Should Clinton Drop Out After PA?
Yes, Senator Clinton should probably drop out of the Democratic presidential primary after Pennsylvania votes tomorrow. As of right now, Obama leads Clinton in the delegate race 1648 to 1508. He also leads in the popular vote, an unofficial confirmation that he has won the democratic element of the Democratic primary. Even if Pennsylvania overwhelmingly voted for Clinton tomorrow and gave her a large double-digit victory, it is still essentially impossible that she could ever catch him in either the delegate race or the popular vote. Clinton should drop out of the race for her own good, for the good of the Democratic Party, and for the good of the country.
Pennsylvania is going to be a disaster for Clinton, no matter how much she tries to spin it, for many reasons. First of all, PA should have been solidly hers based on the demographics of the state. It used to be, several weeks ago before Obama started campaigning there. But Obama brought a 25-30 point lead down to a statistical tie in a few weeks of campaigning. Also, Clinton needed a major victory here to try to reverse Obama’s long-term momentum.
After PA, unless Clinton pulls out a 20-point victory, she is going to be under a lot of pressure from major party leaders to drop out. She will be out of excuses to keep going at that point, and it will be just a matter of time.
Also, after PA, many of the undecided superdelegates will be pressured to finally make their decision, and a majority of them will go for Obama. It is possible that he could even reach the required number for the nomination in the next couple of weeks. Clinton is just too far away to get there at this point unless almost all of the superdelegates went with her, but since superdelegates are politicians too, they are unlikely to hitch themselves to the losing candidate.
At this point, it is impossible that Clinton could win the nomination; however, some people still worry that she could steal it. If Clinton became the Democratic nominee at the convention, it would be seen as a coup, not a nomination. She would push away far too many voters from her own party to be able to seriously challenge McCain in the general election. Even if she could win the nomination in a fair way, Clinton is still one of the most polarizing and hated individuals in all of politics. Perhaps that label is partially undeserved, but it is there. A nomination-coup would absolutely sink her chances of winning.
But Hillary is history! History, I tell you!
http://loomisnews.wordpress.com/
“PA prediction for the ‘Change Election’”
I feel like this post was specifically designed to bait me. By that standard, I guess it has been successful.
Of course, as we all know, Hillary is not going to catch Obama in pledged delegates or, due to Obama’s successful efforts to stop any resolution to l’affair Michigan/Florida, the popular vote. The only reason that this is still going on is that everyone knows that the superdelegates are going to decide it, and they clearly have reservations about an Obama candidacy.
Your pre-spin in general is, dare I say, audacious. So a solid win (6-8 points) in a state that she ought to win solidly is somehow a disaster? We’ve been over this about eleven million times. Hillary has large leads in states where no campaigning (due to her high initial name recognition), and when the campaigning starts a strong candidate narrows the gap. This is a close election. Thats what is going to happen. It shouldn’t surprise anyone. The middle weeks of February (where the brain-dead brain trust of the Hillary campaign blinked at each other while Obama racked up delegates in states by winning states by more than he should have) is what decided this race (if it ends like I think we all believe it will).
“Major party leaders”? Exactly who in the hell might they be? Gore is the only figure who approaches this status, and even then that is a stretch. The nature of the Democratic Party (coincidentally, the same nature that allowed Obama to really contest this race to begin with) is such that there really aren’t power brokers in the sense that people seem to believe that people like Reid/Pelosi/Edwards/Richardson are.
Superdelegates (at least some of them) are indeed politicians. That’s why they are still undecided. They’re nervous about the increasingly obvious weaknesses of an Obama candidacy. Primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia can go a long way toward assuaging those concerns.
Your most laughable assertion is (and, of course, you already knew this) that Hillary winning would somehow amount to “stealing” the nomination. Yes, Obama partisans (especially the young ones) would scream and stomp their feet. But we all know that the nomination process is not an actual democracy, and has no operational relationship to the way the general election will be run (a foolish comparison I’ve heard a few times”. If, for some reason, the Hillary campaign is able to convince enough superdelegates that Bittergate, Reverend Wright, flag lapel pins, latent (or not so latent) racism, a left liberal voting record, lack of experience, and any number of present or future concerns were damaging enough that Obama could not win a general election against McCain (something I now fervently believe), then she would have won the nomination exactly as those who designed this (clearly idiotic) system intended. Not theft in any way. If it somehow happened through poaching of pledged delegates then we would have a different conversation on our hands. Some number of young and excitable Obama folk would certainly be turned off by that (and might not even vote), but I would more that gladly trade that demographic for the Reagan Democrats that have decided every election since the 70s (and who seem to have the beginnings of the same apprehension they had about Al Gore and John Kerry. And yes, much of that apprehension is due to successful GOP media manipulation.).
I accidently deleted my last paragraph, so…..
All that said, I think Obama still wins the nomination, but there is less than zero chance that Hillary drops out after winning PA. His numbers, movement following, the media lovefest that is just waiting for an excuse to come out again, and much better run campaign have made it very difficult for Hillary to make her argument. We’re stuck with him for better or worse. And I definitely think its for worse.
It was somewhat designed to bait you, I have to admit. At least, I thought of what your reaction might be right before I published it.
You made a lot of good points above, but I think many of them can be refuted.
6-8 points would not be a solid win for Clinton tomorrow. Nobody will see it like that. Obama will point out how he closed the gap by over 20 points and made the race come within 3-6 delegates. The media and anyone resembling an independent observer will point out that PA should have been Clinton’s by a wide margin (like New York or California for her, or South Carolina or Illinois for him) because it is a state full of white working-class people who have been solidly for her all along. And I seriously doubt that they will be patting themselves on the back tomorrow night at the Clinton HQ if the results come in and she only wins by 6-8.
The same Democratic leaders who pressured her to drop out after Obama’s string of victories will be the ones telling her to do it again. All of the party leadership wants a decision right now because they all realize that this extended primary puts the nominee at a disadvantage going into the general election. The list is quite long that I know of, and I’m sure there are more behind the scenes. Publicly, Dean, Carter, Reid, and Pelosi have been pushing for an early resolution. They will lean on Clinton to drop out if she has a poor showing tomorrow and they will lean on the superdelegates to help her make that decision.
Superdelegates/politicians are much more concerned with their own self-interest, which means they want to make sure they are on the winning team. That’s why Richardson endorsed Obama and that’s why essentially every politician does everything. If even you think that Obama will eventually win the nomination, then surely most of the remaining superdelegates do as well. Why in the world would they align themselves on the opposite side of the eventual nominee and probable future president? They wouldn’t and they won’t.
If Hillary is the nominee, and we all realize that mathmatically she will not win a majority of the elected delegates, it will be seen as a “steal” by all of the Obama supporters and by the vast majority of independents. The media story for the entire election will be about how she stole it and left millions of disgruntled voters behind.
If Obama wins the nomination, there will no doubt be some dissapointed Democratic voters who supported Clinton, but they won’t be able to cry foul or say that his nomination was illegitimate. The media and the critical independents will see it as a fair selection.
I also have my doubts that Hillary will drop out, but I still think she should, hence the title of this post.
You’re right that Ballston will not be jumping for joy at a 6 point win tomorrow. They’ll breath a sigh of relief and then their stomachs will tighten with the now ubiquitous feeling of tension that all in Hillaryland know so well. But its enough to move on. 8 points would be a little better. 10 would be just fine.
There is a difference between an early resolution and an immediate dropout. As long as she performs well and continues to win most of the remaining primaries, it will last through the entire schedule. When everyone has voted, the parties involved can sit down and work it out. It shouldn’t be too hard at that point. Each side makes its case, and the supers can decide. Thats when pressure to decide will be persuasive. I don’t think it goes to the convention. If it lasts past the third week of June, you would see a flood of ardent HRC supporters (including me) jumping ship and making continuation untenable.
I said that I think Obama will win the nomination because I don’t think that enough of them will buy Hillary’s case. My being wrong on that count would obviously entail them doing the opposite. They are likely to move en masse and if they move in Hillary’s direction then they have nothing to fear from Obama.
I’ve acknowledged that many will cry corrupt bargain if Hillary wins the nomination via the superdelegates. I’m trying to get beyond perception for a moment and look at the argument on the merits. Would you agree that, based on the incredibly inane system that we have and regardless of the possible consequences, a superdelegate-based Hillary win would be well within the rules and not, in fact, theft? Obama has relied on adherence to “the rules” throughout this race, most importantly in arguing against resolution of the Florida/Michigan problem. Surely he could not actually think that that osrt of outcome would be outside his beloved rules. Should that admittedly unlikely scenario unfold, it will be up to Obama to do all he can to put the pieces back together (as it would be Hillary’s responsibility to do the same in the case of an Obama win).
What’s worse for the party; a group of disgruntled primary voters (and I’m still skeptical as to whether they would really cut off their nose to spite their face and not vote for Clinton. What ever happened to the fierce urgency of now?) or nominating a candidate with serious electability issues (and I’m sure you would contest that presupposition)?
“…but they won’t be able to cry foul or say that his nomination was illegitimate.”
I support Obama and hope, for the sake of the party, that the SD’s don’t end up deciding this thing at the convention.
However, legitimately or not, Clinton supporters will point to Michigan and Florida if it gets that far. Clinton supporters and staff continue to cry foul regarding that mess.
I can’t count the number of times that I’ve heard this: “If they would just count Michigan and Florida, then Obama would already be out of the race.”
On the surface, that may be true, but considering that neither candidate campaigned and Obama wasn’t even on the MI ballot, the argument is a moot point.
Regarding the argument of “electability”, I don’t think we’ve seen the end of the FL/MI debate.
Who actually says that Michigan and Florida counting would mean Obama would be out? It would make things closer (especially in the popular vote), but would hardly mean an HRC win.
“Who actually says that Michigan and Florida counting would mean Obama would be out?”
Uninformed voters.
I agree with your facts, jkkuwitzky. The popular vote and pledged delegates would be much closer were FL and MI to be counted.
My point is that I believe the Clinton campaign and her supporters will use “victories” in those states (along with OH, CA, NY, TX) as an argument for her “electability”.
Yes, of course they will. Why wouldn’t they?
Why wouldn’t they, and why shouldn’t they are two different questions, no?
However, both of us know that either candidate “would” given the circumstances, so your point is duly noted and well taken….