OF VOTING that he'll be able to claim the nomination outright by the end of the month.

Posted by JMS | May 19, 2008 1:52 PM

This thing going on right now is starting to remind me of why Truman decided that just dropping the bomb was preferable to clearing the Pacific one island after another.

Something needs to come in and end this thing, and while I'm all for Clinton staying in this to the end (or as long as she's willing to bankroll her own campaign), the fact that there now seems to be a concerted effort to paint any sign of acknowledgement from the Obama camp that he needs to pivot and engage McCain head on as arrogance is ridiculous. This line of thinking is in itself is reason for supers to start rolling out faster to end this thing very shortly. Hell, you're starting to hear from Clinton supporters that just having a big rally and moving to swing states is a sign of disrespect. Insanity.

Posted by dannity | May 19, 2008 1:54 PM

Hmmm. Chris Ford must be around here somewhere.

Posted by El Cid | May 19, 2008 1:55 PM

I was watching Iron Man over the weekend (), and in the last thirty seconds of the film -- Stark, already given a script to follow to protect his identity as The Metal Guy, decides at the last minute to say, "Aw, to heck with it: I am Iron Man".

While I watched this, probably because I'd like to see the suspense ended and the energy of a united Democratic campaign started (not because it would be a good idea), I flashed on Obama doing something similar and just "declaring victory".

Oh, well. Nice image.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | May 19, 2008 1:55 PM

Persia, you just don't understand. For people like Jennifer, support for Obama is inherently sexist, and calling for Clinton to drop out because she's lost is being a snarling sexist creep. Of course, Obama is not going to "declare victory", just claim an insurmountable lead (50+% of total available) in pledged delegates. This means the only chance for HRC is to get the superdelegates to overcome the voters (who determine the pledged delegates), which would not happen, barring an Obama disaster (plane crash, video proof of infidelity, etc).

While it's never over 'til it's over, we are well into the "effectively over" stage.

Posted by Crusty Dem | May 19, 2008 1:57 PM

Sexist tripe amid sexist tripe.

Anger unencumbered by reason. Yeah, that's the way to discuss an important issue. VERY convincing.

Posted by LFC | May 19, 2008 1:58 PM

Just read the hate-mogering insanity from these Obama supporters. No stunts here, just hatred of a woman.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:58 PM

"Hillary Clinton represents the status quo at best, and keeps us rooted in a place we need to move from. I've watched younger women come into their adult lives from a different set of experiences, and Hillary Clinton was not the president to make the transition to the newly inspired movement that we need," - Kate Michelman, NARAL.

I guess she hates women too.

Posted by LFC | May 19, 2008 2:01 PM

I don't hate women in general. But I'll make an exception for "Jennifer."

Posted by drjimcooper | May 19, 2008 2:01 PM

"One of these candidates worked within the rules and currently maintains an insurmountable lead among total delegates"

See, in the run up to the Iraq invasion 35% of FoxNews viewers believed that Saddam was to blame for 9/11. Our media has been as decieving in this primary, and now we have idiots regurgitating these talking points as truisms. Here's a clue: if you watch hardball or countdown, you're as dumb as FoxNews viewers circa Fall 2002 - Spring 2003.

Now, to unpack this thing, just a little bit. The 795 super delegates are not committed. They can switch in the first ballot, second ballot, third ballot, fourth ballot, etc. Get it? And none of this will happen until Convention time -- no matter what KO tells you -- and Andrew Sullivan wanna-be Matthew Yglesias.

See, I believed Chuck Todd when he told me early in the process, "let's take super delegates out of the tally because these are people who can change their mind last minute and it doesn't make sense to count them." This was back when HRC had a hefty super delegate lead. But now that Prince Barack passed her in super delegates "bring the super delegates back in the tally you idiot!!!!!!" We need to shut this thing down. Now all I hear is enlightened people such as yourself saying "he has an insurmountable delegate lead."

Again, let's wait for all popular votes to be cast. If she loses the popular vote: I'm cutting a $2,300 check for Prince Barack. If she wins the popular vote and is denied the nomination -- I may just stay at home, or send a $2,300 check to Nader, at least he believes in democracy.

Posted by Israel | May 19, 2008 2:01 PM

"Hillary married into power, has too little experience
I did not read that in Matt's post. Did he post it somewhere else? Do you have a link so we can verify Matt said that?

Posted by annie | May 19, 2008 2:03 PM

@Israel - Mathematicians round up all the time. In the mathematical universe where only whole numbers count, 2 + 1.7 does indeed = 4.

@Jennifer - Saying that Hillary Clinton received less votes and should therefore concede the nomination is not sexist. Nothing in Matthew's comments had anything to do with the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman, only that she didn't obtain enough votes to win.

If you want, I can give you something to complain about:

Hillary Clinton should go back to the kitchen and bake me a pie.

There, complain away.

Posted by Trigger | May 19, 2008 2:04 PM

I've noticed a distinct lack of friendly fire coming directly from the Clinton camp. Let the primary go on. I mean, perish the thought that for once, all of the states holding primaries and caucuses - every single one of them - really does matter. The Obama supporters can't actually just [i]stay home[/i], or else they cede the vote to Clinton. The Clinton supporters can't actually just stay home, or Obama really does clinch the nomination, for real, no take-backs. Is there a single state that one or the other candidate hasn't visited, and made them feel like they're vitally important (because, you know, they really are this time around)? The voters in every single state are now familiar with both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and are (at the very least) passingly familiar with both of their policy proposals. The Democratic Party has a bigger list of potential donors than ever, because they can see who came out when it was really important. None of that would have happened if the race had been declared over after Super Tuesday.

Posted by Tel | May 19, 2008 2:05 PM

Jennifer: What is sexist about Matt's post? Don't get me wrong, a lot of "sexist tripe" has been uttered about Clinton during this campaign. But I don't see anything particularly sexist in Matt's post.

Posted by Led | May 19, 2008 2:08 PM

This is silly. Matt and Dana are too easily intimidated by petulant threats and stubborn attachments and resentments that will be gone in a month once this thing is over. Obama doesn't have to engage in an explicit effort to "force Clinton out before she is prepared to concede." But he does need to keep the pressure on by continuing to communicate the message to the public that he is going to be the nominee, by transitioning to the general election, and by making sure the media coverage focuses on where this race actually stands rather than on the Clinton spin that it is still wide open. If the shoe were on the other foot, you can bet the Clinton people would be doing precisely the same thing.

Outside of the circles of political blogs and other close watchers of the election, most people don't know the mathematics of what is happening. If Obama secures a majority of pledged delegates tomorrow, then he damn well better communicate the message that that is precisely what just happened, and that it is vitally important to the outcome of the race. Call this "declaring victory" if you want. This is especially important given that the Kentucky returns are going to come in early in the evening in most parts of the country, and the Oregon returns late. So Obama needs to do something early in the evening to take the attention off Kentucky.

By the way, just when do you think Clinton will be "prepared to concede"? Never. She will never quit. Bringing an end to the distracting Clinton cannot depend on fussing about what Clinton is or is not "prepared" to do. It will require some tough politics aimed at drying up her money, and creating a windfall of high-level public support and switched allegiances to get the party behind him. Clinton probably isn't going to quit. She is too tenaciously addicted to fighting, and doesn't have it in her to do the thing which would be best for her in the end. She is just going to fade into deeper and deeper irrelevance. Obama can't wait around forever while she trots out the new daily reason for not letting go.

At this stage, anything Obama does to convey the accurate message that he will be the nominee and that the race is over is going to be perceived as a slight or an insult or a lack of respect by a number of Clinton supporters. That's just where they are psychologically right now. Indeed, the whole Obama campaign is an insult and lack of respect from where they sit, because it is always galling for the old guard to experience a changing of the guard accomplished by the new, young upstart. But that's tough. I know it hurts to lose, but this race will never end if these supporters are babied forever. They have been cut, but have to get over it. And it is probably better just to yank the Band-aid off in one fast yank than with a slow gradual peel.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 19, 2008 2:09 PM

We get it Jennifer. You think everyone is being sexist. Your point, such as it is, could not be clearer. If you are actually interested in convincing anyone as to why your point of view is correct, you will eventually have to actually make an argument rather than just a series of repeated assertions. But you don't seem too interested in that. Anyway, I think we can all agree that your thoughts on this matter are crystal clear.

Posted by brent | May 19, 2008 2:10 PM

"@Israel - Mathematicians round up all the time. In the mathematical universe where only whole numbers count, 2 + 1.7 does indeed = 4."

Okay, she's at 2 + 1.58. They both have 4!!!

Note: there was a time when this blog countained actual insight. Not so much from MY, but from his commenters. He's just an over-educated 27-year-old.

Posted by Israel | May 19, 2008 2:11 PM

Each time Yglesias and others post such sexist tripe, I come closer to deciding not to vote for President because of the attacks on Clinton.

Sounds great to me. I don't idiots should be *prevented* from voting, but I love the idea of their voluntarily choosing not to.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 19, 2008 2:13 PM

Jennifer,

Your example of MY's sexism is that he points out, correctly, that one of Senator Clinton's claims to being the most experienced candidates is the experience of being married to Bill for so many years, including while he was President.

I don't think there's any doubt that she was an influential advisor during those years, on political and substantive issues, probably one of the top two or three. However, I see very little analysis by her or her partisans, or her opponents for that matter, regarding the substance of her advice, (as we might for example with someone like Karl Rove) but instead, mostly the assumption that she somehow partook, through marriage, in the glories of Bill's presidency.

As for whether her 7+ years of senatorial service from 2000 on does or does not leave her less qualified than other women politicians is a harder call. I tend to think, for example, that the combination of time as a White House advisor plus some years of senatoring puts her ahead of others, like Feinstein or Mikulski with more years in the Senate.

However, the problem is that from practically the year 2000 on, Senator Clinton keeps getting talked about as a presidential candidate not because of much to point to in terms of her own accomplishments, but because of her association with President Clinton.

And I think MY is right to point to that as a sexist assumption in its own right. If you look at the history of women elected as senators, governors or congresspersons up through the mid-70's a large proportion got there because their husband died or (like George Wallace hampered by term restrictions) put their wife up for office.

You might disagree as to whether Senator Clinton fits into this category. But MY was not out of line in suggesting it.

Posted by glennn | May 19, 2008 2:14 PM

"I don't hate women in general. But I'll make an exception for "Jennifer.""

From the looks of things, this 'Jennifer' is vanishingly unlikely to be a woman. Far more likely to be a 'big-boned' basement dwelling wingnut out trolling for a reaction.

Posted by Tony J | May 19, 2008 2:18 PM

Israel. I will say this again, and I'll use small words so you can understand. Hillary Clinton can not win the majority of pledged delegates under any remotely reasonable circumstances (i.e. excepting death of the leading candidate or unimaginable scandal). (sorry. used big words afterall)

Arguing that the Superdelegates may change their votes on the ballots does not change this fact. The fact that you are counting on Superdelegates changing their votes on 1st, 2nd, 3rd ballots proves Matthew's original point. Hillary Clinton does not have a path to the nomination, and as such, she should bow out so we can consolidate Democratic support and move forward.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 19, 2008 2:18 PM

You might disagree as to whether Senator Clinton fits into this category. But MY was not out of line in suggesting it.

For the record, Matt didn't suggest it and I, for one, doubt he would even make such an argument. Further, Jennifer has yet to provide any example of Matt making any statement that could be described as sexist. She has merely repeated the charge.

Posted by brent | May 19, 2008 2:19 PM

Yglesias just loves to declare Mission Accomplished.

Uh huh. Tell us, Petey, do you happen to have any money at Intrade riding on Obama getting the nomination?

Also, while I think Matt was wrong to support the war, comparing that support to declaring "Mission Accomplished" is lazy and inapt.

Posted by live | May 19, 2008 2:21 PM

Israel,

When you count popular votes will you be counting any votes for Obama in Michigan? In Florida where neither candidate campaigned and some people, informed ahead of time that the vote would not count, didn't vote?

Will you count any votes for caucus states that did not report? If you don't count these states, will you at least count Obama's 40,000 vote margin in Washington State's meaningless post caucus primary?

Popular vote is a slipper metric. If that's the basis for your decision you should explain quite clearly what assumptions you make in counting it and why.

Posted by glennn | May 19, 2008 2:22 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=e6Lq771TVm4

That campaign is definitely deceased.

It's passed on. This campaign is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet it's maker. This is a late campaign. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in piece. If you hadn't nailed it to the perch, it would be pushing up the daisies. It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-candidate.

Posted by southpaw | May 19, 2008 2:28 PM

Anyone claiming with a straight face that Hillary will win the popular vote is an idiot, overeducated or not.

Only in her sociopathic carnival world does it seem fair to: a) demand inclusion of her votes from two renegade states after it became apparent that she couldn't win without them; b) exclude any "non-Hillary" protest votes from Obama's tally despite his absence on the Michigan ballot; c) include nearly three millions votes from Puerto Rico even though they will be ineligible for the November election; and d) deliberately ignore the fact that several caucus states aren't represented whatsoever in the popular vote total.

Back away from the funny mirrors, Israel. They're distorting your view of reality.

An overwhelming majority of Americans ... not just Democrats or independents; but all Americans ... want to bury the stagnant, dynastic politics of the Bush and Clinton families.

Joyfully bury. For ever and ever.

Only self-deluders and sycophants think otherwise.

Posted by Lurker No. 37 | May 19, 2008 2:28 PM

Arguing that the Superdelegates may change their votes on the ballot
It might help if "Israel" had an example of any movement in that direction. None exits.
Sorry "Israel", it's over. Please vote democratic in November.

Posted by annie | May 19, 2008 2:29 PM

People like Israel are going through something akin to a denial phase. You can't really blame them for being bitter, and kicking them while they are down isn't terribly cricket. Even if they are annoying.

Posted by hum | May 19, 2008 2:29 PM

Of course on the merits it's still true that Hillary Clinton's best bet, both for the country and for her own reputation, would be to bow out with some grace rather than staying in through Puerto Rico & South Dakota and then trying some kind of stunt, but I guess that's not going to happen.

Call me Pollyanna, but the way the primary season has gone for the past month or so makes the phrase "crazy like a fox" come to mind. The primaries haven't gone on this long or been contested in this many states in my lifetime. How much money would Obama be raising right now if the Democratic Party nomination was already decided and it was just the standard, predictable Democrat vs. Republican race? How much press coverage would McCain be getting? How much new voter registration would we have had? How many people voted in the Democratic Party primary (therefore making them more likely to support the party in the general election) who wouldn't have otherwise?

It's impossible to answer those questions for certain, of course, but it looks to me like the answers are less, more, less and less. This ongoing race has made fundraising a constant necessity, kept the Democratic Party in the news constantly and got people involved who haven't been before. Thank you, Clinton.

Posted by Cyrus | May 19, 2008 2:29 PM

peace, that is. whoops.

Posted by southpaw | May 19, 2008 2:30 PM

Brent,

Thanks for the clarification. I did not stop to check whether MY actually said it. It just didn't seem to me so clear it was sexist even if he had.

Posted by glennn | May 19, 2008 2:31 PM

Lmao, it's amazing how being sexist went from 'not treating Hillary Clinton like any other candidate' to 'treating Hillary Clinton like any other candidate'.

I'm going to refer to Jennifer as a racist from now on. Sure, she hasn't said anything to indicate that she's racist, but who cares! She clearly dislikes Obama, and by her own logic, there can be no other possible reason other than that she hates black people.

Posted by soullite | May 19, 2008 2:36 PM

Over:
Gallup Daily: Obama Opens Up 16-Point Lead, Biggest Yet
Lead is now 55% to 39% over Clinton

SurveyUSA poll of Oregon: Obama 55%, Clinton 42%.

Geraldine and Jennifer, sweeties, you can kiss my...

Posted by annie | May 19, 2008 2:43 PM

"I don't hate women in general. But I'll make an exception for "Jennifer."" From the looks of things, this 'Jennifer' is vanishingly unlikely to be a woman. Far more likely to be a 'big-boned' basement dwelling wingnut out trolling for a reaction.

Hate is not appropriate here. Rather, pity. Of course 'Jennifer' is fake, probably not a woman and definitely a troll. It's just sad. Whoever 'Jennifer' is despises themself enough as it is. I'd be glad if they really weren't going to vote, though. Sadly, that's probably not true either.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 19, 2008 2:47 PM

Just once, I'd like to see a Clinton supporter say something good about Clinton, instead of telling me why I'm wrong to support the other guy. Other than that the Democratic party will be led by the corrupt America-hating crypto-Muslim cultist I happen to mindlessly support, I really have no idea why it's so important to some that Clinton win the primaries.

Posted by Steven the all-knowing | May 19, 2008 2:59 PM

Agreeing with Cyrus, I'd venture farther to say that Clinton is not the compulsive hack that she's implied to be in some posts. First, she's a gifted person and has much the same position on the issues as Obama, so what's to disagree with there. Second, a majestic concession speech by Clinton, whenever she makes it, has huge political value both to the Democratic party (McCain & the other Republicans will quail) and to Clinton's career. How long she waits is her judgment call, and we may disagree with her, but her career judgment heretofore is hard to fault.

Posted by russell | May 19, 2008 3:03 PM

"Just read the hate-mogering insanity from these Obama supporters. No stunts here, just hatred of a woman.

Posted by Jennifer | May 19, 2008 1:58 PM"

That strikes me as very sexist - you're arguing that Clinton should be defined by her gender such that everything that she does, and any comment on her, is a reflection on all women.

That's just silly.

Is any criticism of any woman sexist? Even Phyllis Schlafly?

Posted by justaguy | May 19, 2008 3:09 PM

southpaw get's the "Excellent Monty Python Reference" prize.

Posted by KevinD | May 19, 2008 3:09 PM

How long she waits is her judgment call, and we may disagree with her, but her career judgment heretofore is hard to fault.

I don't really disagree, and I hate to pile on. But:

Mark Penn.

Posted by southpaw | May 19, 2008 3:09 PM

Maybe Hillary is staying in to see who will support her to the very end, consolidating her support both in the public sphere and in Washington. in 2016 Hillary will still be younger than McCain so she has plenty of time to run again. The Clintons have always focused on a core group of power and support. I think Hillary's continuation in this race is to do that, focus that support down to the most loyal, identify them and use them over the next 4 to 8 years to gain the inevitable foothold on the nomination she assumed she had this time around.

Posted by tom.a | May 19, 2008 3:10 PM

Maybe Hillary is staying in to see who will support her to the very end, consolidating her support both in the public sphere and in Washington.

The problem with this strategy (if this is, in fact, her intention) is that without power, the Clintons have nothing of value to offer these core supporters. An Obama presidency has the potential to drastically re-shape many of Washington's conventional power structures, particularly within the Democratic party. Even die hard Clinton loyalists would be foolish to shut themselves out of this new wave (should it develop). It also seems unlikely that even if Clinton were to somehow maintain all of her loyal support and institutional advantages that they would be as valuable to her in 2012 or 2016. This is several lifetimes in politics. I can't picture a scenario in which these groups would be more likely to deliver her the nomination than they were in this cycle.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 19, 2008 3:19 PM

On the popular vote.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/19/131842/038

I'm done arguing... there's no room for self-doubt or self-introspection with many of you. The dogma is impenetrable. I'm ashamed to call you people fellow Democrats.

Posted by Israel | May 19, 2008 3:22 PM

I'm done arguing... there's no room for self-doubt or self-introspection with many of you. The dogma is impenetrable.

Pot, meet kettle.

I'm ashamed to call you people fellow Democrats.

That reall is a shame, because we will need every Democrat to vote for our nominee in November. Hope we can count on your support.

Posted by drjimcooper | May 19, 2008 3:27 PM

Meh, Hillary doesn't seem to be doing very much damage at the moment. Of course, her dropping out now might bring some of her more recalcitrant supporters into the fold more quickly, but then again, they might be more satisfied if she stays in until all the primaries are over, the MI/FL situation is resolved, and defeat by every reasonable metric is accepted. Of course, there are a few true dead enders, but they're not coming back anyway.

She's waving her arms desperately to get attention, but she's been laying off Obama for the most part recently. If Obama is ignoring Clinton to go after McCain/Bush, and Clinton is spending most of her time making a positive case for herself and attacking McCain/Bush (not ignoring Obama entirely, but at least not being too egregious in the attacks), I'm fine with her staying in.

Posted by Kraz | May 19, 2008 3:30 PM

in 2016 Hillary will still be younger than McCain so she has plenty of time to run again.

If HRC doesn't win now, she never will, which is why she's still in the race. Obama will serve 2 terms, and after what Hillary has done in this primary her chances of defeating an incumbent VP are slim to none. Her next reasonable chance will be in 12 to 16 years, and that isn't going to happen.

Posted by justinb | May 19, 2008 3:51 PM

Israel | May 19, 2008 3:22 PM :: I'm done arguing... there's no room for self-doubt or self-introspection with many of you. The dogma is impenetrable. I'm ashamed to call you people fellow Democrats.

Poor Israel.

Most objective commentators have the good sense to avoid linking themselves to Talk Left.

Watch the door on the way out sir ... and good riddance.

Posted by Lurker No 37 | May 19, 2008 3:52 PM

Of course on the merits it's still true that Hillary Clinton's best bet, both for the country and for her own reputation, would be to bow out with some grace rather than staying in through Puerto Rico & South Dakota and then trying some kind of stunt, but I guess that's not going to happen.

This statement, while true, only acknowledges two possibilities. A better scenario than either of these would be for Clinton to stay in through the rest of the primaries and then bow out gracefully. I'm not sure why her "grace" period should expire before the primaries are over. No matter her actual reasons, if she dropped out before June 3 many of her supporters would think she was forced out and would become more likely to sit out in November. Since she has become much more conciliatory since May 6 there really isn't any harm done by her staying in. And with regard to Clinton herself, it's difficult to pivot from a legitimate shot at the nomination to enthusiastically supporting the guy who prevented you from getting it (and she will have to endorse at the same time she drops out). Better to gradually turn around and make a more sincere endorsement once you have adjusted to reality.

Posted by ibid | May 19, 2008 3:53 PM

I'm done arguing... there's no room for self-doubt or self-introspection with many of you. The dogma is impenetrable. I'm ashamed to call you people fellow Democrats.

Follow Armando's link, look at the numbers. He's being disingenuous here, I think.

Posted by justinb | May 19, 2008 3:54 PM

Nothing is Over!

Clinton Supporter: "Over? Did you say 'over'? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

Obama Supporter: "Germans?"

Yglesias: "Forget it, (s)he's rolling."

Posted by LFC | May 19, 2008 4:00 PM

Armando disingenuous? No way!

Posted by annie | May 19, 2008 4:01 PM

Jennifer, you seem to understand sexism as well as Spinal Tap did.

Posted by James | May 19, 2008 4:04 PM

Israel,

Thanks for coming back and responding. I have a simple factual question I could not get from Talk Left or Real Clear Politics that perhaps you can help me with.

Real Clear Politics states: {sorry I don't know HTML codes}

"The estimate from these four Caucus states [Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine] where there are not official popular vote numbers increases Senator Obama’s popular vote margin by 110,224. This number would be about 50,000 less if the Washington primary results from February 19th were used instead of the Washington Caucus results.)"

However, Obama won Iowa and Maine. He came very close in Nevada. His margin in the Washington primary was approximately 40,000+. Does this imply that his estimated margin from Iowa, Maine and Nevada, taken together, was around 20,000? (50,000 less than 110,224 = 60,224 - 40,000 from Washington primary = approx. 20,000) This seem strangely low.

I could not figure out how RCP did the math. Perhaps you, or someone else here can help.

Though I still prefer the pledged delegate metric myself.

Posted by glennn | May 19, 2008 4:11 PM

ibid said... A better scenario than either of these would be for Clinton to stay in through the rest of the primaries and then bow out gracefully.

I think this is what will happen, and it is a reasonable approach. I honestly thought she'd scratch and claw all the way to the convention, but $20 million worth of campaign debt has changed my mind. There is simply no way she can hang on that long without pouring more of their own cash into a lost cause, while praying for a lightning bolt (figuratively).

Posted by LFC | May 19, 2008 4:17 PM

Help us out here, Jennifer: Is there any way to express one's support without being sexist, under your definition?

Tougher question: Is there any way to point out that the odds of Hillary Clinton winning the nomination at this point are astronomically low without something catastrophically bad happening to Obama and not be sexist?

Or are we just doomed?

Posted by Adam Villani | May 19, 2008 4:18 PM

Obama supporters in the press -- sorry for the redundancy -- and elsewhere might want to rethink the kind of dogwhistle that "gracefully" sends.

And if anyone wants to examples of the misogyny Hillary's dealing with, Shakes has been keeping a list. Last I checked, it was up to 90. Google it...

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | May 19, 2008 4:19 PM

Obama supporters in the press -- sorry for the redundancy -- and elsewhere might want to rethink the kind of dogwhistle that "gracefully" sends.

And if anyone wants to examples of the misogyny Hillary's dealing with, Shakes has been keeping a list. Last I checked, it was up to 90. Google it...

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | May 19, 2008 4:25 PM

Obama supporters in the press -- sorry for the redundancy -- and elsewhere might want to rethink the kind of dogwhistle that "gracefully" sends.

And if anyone wants to examples of the misogyny Hillary's dealing with, Shakes has been keeping a list. Last I checked, it was up to 90. Google it...

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | May 19, 2008 4:28 PM

Obama supporters in the press -- sorry for the redundancy -- and elsewhere might want to rethink the kind of dogwhistle that "gracefully" sends.

And if anyone wants to examples of the misogyny Hillary's dealing with, Shakes has been keeping a list. Last I checked, it was up to 90. Google it...

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | May 19, 2008 4:32 PM

I also believe it doesn't really matter exactly when Clinton admits she has lost, even if it takes until the convention. What will matter most is whether the Clintons endorse and campaign for Obama once that point arrives. A secondary issue would have been whether she would continue to echo McCain's attacks on Obama and whether the media would have continued to give those attacks free air time, but it looks like at least the media is no longer playing that game, and maybe not Clinton either.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 4:32 PM

Clearly, Obama's supporters shouldn't be forced to work with people they aren't comfortable with, like the racists who support Hillary. I support this 100%.

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | May 19, 2008 4:37 PM

Mea culpa,

I finally read RCP more closely. The 110,224 Obama vote is of course his margin of victory from the caucus states not his total vote. Thus that margin could go down if Washington primary results are used, instead of an estimate based on the caucus.

Sigh. Sorry to be publicly dim.

Posted by glennn | May 19, 2008 4:39 PM

A serious challenge to Clinton supporters: is there a way to criticize Clinton, her campaign, or any aspect of her current political persona without being accused of sexism?

Posted by Starscream | May 19, 2008 4:41 PM

"I finally read RCP more closely. The 110,224 Obama vote is of course his margin of victory from the caucus states not his total vote. Thus that margin could go down if Washington primary results are used, instead of an estimate based on the caucus."

Which makes no sense, as the vote determines exactly zero in the Democratic nominating process.

Posted by Starscream | May 19, 2008 4:43 PM

Other victims of "misogyny" apparently include Mitt Romney:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4257908&page=1

Brett Favre:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=725585

Nuclear power plants:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-77035032.html

And so on.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 4:48 PM

Lambert, the process of trying to talk about Hillary Clinton without being accused of sexism is like Mr. Burns telling you that he'll hear your plea for keeping your job if you don't use the letter "e".

Everything is a dogwhistle.

Incidentally, here are some synonyms for graceful:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/graceful

"Subservient" is not among them.

Here is the definition for graceful:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/graceful

Nothing "subservient" about it.

You are so far lost that the very act of Obama's existence is an offense to everything you hold dear. Get a grip before you go flying off the planet, insisting that gravity is still the enemy.

Posted by Starscream | May 19, 2008 4:49 PM

Jennifer's post is snark, right?

I too am so tired of the sexism that involves people supporting Barack Obama and not supporting Hillary Clinton. I would also be extremely tired of the sexism should Hillary Clinton become the nominee and anyone in the general election support John McCain. Or anyone criticize Hillary Clinton at any point. /snark

Starscream, I often ask Clinton supporters whether there's any public figure who has come out for Obama or criticized Clinton who they still respect (and give the example of Krugman for me as someone who's blasted Obama repeatedly but I still like). I have never gotten an answer to this question.

Posted by JoshA | May 19, 2008 5:05 PM

New Math: Jennifer = Rush Limbaugh

Obviously, we've all been had _again_ by the VRWC, sowing the seeds of discord among our ranks.

Posted by LIJ | May 19, 2008 5:26 PM

I'm a woman, and I've come to believe that Hillary feels she needs to stay in because some women genuinely need to be able to vote for a woman in the presidential race, even if at this point it's merely symbolic. And if that's the case, let her keep running. It's only a couple more weeks and Obama can continue running against McCain. He'll take SD and Montana, and she can go out on a high note in Puerto Rico.

Posted by CJ | May 19, 2008 5:34 PM

I keep telling you people that this asshole is going to fight all the way to the convention and beyond with lawsuits.

Her intention is to guarantee that Obama loses the election. Pure and simple.

And if the DNC and Obama try to APPEASE this scumbag by offering the VP slot, she'll undermine Obama for the next four years - assuming he wins at all, which she knows will be unlikely with her on the ticket.

The Democrats have screwed up yet another election. It's amazing.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 19, 2008 6:58 PM

Since "Lambert Strether" is so concerned about dogwhistles, I'm sure Correntewire will issue a scathing takedown of the Clinton supporters who plan to campaign against Obama in November and complain about being told to "get to the back of the bus."

No?

Obama supporters in the press -- sorry for the redundancy

Sort of like "Dittoheads in the Clinton campaign." The Howard Wolfson talking points are flying thick and fast today.

Posted by Marc | May 19, 2008 8:51 PM

I cannot imagine that the causes of Obama, Clinton, defeating McCain, or feminism are served by making Jennifer's comments the focal point of this thread. 'Don't feed the trolls' is good advice. We do not enlighten ourselves nor sell our perspectives to the unpersuaded by engaging with trolls. In all likelihood, Jennifer is neither female nor a Democrat in real life. Even if she is both of those things, though, the low quality of her arguments and contributions should make it obvious that the proper response to her comments is apathy.

Only a few weeks ago, I and many other Obama supporters were saying that we had no problem with Clinton saying in the primary campaign, but we really hated how she was echoing and amplifying Republican talking points in attacking Obama. There is simply no excuse for any Democrat to say of any other prominent Democratic candidate that the Republican nominee is more qualified than their opponent.

However, lately it seems that both Obama and Clinton have been moving towards a campaign that focuses more on attacking McCain and serving the cause of whichever Democrat wins the primaries. So long as that's the case, we can only be strengthened by a contest between two inspiring, qualified candidates.

Posted by NBarnes | May 19, 2008 10:10 PM

Clinton still has two arguments to advance to the superdelegates at this point. The electability argument and the popular vote argument.

The electability argument is borne out in the exit polls and the current polling trial heats.

And as long as Clinton still has a chance of winning the overall popular vote including Florida she still has reason to pursue that as well. She could easily net anywhere between 100,000-150,000 votes tomorrow.

Posted by Tim K | May 19, 2008 10:26 PM

Tim K,

A sufficient number of superdelegates clearly aren't buying her electability arguments. Nor would a sufficient number buy her popular vote argument.

And Clinton didn't participate in the Florida and Michigan primaries anyway.

Posted by DTM | May 19, 2008 11:13 PM

What is the superdelegate count since March of 2008?

Yes that's right, it's essentially zero for Clinton and a buttload for Obama.

What exactly is it that you think is going to change between now and the convention on that front TimK?

'Delusional' is too restrained a word for some of you Clinton people. Get. A. Grip.

Posted by rational rik | May 20, 2008 1:16 AM

DTM:

The fact that most superdelegates aren't going for Clinton right now doesn't prove many are not worried about Obama's chances. It could simply be that many do not see a way of denying Obama the nomination due to his lead in the pledged delegates.

And whether Clinton participated or not in Florida and Michigan is not relevant. The fact is that voters in Florida has the exact same opportunity to vote for Clinton or Obama and most voted for Clinton. The idea that he would have won if he had campaigned there is disproved by Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Texas and a slew of other states he campaigned hard in but couldn't win. Clinton's popular vote margin in Florida is valid and should be counted. Had both candidates campaigned there I believe the margin would have been a bit tighter, but the turnout would have been even larger still... so Clinton's vote margin would have remained the same.

Here are some facts:

1) More actual voters have cast ballots for Hillary Clinton than any Democratic nominee is history.

2) Clinton has a plausible chance to win the popular vote even excluding the Michigan primary, in which case she can call herself the popular choice of Democrats by any reasonable standard.

3) Surveys from every major polling firm show that Clinton is the stronger candidate in the three most important states in the electoral college for Democrats: Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

The success of Obama's candidacy rests on victories in the undemocratic caucuses, the rationale for his chances this fall rests on the notion that he will somehow win states Democrats have very rarely won in the last hundred years.

If Democrats want to take that gamble they are free to do so.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 1:28 AM

Rational Rik

It's the electoral map that matters and not the superdelegate math. Besides, the DNC states that the superdelegates cannot be counted until the delegates vote first at the convention.

At this point, they are only a projection.

Posted by EWard | May 20, 2008 1:46 AM

drjimcooper

Obama has not bested anyone. By any measurement Hillary has beaten him in the big-swing states such as PA, FL, MI, and OH. Unless the leaders from the Democratic Party are brain dead, the votes from MI and FL will count before the nominee is selected.

Obama cannot win with a small minority of voters.

Posted by EWard | May 20, 2008 2:02 AM

Clinton is heavily in debt. If she ends her campaign, she can't continue to raise funds to pay that debt down.

It ain't rocket science.

Posted by scythia | May 20, 2008 2:45 AM

Ward: "the votes from MI and FL will count before the nominee is selected."

HEY, FUCKTARD! Those votes DO NOT CHANGE THE SITUATION! READ MY FUCKING LIPS, MORON!

Go look it up yourself, nitwit.

How many times does the math have to be explained to you morons?

Obama leads in popular votes, he leads in pledged delegates, and he leads in superdelegates.

What part of THESE NUMBERS from Real Clear Politics Web site DON'T YOU COMPREHEND?

Total Delegates
1913 - 1721
Obama + 192

Super Delegates
303 - 278
Obama + 25

Pledged Delegates
1610 - 1443
Obama + 167

Popular Vote
49.3 - 47.5
Obama +1.8

Popular Vote (w/FL)
48.5 - 47.6
Obama +0.9

Nat'l RCP Average
49.8 - 41.3
Obama +8.5

Oregon
52.2 - 40.2
Obama +12.0

Kentucky
29.4 - 58.4
Clinton +29.0

Popular Vote Count

Obama 16,108,538
Clinton 15,512,424
Spread Obama +596,114

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*
Obama 16,442,622
Clinton 15,736,286
Spread Obama +706,336

Pop Vote (w/FL)
Obama 16,684,752
Clinton 16,383,410
Spread Obama +301,342

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*
Obama 17,018,836
Clinton 16,607,272
Spread Obama +411,564

Pop Vote (w/FL & MI)**
Obama 16,684,752
Clinton 16,711,719
Spread Clinton 26,967

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*
Obama 17,018,836
Clinton 16,935,581
spread Obama +83,255

In only ONE scenario out of the above does Clinton get ahead by a lousy 26,000 votes out of THIRTY MILLION!

Obama will shortly have the necessary number of delegates of both kinds to declare victory:

2026 minus 1913 is WHAT NUMBER, MORON? 113! He will get that number before the convention.

IT IS OVER.

Except of course for this asshole Clinton's lawsuits and "I am a victim" and "I was robbed" whining that nitwits like Ward demonstrate so nauseatingly.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 20, 2008 6:44 AM

It is still impressive to me the discipline with which Hillary Clinton's supporters try to pretend that votes in the primaries / caucuses are the same thing as the general election, so, you know, if Obama loses a state to Hillary in the primary it means he has already lost it in the general, because, you know, well, you know.

Posted by El Cid | May 20, 2008 7:16 AM

Tim K,

I'm sure the superdelegates have been carefully considering Clinton's arguments. Those arguments just are manifestly not enough to persuade the extremely large percentage of superdelegates that she would need to overcome Obama's pledged delegate lead. Of course, this was always a fantasy (that somehow the superdelegates would move en masse to Clinton).

Incidentally, an "election" in which the candidates refuse to participate is not actually an election--it is just a very expensive but non-scientific hypothetical poll. And indeed you can hypothesize all you want about what would happen if Florida and Michigan actually held real elections with the candidates participating, but since that hasn't actually happened, there is nothing to count in those states.

Posted by DTM | May 20, 2008 9:10 AM

El Cid,

It is indeed an impressive display of message discipline, particularly since in this case, many of the people in question are well aware that the message is nonsense.

But nonetheless I think it had very limited impact. Obviously, the superdelegates were just too sophisticated when it comes to politics to buy this nonsense, and the coalitions and dynamics among actual voters never changed. So I think the only people who actually made any use of these arguments were the media, which seemed to credit them.

But even the people in the media probably knew these arguments were nonsense. However, it was in their pecuniary interests to pretend Clinton had legitimate arguments to make (since that helped prolong a lucrative race). So, in that sense they were basically just acting on behalf of Clinton, not actually being persuaded by Clinton.

Posted by DTM | May 20, 2008 9:18 AM

1) More actual voters have cast ballots for Hillary Clinton than any Democratic nominee is history.

This is both false and highly deceptive. Clinton only leads Obama when you include Michigan--where voters did not have the opportunity to cast ballots for Obama!--and exclude legitimate contests in Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine.

2) Clinton has a plausible chance to win the popular vote even excluding the Michigan primary, in which case she can call herself the popular choice of Democrats by any reasonable standard.

I have more sympathy for this line of argument, since you exclude the Michigan contest--no honest comparison can include an unsanctioned race where one candidate wasn't even on the ballot!

Nevertheless, the popular vote is not a reasonable standard for determining the nominee, for a couple of reasons: 1) it disenfranchises caucus states, and 2) the rules, which everybody knew going into the race, clearly state that delegates, not total vote, determine the nominee. If the DNC had said that popular vote determined the nominee, you can be sure that few if any states would opt to have caucuses. Those states were told that the delegates count, not the popular vote.

Arguing that the popular vote should determine the nominee is an attempt to change the rules midway through the game (actually, in the last couple minutes of the game). I notice the Clinton campaign only started pushing the popular vote argument when it became clear they could not win by the delegates. That does not inspire my confidence in their ability to win the general election, where there will be no appeal to the superdelegates.

Finally, I'm not so sure that Clinton can win the popular vote without Michigan. Obama leads Clinton (including the unsanctioned Florida contest and all caucuses) by more than 400,000 votes with only a handful of races left.

3) Surveys from every major polling firm show that Clinton is the stronger candidate in the three most important states in the electoral college for Democrats: Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

This points to one of the best reasons to make Obama the nominee, actually; he isn't limited to the handful of swing states that Clinton would be (and that worked out so well for Gore and Kerry), and he's shown no interest in playing the 50%+1 strategy (that also worked out so well for Gore and Kerry).

Obama's already doing well in Pennsylvania, and I think he's got a great shot in Ohio, but a lot more than three states will be important this year. You're leaving out the swing states that Democrats have barely won in the last two elections, like Michigan and Wisconsin, where Obama does quite a bit better than Clinton. Focusing exclusively on PA, OH, and FL conveniently ignores some Clinton weak points. But Obama also has more opportunities to pick up new states for the Democrats: Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, maybe even one of the Dakotas or Carolinas. He can run a campaign that changes the electoral map; Clinton is committed to running a losing strategy in more favorable circumstances. I know which one I like better, and which one is better for Democrats over the long term.

Posted by Marc | May 20, 2008 10:38 AM

DTM:

It is obvious that Clinton's arguments have not been enough to persuade the superdelegates to move to her, but that does not mean that many of them don't think she is essentially correct about being the stronger candidate in November. Some just might be afraid of tearing the party apart and alienating African Americans. Maybe some just find themselves in an impossible position and I sympathize.

And no elections are contests sanctioned by law where electors have a chance to express their will. In the United States elections are held under state laws, not national law. The Democratic National Committee can choose to recognize the elections in Florida and Michigan or not (that's THEIR right), but those were legal elections under any jurisprudential standard I am aware of. Again, states hold elections under state law, not DNC law. Obama's name was on the ballot in Florida, so he participated. In Michigan, he chose not to participate. That was his prerogative. If John McCain chose to take his name off the ballot in all 50 states this November and the Democrats won a unanimous electoral college vote, that would still be an election. Just because somebody is stupid enough, or rather too clever by half, to take their name off the ballot in a contest they know they will lose in order to avoid a PR blow, doesn't mean the election is illegitimate. Voters made a free choice and should be respected.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 10:45 AM

Marc:

As far as I'm concerned the caucus states have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters themselves. The caucuses are an undemocratic relic of the past where shift-workers and many elderly or disabled people are often prevented from participating. Even worse, there is no secret ballot at these caucuses so energized students and highly committed activists dominate and sometimes bully others into supporting their candidate. Caucuses measure enthusiasm, not rational preferences. If caucuses decided the abortion issue the procedure would be illegal in almost every state, I have little doubt.

Arguing that the popular vote should decide the nominee is not a change to the rules since there isn't a rule about which measure should determine the nominee at all. There's no rule that says it should be the popular vote, and no rule that says it should be the pledged delegates. The only rule is that the candidate with the majority of ALL DELEGATES is the nominee, and the superdelegates can make their choice on whatever basis they so choose.

On the electoral map, of course more than three states are important this year (as in every year). But just as Obama has a better chance in Iowa, Colorado and Oregon, Clinton has a better chance in West Virginia and Missouri, and delivers Arkansas. So the other important states you are referring to are a rather mixed bag. Despite the importance of these other states I am not convinced that a Democrat can win without Ohio or Florida this year, and I am sure a Democrat cannot win without Pennsylvania. And the fact, which you cannot refute, is that Clinton is polling significantly better than Obama in all three states.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 11:04 AM

'Delusional' is too restrained a word for some of you Clinton people. Get. A. Grip.

The Kübler-Ross model lays out 5 stages of grieving, and Hillary's supporters have not yet cleared them all. Here's where we are at in those stages:

1) Denial: I think that's where EWard and TimK have been for a while, but they have now moved well into stage #2 and #3.

2) Anger: This is where they lash out at Obama for having the audacity to win. There seem to be fewer attacks on Obama directly, so they might be moving on from this one.

3) Bargaining: This is probably where they're at. "If we just look at it this way and that way, ignore this, and a miracle happens..."

4) Depression: This is where they can't come up with any scenario where Hillary will win that doesn't include a lightning bolt, so they simply state that they will refuse to vote for Obama.

5. Acceptance: "Well, he's better than McCain."

Just give them time. I bet that well over 90% of Hillary's supporters make it to stage #5.

Posted by LFC | May 20, 2008 11:13 AM

Tim K,

If it comforts you to think that the superdelegates secretly agree with all that you and Clinton have argued, be my guest.

Anyway, you can't force people to be candidates in an election against their will. Even if you put their names on the ballot, as I noted all you are doing is conducting an expensive and unscientific hypothetical poll, asking the equivalent of, "If X and Y hadn't refused to participate in our proposed election, who would you have voted for?" But that is not an actual election--for that you need X and Y to actually participate.

And since BOTH Obama AND Clinton refused to participate in BOTH the Michigan AND Florida primaries, those were not real elections, just expensive unscientific polls. Again, the fact that their names were on some of the ballots is irrelevant, because they had refused to participate.

Indeed, a proper analogy of the sort you tried to construct would be if for some reason both McCain and Obama decided not to participate in the general election. At that point, it wouldn't matter if people in various states put their names on the ballots anyway, because once they refused to participate, those states couldn't hold a real electoral contest involving them.

Posted by DTM | May 20, 2008 11:31 AM

The caucuses are an undemocratic relic of the past where shift-workers and many elderly or disabled people are often prevented from participating.

But a party selecting its nominee and democratic voting have nothing to do with each other. The Constitution does not determine the primary system, or even if a party will use a primary/caucus system at all. A party could be formed and have the top 3 people name its candidate without allowing any votes from the people at all. You're confusing parties with country.

I have heard one explanation for a caucus that makes sense, though I agree with you that primaries are better. The point to a caucus is that only the truly motivated from the party get to vote. The view is that non-involved people shouldn't pick the party's nominee.

I agree with this one point of the caucus (but not actually with caucuses themselves). I think it's ridiculous for members of one party, or even registered independents, to be allowed to vote in primaries. If you aren't even registered in a particular party, you have no business selecting their nominee. Those involved with a party, even if involvement is simply registration, should pick the party's nominee.

The only rule is that the candidate with the majority of ALL DELEGATES is the nominee, and the superdelegates can make their choice on whatever basis they so choose.

And, just as you have opined that caucuses are wrong, it is perfectly acceptable for others to opine that the popular vote is meaningless in the current Democratic system. There isn't even any remote agreement on how "popular vote" is calculated, so many of us feel that it's a useless metric. Yes, super delegates can vote as they wish, and some version of popular vote that you like might be their choice, but maybe not. Lately, by and large, definitely not.

Posted by LFC | May 20, 2008 11:32 AM

DTM:

Of course you cannot force people to be candidates against their will, but if you don't participate you can't complain if you don't get any votes. Maybe Clinton should be asking for more delegates from the caucus states since her campaign chose not to contest them vigorously and she doubtless would have won more delegates and votes out of them had they done so. After all, one cannot force somebody to compete in a contest. No one thought Michigan and Florida were going to matter, or in Clinton's words "count for anything"... but as it turns out the votes of two large states do make a difference. Don't you think Obama would have kept his name on the Michigan ballot if he had fore-knowledge of the closeness of the race?

And the better analogy actually is if McCain chose to take his name off the ballot for president in all 50 states, and the Democrat kept his name on but didn't expend any resources or campaign. Who do you think would win? Under those circumstances it would have been pretty dumb for the Democrat to take his or her name off the ballot.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 11:40 AM

LFC,

I don't see why it is "ridiculous" for a state party to decide it wants to hold open primaries. The electoral logic is pretty simple: to win the general election, the party's nominee will often need to get the support of voters who are not registered members of the party. So, seeking out the input of such people during the nomination process isn't a "ridiculous" idea.

Moreover, many state parties view the primaries in part as a party-building exercise. Accordingly, allowing people not currently registered with the party to participate in the primaries may be a step toward getting them to be full members of the party, or at least reliable voters for the party.

Of course, one can also make arguments for closed primaries. Which is basically why the DNC has left it up to the individual state parties to decide whether they want open or closed primaries, just as they have left it up to the state parties to decide whether they want caucuses or primaries. Generally, all that is consistent with the basic idea that the individual state parties should have the discretion to do what they think is best in their state.

Posted by DTM | May 20, 2008 11:43 AM

DTM:

Of course you cannot force people to be candidates against their will, but if you don't participate you can't complain if you don't get any votes. Maybe Clinton should be asking for more delegates from the caucus states since her campaign chose not to contest them vigorously and she doubtless would have won more delegates and votes out of them had they done so. After all, one cannot force somebody to compete in a contest. No one thought Michigan and Florida were going to matter, or in Clinton's words "count for anything"... but as it turns out the votes of two large states do make a difference. Don't you think Obama would have kept his name on the Michigan ballot if he had fore-knowledge of the closeness of the race?

And the better analogy actually is if McCain chose to take his name off the ballot for president in all 50 states, and the Democrat kept his name on but didn't expend any resources or campaign. Who do you think would win? Under those circumstances it would have been pretty dumb for the Democrat to take his or her name off the ballot.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 11:43 AM

LDC:

I agree the superdelegates can ignore the popular vote if they choose. They can all vote for John Edwards if they want to. The point is it's their independent judgment and their choice, with no relationship to the pledged delegates.

And I agree with you that open primaries are silly and all primaries should be closed to party members. All the contests should be for party members to express their own preferences free from coercion by secret ballot.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 11:51 AM

DTM said... The electoral logic is pretty simple: to win the general election, the party's nominee will often need to get the support of voters who are not registered members of the party. So, seeking out the input of such people during the nomination process isn't a "ridiculous" idea.

It is ridiculous if a sizable portion of the people voting (see Republicans in TX) have a vested interest in your party nominating the weakest candidate. This is not the first primary where this has been a factor.

A good case might be made for independents, but not members of other parties. The hope for crossovers vs. trouble makers is a bad deal.

Posted by LFC | May 20, 2008 11:52 AM

Oh and DTM:

I guess the principle is that states should be able to decide the format of their primary but not the date of their primary. Heaven forbid a large industrial state decide to vote before Iowa or New Hampshire. If they do that the DNC should be able to strip them of all their delegates and disenfranchise millions of voters. But the format is sacrosanct. Great, way to be consistent DTM.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 11:55 AM

"But the format is sacrosanct. Great, way to be consistent DTM."

Uh, no. The rules are sacrosanct. The nomination process was going to be conducted under certain rules. Hillary knew what those rules were and agreed to abide by them. Now that she's going to lose, she wants to change the rules. That's what they do in dictatorships, not democracies.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 20, 2008 12:15 PM

Tim K writes:

As far as I'm concerned the caucus states have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters themselves. The caucuses are an undemocratic relic of the past where shift-workers and many elderly or disabled people are often prevented from participating.

That argument would be a lot more convincing if I had heard any Clinton surrogates or supporters--any of them--making it before Clinton started tanking in the caucuses. It seems to have been wheeled out after the fact as another attempt to discredit any contest Clinton didn't win. I don't take it terribly seriously, and I don't think it reflects well on Clinton or her campaign that they can't simply accept that Obama has beaten them in two-thirds of the contests held so far.

Anyway, wasn't the conventional wisdom prior to this primary season that caucuses favored the elderly since (presumably, and erroneously) only they had the time and the dedication to attend them? Again, the Clinton campaign has only been pushing this idea that they're discriminatory towards the elderly (one of their constituencies, for some rather disquieting reasons) recently, as a means of dismissing the contests they couldn't win.

I agree that the caucus system has some problems (on the other hand, I like the quasi-runoff system that allows for second choices), but the Clinton campaign only objected to them after losing all those caucuses. They knew the rules going in; they just got beat.

Arguing that the popular vote should decide the nominee is not a change to the rules since there isn't a rule about which measure should determine the nominee at all.

Of course there is: total delegates, as you yourself acknowledge. If you're arguing that the superdelegates should take the popular vote into account, well, they're free to take whatever arguments they want into account. But the popular vote count is a deeply flawed measure, and I notice that since Super Tuesday the superdelegates have been breaking overwhelmingly for Obama.

And the fact, which you cannot refute, is that Clinton is polling significantly better than Obama in all three states.

If you only look at those three states, yes, of course she's doing better--but there are forty-seven others plus the District of Columbia, and Obama looks better across the whole map.

Also, it doesn't really matter whether Clinton's polling better in, say, Pennsylvania if Obama's also polling better than McCain (which he is); a five-percent win is as good as a ten-percent win is as good as a one-vote win when it comes to the electoral college.

Posted by Marc | May 20, 2008 12:18 PM

Of course you cannot force people to be candidates against their will, but if you don't participate you can't complain if you don't get any votes.

Depends.

If you don't participate because your party asked you to sign a pledge not to participate and told you explicitly that any votes did not count, then any other outcome other than the votes don't count is cause for complaint.

If one of your opponents signed the same pledge and explicitly stated that they understood the votes didn't count, and then turned around and shouted that the votes must count as is, you should fight the filthy liar with every fiber of your being. People who lie about important things like that must be fought and defeated.

Posted by LFC | May 20, 2008 12:26 PM

Marc:

My argument is that those three states are indispensable to either Democrat's chances of winning this election. Of course you can play with electoral votes and come with a scenario where Obama can win while losing all three states. But what do you think the chances are of Obama sweeping Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri and even Virginia, but losing Pennsylvania and coming up short in Ohio and Florida. Bellwether states exist because there tends to be regional and national trends that usually prevent those kinds of convoluted scenarios from coming to pass. And of course it matters if Clinton is winning Pennsylvania by 10 and Obama is only winning by 5. A ten-point margin is a lot safer than a 5 point one, which is still within the margin of error.

I actually think Obama will end up winning Pennsylvania by a margin similar to Kerry's or Gore's. My concern is more that he will not be competitive in Florida and will come up short in Ohio, since I feel one of those states needs to be carried by the nominee in most realistic scenarios. I think it's conceivable that Obama could fail in Ohio and Florida but win by carrying Iowa and New Mexico, and winning a squeaker in Colorado... but that would only mean a 273-265 win , which is too close for comfort. I think Virginia is wishful thinking.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 12:32 PM

LFC:

Why do you think Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan? Don't you think it was because he knew he was going to lose and wanted to de-legitimize Clinton's victory there? That's what I think. Obama's decision was politics. The really sad thing is that Obama people refuse to see his cynical ploys for what they are. At least most Clinton supporters realize she is a politician, not a philanthropist.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 12:37 PM

Why do you think Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan?

Maybe because he knew it didn't count, and since John Edwards did it, he felt it was the appropriate thing to do?

Why do you think Hillary left her name on the ballot and explicitly said the vote didn't count, but then turned around and demanded that it does count when she started losing? Was she a liar from the start or did she decide to lie later?

Don't you think it was because he knew he was going to lose and wanted to de-legitimize Clinton's victory there?

No. He signed a pledge not to participate, as did Hillary. With no campaigning, it was impossible for anybody to have a legitimate victory there. That's the facts.

Note that he pushed for people to vote "uncommitted" after it was obvious that Hillary might try to pull some shenanigans by leaving her name on the ballot. We now know, of course, that she did just that when it suited her needs.

And with her small win over "uncommitted", no I don't think Hillary would have had a victory.

That's what I think. Obama's decision was politics. The really sad thing is that Obama people refuse to see his cynical ploys for what they are.

I think you may still be in Stage #1, denial. Either that or you're sitting at home right now with a tin foil hat on your head.

If you can't understand a signed pledge not to participate, and your own candidate's words that say the votes don't count, you aren't living in the real world. Careful. Alternate realities suck when the real world comes crashing in.

Posted by LFC | May 20, 2008 1:00 PM

LFC:

What force does a signed pledge not to participate in something have? Zero. A signed pledge to the unnamed voters of some state. That's just a symbol, not a legal document. It's like a pledge not to seek a third term... worth less than the paper and ink that makes it up. It was an example of both candidates, Clinton AND Obama, pandering to the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. Just like their shameless pandering on trade. In order to make sure she wasn't destroyed in those two states Clinton decided to pay lip-service to their privileged but totally undeserved place in the primary calendar. Remember that Iowa and New Hampshire also broke DNC rules relating to the calendar but were not punished. Where is the outrage over the unfairness in that instance?

Talk of signed pledges just reminds me yet again of the haze of naiveté about politics that permeates the entire Obama phenom.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 1:11 PM

Oh and by the way, while discussing signed pledges, what about Obama's signed pledge to remain within the FEC's public financing system if his Republican opponent agreed to do so? I guess that pledge doesn't matter as much since breaking it serves Obama's political interests. But, obviously, Obama is too busy healing America's broken soul to worry about such pettiness.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 1:15 PM

Of course you can play with electoral votes and come with a scenario where Obama can win while losing all three states.

I suspect we won't need to. I suspect he won't need to, as he's already polling ahead of McCain in Pennsylvania, which makes any claims about Clinton polling better there superfluous.

If you want to put states where both Democrats are currently polling ahead of McCain on the table, though, Clinton looks a lot weaker in the upper midwest and Pacific northwest. She would have to defend a lot more Democratic territory; he could make much deeper inroads into previously Republican territory. Any electoral calculus that looks beyond PA/OH/FL shows much greater potential for Obama.

Posted by Marc | May 20, 2008 1:37 PM

What force does a signed pledge not to participate in something have? Zero.

In Hillaryland, that's true. That's why I didn't vote for her. I don't trust her. Her word means zero, as you have pointed out.

Oh and by the way, while discussing signed pledges, what about Obama's signed pledge to remain within the FEC's public financing system if his Republican opponent agreed to do so?

Try again. You have this wrong is so many ways, you really need to do some research.

1) He pledged to negotiate with the Republican nominee, not to automatically take public financing. Why? Because he's not stupid and he doesn't trust the GOP.

2) The GOP does not have a nominee to negotiate with. They have a presumptive nominee. Just as you have claimed Obama is not the nominee until after all delegate votes are cast the convention, so McCain is not the nominee yet.

3) The presumptive nominee, John McCain, has already broken campaign finance rules IMHO with the infamous "loan" that was secured but not secured by public funds. Of course the FEC can't vote because it doesn't have enough members. I can't see why Obama would negotiate with a candidate that has already broken the rules. (Per McCain, that would be "appeasement".)

Posted by LFC | May 20, 2008 1:42 PM

Marc:

The Democrats are not at serious risk of losing Washington state or Minnesota. Obama advantage in the Pacific Northwest is isolated to Oregon. That's a state Clinton may win or lose narrowly, but Obama would be stronger in. In the Upper-Midwest Wisconsin and Iowa are the states Obama is stronger in. Round out that list with Colorado and that is the extent of Obama's advantage over Clinton. And even Colorado is a long-shot, although not as much of a longshot as Virginia. I would compare the chances of Obama winning Virginia to Clinton winning Tennessee.... it could happen, and could only happen with her and not him, but it's unlikely. Same with Virginia and Obama.

As long as you make your argument in the vaguest possible terms it seems to make sense, but in reality the "deeper inroads" you are referring to only consists of 3 or 4 states at the most. People who think Obama is going to compete seriously in North Carolina, Georgia, Kansas and the Dakotas are seriously kidding themselves. And the Democratic states Clinton is having to defend are more than balanced out by Obama's complete lack of competitiveness in Arkansas, West Virginia and Kentucky, and his relative weakness in Missouri.

The problem is you only look at Barack Obama's strengths in isolation, while exaggerating Clinton's weaknesses.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 1:46 PM

LFC:

Clearly you are not a neutral observer in this race and have swallowed all of Obama's campaign talking points whole. At least I am capable of saying when Clinton has pandered or been disingenuous, and don't buy her campaign's spin on Michigan. You, on the other hand, just parrot everything his campaign has to say.

Obama has dissembled on the campaign finance pledge because he's rolling in dough. That's evident to anyone with a clear head on the issue. Would Clinton have behaved any differently? Yes, she was smart enough not to make so stupid a pledge to begin with.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 1:55 PM

Tim K-

1) Clinton is barely polling ahead of McCain in Washington, so maybe not so safe.

2) Clinton is barely polling ahead of McCain in Minnesota, so maybe not so safe.

3) You can ignore #1 and #2, as well as most of your own examples, because polls are pretty much useless this far out from the general election, particularly prior to party reconciliation.

4) Obama is leading in pledged delegates and super delegates. Outside of somebody finding a picture of him having sex with a goat, Hillary can't win. Accept it.

Posted by LFC | May 20, 2008 2:06 PM

Oh and by the way, while discussing signed pledges, what about Obama's signed pledge to remain within the FEC's public financing system if his Republican opponent agreed to do so?

Dammit, Tim, for a minute there it looked like you were willing to have an honest conversation.

As LFC has already pointed out, that's not what Obama pledged to do. He said he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." The pledge was to pursue an agreement, not to take public funding, and since McCain has already violated FEC rules once, I rather doubt any such agreement will be forthcoming. (Nice point about "appeasement," LFC!)

Tim, you may say that the Democrats have no risk of losing Washington or Minnesota, but Clinton's polling in both states is equal to or lower than Obama's polling in Pennsylvania, which you seem to think is in danger--you can't say he's at risk of losing one but she's safe in the others. She's losing in Wisconsin, losing in Iowa, losing or barely ahead in Oregon, hopelessly behind in North Dakota. Oh, and she's losing in Michigan, a state that some Clinton supporters seem to think is tremendously important in the primary but apparently doesn't matter in the general election.

You're also ignoring Obama's polling advantage in Nevada (he beats McCain, she loses), seriously underestimating how close Virginia and North Carolina are for Obama, and seriously overstating Clinton's chances in Kentucky, where McCain has held a solid and consistent lead for months. Obama has more potential pickups, and Clinton more potential losses, from the old Bush-Kerry map.

The problem is you only look at Barack Obama's strengths in isolation, while exaggerating Clinton's weaknesses.

The problem is you're engaging in Rovian projection here, Tim. Look at all fifty states and Obama has several paths to the White House. Clinton just has the old "PA + FL or OH" one that's worked so well the last two elections.

Posted by Marc | May 20, 2008 2:10 PM

Shorter Tim K.

"Lying is good!"

It's also quite entertaining to see Tim K refer to all these supposed states in which Hillary is stronger, given that Hillary's faced the fewest and least negative campaign attacks in this entire nominating process. Yeah, the media's gotten all over her a few times, but no candidate (Democrat or Republican) has subjected Hillary to sorts of personal and strident criticisms that Hillary's been throwing at Obama for a couple months now.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 20, 2008 2:11 PM

Clinton just has the old "PA + FL or OH" one that's worked so well the last two elections.

I misspoke. Given the very real possibility of significant losses in the Kerry states, Clinton may be looking at PA plus FL and OH. Which I'm sure could not possibly go wrong.

Posted by Marc | May 20, 2008 2:20 PM

You, on the other hand, just parrot everything his campaign has to say.

Please send me the link to where the campaign gave the 3 reasons that I did. Or are you just blowing smoke? I'll see by your reply ... or lack thereof.

The reason I ask is that I haven't seen those reasons come from the campaign. I have heard that over 1 million donors make de facto public financing, but I didn't repeat that point because I don't really agree with it.

I also believe that national committees have to be part of the discussion since they can take much larger donations ($28,500) than the candidates (just $2,300), but that is another point I've never heard from the Obama campaign.

Posted by LFC | May 20, 2008 2:22 PM

You're also ignoring Obama's polling advantage in Nevada (he beats McCain, she loses), seriously underestimating how close Virginia and North Carolina are for Obama, and seriously overstating Clinton's chances in Kentucky, where McCain has held a solid and consistent lead for months.

Tim K. is also missing another important point. Against Hillary, McCain does not have to spend much money shoring up states like VA and NC because they're safe for him. Against Obama, he will have to defend them and that will be a cash drain.

Spending cash on those states will hurt, but it will be the lesser of two evils (the other being losing one or two states he can't afford to lose). If McCain's campaign manager has half a brain, he'll know he can't leave multiple states undefended and hope to just win the big states. Only an idiot would use that strategy.

Oh. Sorry, Hillary.

Posted by LFC | May 20, 2008 2:30 PM

Tim K,

The reason Clinton's pledge not to participate in the Michigan and Florida primaries actually matters is that she is relying on a moral argument to persuade a sufficient number of superdelegates to swing the nomination to her. Specifically, her moral argument is that the votes cast in those states SHOULD count, and moreover that the superdelegates SHOULD choose the winner of the popular vote as defined by Clinton, which coincidentally happens to be Clinton.

But the problem is that either she followed her pledge not to participate in the Michigan and Florida primaries, in which case there are no real votes for Clinton from Michigan and Florida to count, or she violated her pledge, in which case she loses the moral standing necessary for her arguments to work. In other words, the superdelegates are not likely to consider themselves morally bound to vote for the self-declared winner of the popular vote when it turns out that person was deliberately lying to the electorate.

In that sense, it is true that her pledge is not legally enforceable. Unfortunately for Clinton, she has no legal entitlement to enough delegates to win the nomination. So falling back on such legalities won't save her ... and indeed it has not ... because all she has left at this point is moral arguments.

By the way, on a minor point: the DNC rules allow a variety of formats, but specify that only certain states can hold contests before a certain date. So, it is obviously consistent to say that in line with the DNC rules, the caucus and open primary states should be counted, but the rogue early states should not. Generally, fair elections require the rules to be announced in advance and then followed. So again, since Clinton is relying on moral arguments, the fact that her arguments depend on changing the rules of the contest retroactively (and after she saw the results) explains why her moral arguments have failed to persuade many superdelegates.

Posted by DTM | May 20, 2008 2:37 PM

LFC,

Potential cross-over spoilers is indeed a notable concern about open primaries. The thing is that in most situations this is not much of an issue, because partisans tend to have a greater interest in choosing their own nominee than in trying to influence the other party's choice of nominee, which they tend not to be able to do anyway. In that sense it takes some pretty unusual circumstances for the number of spoilers to be sufficient to actually make a difference in the outcome (which indeed didn't happen here).

In any event, I wasn't suggesting open primaries are obviously the right choice in all circumstances. Rather, my point is just that there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, and the final balance may well depend on the circumstances. So, it doesn't seem outlandish to me that the DNC has left this choice up to the individual state parties.

Posted by DTM | May 20, 2008 2:46 PM

BTW, here's the super delegate picture for the last two weeks:.

5-07-08 - Obama 4, Clinton 0 (1 - 1 switch)
5-08-08 - Obama 2, Clinton 0
5-09-08 - Obama 9, Clinton 1 (2 - 1 switch)
5-10-08 - Obama 5, Clinton 0 (1 - 1 switch)
5-11-08 - Obama 1, Clinton 0
5-12-08 - Obama 4, Clinton 0
5-13-08 - Obama 6, Clinton 0
5-14-08 - Obama 5, Clinton 1
5-15-08 - Obama 4, Clinton 0
5-16-08 - Obama 3, Clinton 2
5-17-08 - Obama 3, Clinton 0
5-18-08 - Obama 2, Clinton 3
5-19-08 - Obama 5, Clinton 0
5-20-08 - Obama 2, Clinton 1 (so far)

I leave the summation as an exercise for the reader, if you can bear it.

Posted by LFC | May 20, 2008 2:55 PM

Oh my god, way too much piling on to respond to in one post but I'll try to be concise.

Marc:

I'm happy to disappoint you.

Rovian calculations? You're right, a man who was - more than anyone else - responsible for defeating two Democratic nominees couldn't possibly know what he is talking about.

There is a big difference between early polling in states like Minnesota and Washington and states like Virginia and Colorado. In states that almost always vote for Democrats the burden of proof is on those who think the Democrat will not win there. In states that almost always vote Republican the burden of proof is on those who think the Democrats can win there. Until I see some pretty compelling evidence of Obama carrying Virginia I'm not going to believe it, and so far he's been trending in the opposite direction. Clinton has an advantage in that her relative weakness is in Democratic-leaning states she can probably count on in the end, while her strengths lie in swing states that Democrats have shown they can win. Obama's strengths lie mostly in Democratic-leaning states and Red states he probably can't do well enough in to close the gap. His weakness is in the traditional swing states. That's the nature of my concern with Barack Obama's electoral college pathway.

LFC:

You are delusional if you think Obama stands any chance of winning North Carolina.

DTM:

Obviously my point is that the DNC rules are foolish and favor some states over others, while choosing to care about fairness only in certain instances and not in others.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 3:20 PM

Tim K,

Well, that sounds like a good reason for you to seek a change in the DNC's rules before the next nomination contest.

But again, fair elections require the rules to be announced in advance and then followed. So, once the nomination process started, it was too late to change the rules for this contest, because that would be fundamentally unfair to all the candidates, voters, and other people who acted in reliance on the announced rules.

And that is in large part why Clinton's retroactive electoral fairness arguments aren't persuading the superdelegates--they understand the basic requirements of fair elections as well as anyone. Indeed, the only legitimate time for her to make those arguments was before the nomination process began, not after she saw the results (and apparently realized that she needed to run her campaign in a hypothetical world, since in the real world she lost).

Posted by DTM | May 20, 2008 3:43 PM

"Clinton has an advantage in that her relative weakness is in Democratic-leaning states she can probably count on in the end, while her strengths lie in swing states that Democrats have shown they can win."

What the heck is that observation based on? Missouri is a swing state - Hillary lost it. Iowa is a swing state - she finished third.

And by the way, you might want to consider the Democrats running for federal, state and local offices in all those places where Obama is strong and Hillary is weak before deciding that Hillary is really the best candidate at the top of the ticket.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 20, 2008 3:57 PM

Mike:

It's based on all available polling by firms such as Survey USA and Rasmussen, not based on primary results.

If you main concern is whether Democrats pick up an extra house seat in Mississippi or Georgia then by all means support Obama. But if you main concern is that the Democratic nominee wins at least 270 electoral votes then Clinton is your gal. I would much rather count on winning states like West Virginia, Arkansas, Missouri and Ohio (states every winning Democrat have won in recent memory) than gambling on Obama pulling a proverbial rabbit out of his hat by winning with Colorado, Virginia and Nebraska.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 4:08 PM

"It's based on all available polling by firms such as Survey USA and Rasmussen, not based on primary results."

You might want to keep more up to date on those poll numbers. On Survey USA's website today, you'll find Hillary only polling substantially ahead of Obama against McCain in Florida, Arkansas, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Obama, meanwhile, is beating McCain in Pennsylvania and doing substantially better than Hillary in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Louisiana, Iowa, Alaska, Montana, Conneticut and Kansas.

Why, when Democrats are poised to win a blowout of historic proportions, do you think it's a good idea to shrink the electoral map and pursue the same damn strategy Gore and Kerry did?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 20, 2008 4:36 PM

Mike:

ONLY Florida, Ohio? Only the two most important swing states? Today's Survey USA results in PA don't even include Clinton so we don't have the comparison to work off of. Either way it will take more than one poll to know if this is a trend or not. Try looking at the averages on pollster.com and you'll see a more complete picture, and will be unable to simply cherry-pick results that fit with your own bias.

And Mike, I think it's a good idea to win. It's time for Democrats to just win... no rationalizations, no excuses. Just 270. That's all I want. Maybe you think the electoral map will expand based on the power of hope and positive energy, but the electoral map is how it is. The important thing is to choose the nominee who will win the states we know we have to win, rather than gamble on some new unproven formula.

Posted by Tim K | May 20, 2008 4:55 PM

"The important thing is to choose the nominee who will win the states we know we have to win, rather than gamble on some new unproven formula."

You know who you sound like? The Democrats who voted for Kerry because they thought his military record would immunize him from GOP national security attacks. You're fixating one one thing as the key to victory and blindly ignoring or dismissing every other consideration.

And again, the "proven formula" you're focused on has been a proven loser in two straight Presidential elections. But, third time's the charm...right? Even with a candidate who's negative ratings are, I believe, as high or higher than either Gore or Kerry's

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 20, 2008 5:04 PM

Tim writes,

Rovian calculations? You're right, a man who was - more than anyone else - responsible for defeating two Democratic nominees couldn't possibly know what he is talking about.

Tim, I said you were engaging in Rovian projection--you know, where a candidate takes his own behavior and projects it onto his opponent.

Your comment follows closely on the heels of Hillary Clinton citing Karl Rove approvingly in her own speeches. Which raises a couple of questions: does she really think Rove is being sincere when he says she's the tougher candidate? Isn't it just possible that Rove is lying? And does she really think Democrats are going to be motivated by a Rove quasi-endorsement? Or by a candidate who cites him as some kind of political guru?

To put this in a larger context, in the last two years Republicans have gone from the "permanent majority" to a minority party that can't even win special elections in R +10 districts. They could be in danger of occupying 175 seats or fewer in the House. Rove's politics, his chaining the party to its extreme-right base, are a big part of the reason why. If this is the expert you want to cite as the best case for a Hillary Clinton nomination, go for it. :)

One of the reasons I decided to support Obama was my feeling that this could be a transformational, realigning election. The special election upsets seem to bear that out. I would rather nominate the candidate who will work with that transformation, and campaign in a way that both benefits from it and maximizes its effects for other Democratic candidates. Obama has shown that he's eager to run a 50-state strategy; Clinton is committed to a swing-state strategy that's 0 and 2. I concede that the fundamentals favor either Democrat this year, but they'll favor the candidate who runs the smart strategy more.

And, as Mike notes, that strategy will also help candidates down the ticket. Our best Senate pickup opportunities are in states like Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota, North Carolina, Alaska, New Mexico, every one of them states where Obama runs better. I'm focused on the White House, too, but Obama's ability to build a Democratic majority in the Senate is a powerful argument for his nomination, and one I'm sure the superdelegates are considering.

Clinton has an advantage in that her relative weakness is in Democratic-leaning states she can probably count on in the end, while her strengths lie in swing states that Democrats have shown they can win.

Like Ohio, Florida, and Missouri? How'd we do there in the last two elections? It's time for a new strategy.

I take your point that Clinton probably can count on most of the Democratic-leaning states in the end, although she'd have to spend more resources to defend them. Obama not only has a stronger base of support, he can actually create new swing states while remaining competitve in the traditional ones.

Posted by Marc | May 20, 2008 6:03 PM

Nothing is Over!

Comments (152)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories