Existential Realities Of The Democratic Race

I am an Obama supporter and I really want all this to be over soon but to be fair, it is better for future party unity if Hillary loses fair and square rather than being pressured to drop out.
It would avoid lingering ill-feelings and endless decade-long controversy and resentment.

Posted by Benjamin | March 3, 2008 5:59 PM

"if, by slow attrition, he closes the delegate gap to about 70 and picks off two thirds of the remaining superdelegates"

I think you mean "she closes the delegate gap"

Posted by Bill | March 3, 2008 6:08 PM

Excellent post -- it goes beyond the numbers into what, exactly, do the number "mean."

Just because the interpretations of the numbers may be open, I cannot see Clinton drop out unless she loses in *both* TX and OH.

Posted by ProfNickD | March 3, 2008 6:09 PM

Senator Clinton has a lot of loyal supporters, a lot of money, and a lot of delegates. She is absolutely entitled to stay in the race.

That said, the way she is chhosing to press her candidacy is cynical, divisive, and repugnant. Rather than advance arguments for her candidacy she has chosen instead to launch a succession of escalatingly hyperbolic attacks on Obama. She is damaging the party and her own reputation. Before February, I rather liked Clinton; but now, even though I am a dedicated Democrat and would never withhold my vote, I know that she, and if she wins then also the DNC, will never get a thin dime from me, and my money will instead go to the DSCC, the DCCC, and individual candidates.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 3, 2008 6:10 PM

Hillary has to win the pledged delegate lead (or come within 10-20) by 6/7 in order to be the nominee. Any other path to the nomination (superdelegates, FL/MI) would look too much like a re-run of Florida to Democratic primary voters. And you could forget about Obama supporters coming around to supporting her in November. That's why she has to win fair and square among primary voters in order to win.

Posted by Nate | March 3, 2008 6:10 PM

Marc I'm glad you brought the existential nature of this contest. yes, it's about math, but in so many ways it is not about the math that people think it is. The magical number is 2025 and neither Hillary or Obama can get there with pledged delegates alone.

With the race that close there is no way Hillary should drop out - the lack of "winner take all" goes both ways. She can't easily catch up on pledged delegates and Obama can't easily get more than 300 ahead.

This situation means a brokered convention is a must, and it is the obligation of the automatic delegates to stick with the Party Faithful and not endorse too soon.

The Party Faithful delegates know this.

Posted by Fred Agbot | March 3, 2008 6:23 PM

Marc - Bravo. This post reflects just the kind of clear-headed thinking and analysisn that is so sorely missing from discussions in the media at the moment.

Warren Terra - Great points and I agree with you 100%.

Fred Agbot - A brokered convention a must? That'a a ridiculous view. The use of the equally ridiculous phrase "automatic delegate" kind of gives you away. Embarassing.

Posted by zebra22 | March 3, 2008 6:34 PM

Marc - great post, but I fundamentally disagree with your second to last question: "Will the Democratic Party unite, its expected nominee despite this infighting?"

If Obama takes either Texas OR Ohio, unquestionably NOT.

If that outcome transpires, (and unless Obama does something catastrophically wrong or is hiding a Cedric Daniel's size skeleton in his closet), and Hillary receives the nomination, it will be perceived and portrayed as theft of the nomination. Whether this is right is another topic.

But if Obama wins in Texas or Ohio, he will have an insurmountable pledged delegate lead, a majority of the popular vote, and a heavy majority of state victories. Thus, among African Americans and the young, he will be considered the victor. And they will not forgive Hillary taking him from them.

Had things turned out differently post Super Tuesday, had she won even a few states, I would not be typing this this.

But with a Texas or Ohio loss, her only chance of a delegate victory would involve seating Florida and Michigan, and gain a considerable majority of Superdelegates.

And rest assured, if that happens, it will most certainly be considered nominee-theft by Hillary and co. and the Democratic party will splinter and we will lose in the general election by a large margin.

Posted by Its over | March 3, 2008 6:34 PM

I find it odd that Obama supporters seem so convinced that Clinton supporters are going to give Obama their full and enthusiastic support come the fall, if he wins the nomination. It seems to be completely based on faith, rather than reality. Obama supporters cannot understand why any Democrat wouldn't like Barack Obama, and that's being myopic.

Hillary Clinton isn't "damaging" the party by pointing out the obvious weaknesses in the Democratic front-runner, she's damaging the front-runner. If he can't take the attacks from Clinton, he won't be able to take them from McCain and the RNC.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 6:34 PM

If he can't take the attacks from Clinton, he won't be able to take them from McCain and the RNC.

I love this argument. It suggests that Hillary is a Republican. Which I would have argued against a few weeks ago but currently I'm coming to believe myself.

Earlier today she suggested that only she and McCain are experienced enough to be President. I love it. As Marc has outlined above, the only way she can win the nomination is to go all the way to the convention. She will continue to drop bombs on Obama, question his patriotism, his experience, his judgment, Rezko, everything. And then McCain will walk into the White House with a female VP and a majority House and Senate.

Viva la Democratic Party!

Posted by Craig | March 3, 2008 6:44 PM

Marc,
Thank you for your clear-headed analysis. This is really one of your best posts of the nominating season.

I think that if the delegate count after 3/4 is basically static, the superdelegates will bring this thing to an end. There will be increased movement to Obama and some very high profile endorsements. If this fight were more civil, they might give Clinton more time. But she has chosen to misrepresent Obama's positions, create fake issues, and insult Obama's supporters and the states he has won.

Posted by Suze | March 3, 2008 6:47 PM

Tim K: Hillary is damaging the Party by trying to force her cynical, old-school politics onto the obviously transformational candidacy of a fellow Democrat. Of course she can fight as long as she wants, but the shame is that she is fighting with arguments based on process, shrouded in deep arrogance.

Just saying.

Great post, Marc.

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | March 3, 2008 6:48 PM

The Obama campaign has done a HORRIBLE job managing expectations. Clinton had a 30 point lead in Texas and 20 or 30 point lead in Ohio a month ago.

Obama supporters should be jumping for joy at this moment. Clinton has not had a big negative moment (a la Monica Lewinsky) and she has lost big double digits lead. That's pretty incredible for Obama to erase those leads.

This nomination is about the number of delegates. Obama has played the game in terms of delegates, Clinton on big media spin.

We need to focus back on the delegates earned, Obama exceeding Clinton by 162.

I think it is wise the Obama has not announced his fundraising results for February. Probably would have raised the expectations even more.

Lastly, I really admire how clean Obama has been running this campaign, but I really wish he would have hit back harder on her Red Phone ad. She doesn't earn national security experience by sharing a bed with an adulterer.

Posted by Ann | March 3, 2008 6:54 PM

"...for every ten Democrats who've voted for Barack Obama, nine have voted for Hillary Clinton."

Not even close. Clinton leads by that margin among Democrats that have voted, or more; Obama only leads in delegates due to Republican crossover and Independents.

Posted by Jerome Armstrong | March 3, 2008 7:04 PM

Nice post overall, but your Boyle's law metaphor, "as the pressure increases, the volume increases" is a bit off. Boyle's law is a conservation principle which states that -- all other things being equal -- pressure and volume change inversely (N = PV). So if you decrease the volume of a gas, its pressure increases.

Perhaps you meant to say that, "as the volume decreases, the pressure increases?"

Posted by miked98 | March 3, 2008 7:04 PM

Great post, and easy to write too!

It's pretty sad that it probably would take a "secret second family in Idaho" to have an impact on the presidential race, rather than the MSM doing their job and making the candidates defend their policies.

So, here's a more difficult task for Ambinder: contact someone from a think tank for some good questions to ask the contenders. Then, go out and ask them. To make it even easier (no emailing required!) I've got some questions here. Just print out a page or two and read it to one of the candidates. Is that so difficult?

Posted by TLB | March 3, 2008 7:06 PM

Craig:

Okay, Let me get this straight. If someone criticizes Barack Obama it is proof they are, in fact, a Republican. If someone points out that John McCain is experienced, that's proof they are a Republican. If someone says they have more experience than Barack Obama, they're a Republican. Did I get that about right?

Betty:

Transformational candidacy? Could you be any more gullible? Make no mistake, Barack Obama is drenched in the Old-School politics of Chicago. Whether it's his ties to Tony Rezko, or the fact he won his first state senate contest by challenging his four opponents and having them removed from the ballot. Don't be fooled by a familiar and unrealistic promises of fundamental "change."

Ann:

There is no real distinction between pledged delegates "earned" and automatic delegates. Except perhaps in your own mind.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 7:06 PM

The Obama campaign has done a HORRIBLE job managing expectations. Clinton had a 30 point lead in Texas and 20 or 30 point lead in Ohio a month ago.

If Obama ultimately loses the nomination, he will deserve to have lost it for precisely this reason.

Not even close. Clinton leads by that margin among Democrats that have voted, or more; Obama only leads in delegates due to Republican crossover and Independents.

Source? Oh, exit polls? Oh my. How, er, interesting you would cite those as an authoritative source.

And besides, the Democratic primary electorate is composed of those persons designated by the various state parties. Trying to claim otherwise is more of the Calvinball nonsense that has besmirched the HRC campaign as of late.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 3, 2008 7:11 PM

Marc I have quoted you elsewhere as being one of the journalists along with Chuck Todd at MSNBC - who is cutting through the fog of war and helping everyone focus on what is really involved with either candidate taking the nomination at this point.
So congratulations, another great post. Keep it up.

Come wednesday, Obama will have more of a pledged delegate lead than he does today. After next Wednesday it will be even more. Perhaps as much as 180.

I believe the tone of his campaign will change and he will take Hillary to task on many levels. The issue facing the Party is what exactly is a path Hillary proposes to diminish that lead in any significant way between now an June 7th.

What does the path really entail. Not only is it likely to be successful, but is it likely to be good for the Party or damaging to the Party and it's nominee.

These are hard cold questions, that the media would do well to help everyone process.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 3, 2008 7:12 PM

As an aside, spin, the expectations game, etc., really don't matter much anymore. There are too few contests left, and the dynamics are too well-established, for any of that marginal gameplaying to have a significant effect on the ultimate outcome.

Anyway, I personally think the idea that Clinton is hurting Obama by staying in past any reasonable possibility of her winning the nomination is overblown. If she had a good way to significantly weaken Obama, she would have used it long ago--she just doesn't. Meanwhile, Obama's head-to-head numbers against McCain tend to improve in places he has campaigned, and the remaining slate of states will likely result in a lot more "Obama Wins" headlines.

The only big problem I see is that Obama is using money to deal with Clinton that he could be using to deal with McCain directly. But as noted, the indirect effects of the primary campaign seem to benefit Obama against McCain, and in any event money is not going to be much of an issue for Obama.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 7:19 PM

The bottom line is that if Clinton wins the popular vote in Ohio and Texas (the primary) then the race goes on. No question... no matter what Obama supporting elected officials have to say about it. Then we have a six week campaign for the Pennsylvania primary where Clinton has the support of Ed Rendell. There will probably be pressure on Obama for more debates, there will be the Rezko trial fully underway, and I would expect further emphasis on experience and national security.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 7:30 PM

I've argued and argued against the Clinton machine, but there is no argument that will make them lose. There is still a hugh number of voters who will not look straightforwardly at both Clinton and Obama.

Some arguments that should have sunk the Clinton campaign:

Dynasty-bush/clinton/bush/clinton? Nope
War vote: Doesn't matter
Bill Clinton's negative role: been there, done that
Campaign tactics: They all do it
Bill and/or Hillary's financial matters (Foundation, Tax returns): Move along, Move along, there is nothing to see folks.
Campaign competence: Too inside the beltway.
Historic candidacy of an African-American: Not so special, she is historic too.
National security compentency: Thin, but remember she has Bill to handle the big stuff.
Judgement: Obama's a smart aleck, not a brainiac. Besides, he wasn't on the front line, so his opinion doesn't matter.
Voting like a Repulican: That is the game in Washington, live with it.

I don't think this is going to end well for Obama. But I truly believe that the Democrats are the losers here. There was a transformative opportunity, but sadly, cynical politics wins the day. Comparable politics? Nixon defeats Reagan in the primary. Politics as usual decides that Obama should wait his turn. Good luck getting anything done in Washington for the forseeable future. 50+1 all the way baby.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 3, 2008 7:34 PM

Tim K,

You left out Wyoming on March 8 and Mississippi on March 11. And, for that matter, you left out Vermont and Rhode Island tomorrow.

In general, one would think that by this point, people would have learned not to overlook any states.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 7:34 PM

I concur with Suze--two weeks ago the goal posts were to really close the delegate gap. If it moves by 10, and then MS and WY undo it, nothing happened on that promise.

Jeff Larson, I can't believe you want to use election results and vote counting to select the nominee, rather than exit polling in select states.

The problem with Clinton staying in isn't that she'll damage Obama--it's not like there's anything she can say the Republicans won't think up. The damage is to everyone up and down the ticket, by all the voter insulting that's required. "You don't count, and you don't count, and who cares what those people think? We'll sue if you announce election results!"

Posted by Deborah | March 3, 2008 7:40 PM

DTM: didn't you hear? Small states don't matter.

Posted by Zephyrus | March 3, 2008 7:44 PM

Deborah,

But the person saying all that is likely going to lose, and Obama is going to get even more opportunities to associate himself with all those insulted states and voters. So I think the net result is actually good for downticket Democrats (but only if Obama does in fact win the nomination).

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 7:49 PM

I think the point is that the Clinton campaign set out right after Super Tuesday to make Ohio and Texas the test, and they have succeeded in doing so. After tomorrow they will set out to convince the press corp that Pennsylvania is the next test, and I predict they will again succeed at that.

As incompetent as many of you claim the Clinton team is, they have totally beat the Obama campaign at the expectations game.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 7:52 PM

"for every ten Democrats who've voted for Barack Obama, nine have voted for Hillary Clinton."

FALSE. Hillary Clinton has won among Democrats overall 50-46. The only reason Obama is ahead in total votes is because of Independents and cross-over Republicans who hate Hillary.

The press made a huge deal (back when the Republican primary was still going on) about McCain winning several states only because of Independents. When the same issue arises in the Democratic primary they say nothing.

Posted by Jamilla | March 3, 2008 7:53 PM

Hillary has already damaged the Democratic party with her constant dismissal of states and voters that don't count because they are not big enough or blue enough. If you are new to the democratic party and did not vote for Hillary people like Jerome think your vote should not count.

Posted by bjd | March 3, 2008 7:57 PM

FALSE. Hillary Clinton has won among Democrats overall 50-46. The only reason Obama is ahead in total votes is because of Independents and cross-over Republicans who hate Hillary.

Source? Oh, exit polls? Oh my. How, er, interesting you would cite those as an authoritative source.

And besides, the Democratic primary electorate is composed of those persons designated by the various state parties. Trying to claim otherwise is more of the Calvinball nonsense that has besmirched the HRC campaign as of late.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 3, 2008 7:58 PM

Tim K,

But who cares about expectations? If it isn't getting her actual delegates, it just doesn't matter.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 8:00 PM

How fickle you people are. Blowing the way the wind blows one way. Obama has WON 11 straight contest in very high margins. She has only won 1 state in high margins. If it was anyone else but 'her' then this thing would be over. If Obama wins TX then the 'elders' should call this on Wednesday and state that HRC should suspend her campaign.

Apart from Dodd and Obama, how selfish the other Democractic candidates have been. While even Giuliani and Romney have come for the party. The Dems have dissapointed me.
If Obama wins TX and it is not declared he is the nominee.
I'm throwing away my party card.

Posted by Alex Kaman | March 3, 2008 8:11 PM

I just love the argument that Obama only leads in votes due to independents and Republicans being willing to vote for him. Like it's a bad thing to have support outside the party. (Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that it's actually accurate.) I especially love it when I am hearing today about Republicans in Texas planning to vote for Clinton -- because they think she would make an easier opponent in November.

Face it, Obama's greatest strength is that he can pull votes from beyond the Democratic party. Which means that he has a chance to not only win in November, but to win big. Clinton, on the other hand, seems to be saying that she would be happy to concede the independents (and some Democrats, although she doesn't mention that) to McCain in November. Which sounds like a good way to lose gloriously. And a year ago, who would have suspected that losing in November would even be a possibility for the Democratic nominee? But if anyone can do it, Clinton is the one.

Posted by wj | March 3, 2008 8:12 PM

Right, the theory behind open primaries is that they help build the party and select nominees who are more likely to appeal to the general electorate.

And by all indications, that is working.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 8:17 PM

DTM:

Well it does matter because it affects the campaign coverage to a huge degree. But I think you'll find tomorrow it will be getting her delegates.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 8:28 PM

Tim K,
How many delegates does she net tomorrow?

Posted by bjd | March 3, 2008 8:34 PM

[i]Q. Will the Democratic Party unite, its expected nominee despite this infighting?

A. Unquestionably.[/i]

If she wins by using supper delegates to overrule the pledged delegates don't count on it.

Posted by Steve | March 3, 2008 8:36 PM

Tim K,

Right, I understood your point to be that the Clinton Campaign has managed to get the media to play up the importance of her "winning" these contests--although that wasn't exactly a tough sell.

But why do you think that manipulation of a compliant media is actually getting her delegates? In fact, she was up much farther in the polls before she started playing these expectation games, so if anything it looks like her strategy is hurting her delegate count.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 8:38 PM

"there will be the Rezko trial fully underway,"

Oh sure, Tim K. And then all Obama has to do is mention Norman Hsu and the countless other corrupt fundraisers that have supported Hillary (and their own trials), not to mention Hillary's refusal to turn over her income tax returns or allow access to the Clinton library. Oh and BTW, Rezko gave money to Clinton supporters as well as to Obama. So you are officially FOS.

Frankly, as a yellow-dog Democrat, I just want this damn nominating contest to be over soon. We need to focus our efforts on confronting McCain and winning the White House in November. If Hillary doesn't win both Ohio and Texas by a very large margin, then she should drop out, period, for the good of the party. It is basically mathematically impossible for her to get a delegate lead over Obama, obviously in pledged delegates but even with Superdelegates (who are increasingly favoring Obama).

She has already lost 11 straight states, after being just about even with Obama before. If it were any candidate, the media would be inveighing against her to drop out. She needs to put the party and the country ahead of herself, and unite behind the candidate who is winning in all three categories-- states, votes and delegates.

Posted by Sally H | March 3, 2008 8:40 PM

Sally:

Well you are officially an hysterical, vulgar and foul-mouthed individual I see no reason responding to.

DTM:

I meant I think she'll win delegates tomorrow by winning Ohio decisively, and winning the Texas primary. It's not the spin that wins delegates, but it's the spin that helps magnify the perception of victory.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 8:51 PM

I think that if the delegate count after 3/4 is basically static, the superdelegates will bring this thing to an end. There will be increased movement to Obama and some very high profile endorsements.

If Obama wins Ohio it's over. If Obama wins Texas -- even by the narrowest of popular vote margins -- it's probably over, too, within a short while, because of the scenario suggested by the above commenter (superdelegate movement to Obama, and public pressure for Clinton to quit the race).

However, IF she wins both Texas and Ohio (and that probably means taking 3 out of 4, because Hillary will win Rhode Island if she's having a good night in general) I doubt there will be much in the way of effective "pressure" for her to concede, nor any longer much movement in the way of superdelegates toward Obama.

Indeed, given Hillary's popularity with many party activists, she may well win a clutch of new superdelegate pledges. After all, it stands to reason that there have to exist some Clinton leaners who have been reluctant to get on the wrong side of the eventual nominee/future president (should that be Obama), and have therefore been holding off on declaring for Hillary, because it's been looking like she's a lost cause.

If she goes three for four tomorrow, she'll no longer look like a lost cause.

Posted by Igloo | March 3, 2008 8:53 PM

Tim K,

And again I ask: why does this "perception of victory" matter? She needs an actual real victory in delegates, and at this point it needs to be a landslide victory. A mere "perception of victory" without a real delegate victory of the kind she needs isn't going to cut it.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 8:57 PM

I've said it elsewhere, I'll say it here:

Here’s how Hillary wins without gaining a majority of pledged delegates:

A) She wins tomorrow in overall popular vote, exceeding expectations in one or both big states;

B) John McCain stabilizes or widens a national polling lead over both candidates, with other polls confirming Rasmussen’s daily track showing him now further ahead of Barack than Hillary;

C) the media continue piling on, confirming

D) that the Obama bubble has burst - empty seats are photographed at formerly standing room only Obama rallies;

E) Rezko, Wright, scary Michelle, Naftagate, Born Alive Act, furthest left in the Senate, no history of bi-partisanship, and so on, and so on, and more, continue to bubble - even if none of them or something new doesn’t turn totally disqualifying;

F) Hillary cruises to a decisive victory in Pennsylvania, does well in other states up to and including Puerto Rico.

G) The pressure on the Super-Ds reverses from “confirm Obama’s victory” to “save us from the Pied Piper - we are so over it!”

Could happen. May even be in the cards. Certainly seems a lot more possible to me today than it did a week ago. With more luck - e.g., major Rezko bombshell - she might even win the pledged delegates, unlikely as the percentages look right now.

As for FL and MI re-votes, they may also play a role, but I suspect they won't take place until either they don't matter at all or they've come to seem necessary. Hillary might want them if the momentum's turned her away overall, and she thinks they'd strengthen her position.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 3, 2008 8:59 PM

Igloo,

Unless she actually significantly cuts into Obama's pledged lead tomorrow, I don't see why the superdelegates would be inclined to rush to her side. Indeed, if it was "winning" a few hand-picked big states that they were waiting for, well, Clinton already gave them that on Super Tuesday. So why would a few more such "wins" that don't get her substantially closer to actually winning the delegate contest make a difference to any currently uncommitted superdelegates?

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:02 PM

And then all Obama has to do is mention Norman Hsu and the countless other corrupt fundraisers that have supported Hillary (and their own trials)...

Yes, but people already have a perception of what they're getting with Clinton, because she's very much been in the public eye for the last fifteen years. Revelations of scandal -- especially involving people with ties to middle eastern money -- are far more damaging to political neophytes. There's a lot of truth to the notion that Hillary has been thoroughly vetted.

Posted by Igloo | March 3, 2008 9:03 PM

CK MacLeod,

Or lightning could come out of the clear blue sky and strike Obama down. Don't forget that possibility.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:06 PM

Igloo,

Yeah, but the "you already know I am a lot dirtier than Obama ever dreamed of being" line of attack doesn't seem to be doing it for her.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:09 PM

Did anyone see her on TV today where she practically endorsed John McCain?? She said 'I and John McCain have the experience and Barack Obama has a speech in 2002'.If I had my hands on that bitch. She wouldn't know what hit her.

Posted by Kathy Millet | March 3, 2008 9:16 PM

Or lightning could come out of the clear blue sky and strike Obama down. Don't forget that possibility.

I'd include that under the category of "something new... totally disqualifying."

Bolts from the blue do happen. Some of Obama's biggest fans have created their own rather pornographic journalistic sub-genre out of Obama assassination nightmares, for instance. Most grown-ups don't need to be reminded.

Still, I don't thing any of the main elements of a Hillary comeback as I outlined rely on anything so extraordinary. Certainly none of them is any more extraordinary than what we've already seen this year. Bottom line: Short of an unprecedented electoral miracle, neither Hillary nor Obama is going to win just on the basis of delegates apportioned by popular votes and caucuses.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 3, 2008 9:24 PM

DTM:

Yeah but now we're seeing more and more of the dirt on Obama. It's not "well... uhh... maybe there's some dirt out there." We're seeing the dirt. That's the difference we're now beginning to see and will continue to see in the days ahead.

We're going to have a lot of blue-collar Democrats going to the polls in the weeks ahead in states like Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virgina and North Carolina. Senator Clinton has to make the argument that Barack Obama is a wimp on national security and can't go toe-to-toe with John McCain and won't be up to the job. Her campaign should say "Barack Obama wants to talk to Admadinejad without preconditions... a holocaust denier, who said he wants to blow Israel off the map... that's ridiculous."

Also she can make the argument that there have been two Democratic presidents over the past 40 years. One was Jimmy Carter and the other was Bill Clinton. She's with Bill Clinton, a moderate and mainstream Democrat who led a successful Democratic presidency. Barack Obama is like Jimmy Carter. Inexperienced, wobbly, naive. He was a nice man, he wanted to do well... but was a total disaster for America and the Democratic party.

Let's not make that error again.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 9:25 PM

So why would a few more such "wins" that don't get her substantially closer to actually winning the delegate contest make a difference to any currently uncommitted superdelegates?

Because a Clinton victory in three of four states tomorrow would drive home the reality that Obama, too, is far from "winning the delegate contest" if by "winning" you mean gaining a nominating majority. Insisting that the Democratic nomination must necessarily go the gainer of a plurality of pledged delegates does not make it so. And the thing is, momentum is a fickle mistress. Senator Obama's campaign has been portrayed by the media as having built up such an utterly commanding degree of momentum that losses tomorrow will (perhaps unfairly) be magnified far out of proportion to their normative value.

As Jennifer Rubin (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/2769) writes:

So if she should win Texas and Ohio there will be a gasp from the media (not to mention some of those superdelegates) who will then have to discard the Obama-mania, invincibility argument and absorb the new storyline: she’s baaaaaack. True, she won’t reach 2025 delegates by June, but the fact remains–neither will he. Momentum, press spin and the appearance that Obama can not take a punch will weigh heavily on those superdelegates. Oh, and with a little help from Governor Crist (hmm, who’s he trying to help?) the race could be extended by a do-over in Florida.

But why are we even having this discussion? You're not really worried, right? I thought Obama was already the nominee. Heck, we might as well skip Denver.

Posted by Igloo | March 3, 2008 9:26 PM

"For every ten Democrats who've voted for Barack Obama, nine have voted for Hillary Clinton."

Marc, in electionland, that's a big lead. It cannot be erased. And it's the only lead that counts.

Posted by phillygirl | March 3, 2008 9:30 PM

I just don't understand why any of the media coverage, or momentum, or even Rezko is at all relevant. Hypothetically lets say that Hillary pulls off Texas and Ohio tomorrow. She nets 15 or 20 delegates (which is a stretch with the caucus system and delegate appropriation in Texas), and she wins R-Island, but he wins Vermont. So she nets between 20 and 25 delegates. She is still is more than 100 delegates behind with sure Obama wins in Wyoming, Mississippi and North Carolina ahead. She would have to win in landslides (like 65 - 45 or 70 -30) to catch up. Does anyone think that is gonna happen? Even with all the momentum she can get her hands on, he is not gonna tank that badly. It is just really hard to catch up in this system, all Hillary supporters should be extremely upset that her campaign did not plan post Feb 5th, and let Obama own Feb to such a degree that he built an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. And he picked up 30+ super delegates in Feb as well. Math is math. It's like Obama has the ball with about less than 2 minutes left, and Hillary has no timeouts. She may stuff him on every play, but he isn't going to have to give up the ball and the clock is going to run out.

Posted by Kobe Berg | March 3, 2008 9:33 PM

Kobe Berg:

You're forgetting the automatic delegates. So your "math" is wrong.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 9:35 PM

CK MacCleod,

Your scenario required the sort of reversal in the dynamic we have actually not seen so far in this contest. When you factor in regional effects, Obama and Clinton have actually had pretty stable coalitions of supporters, and the effects when Obama campaigns in a state have been pretty predictable. Your scenario would require all this to change dramatically--so dramatically in fact that Clinton would be ablt to counteract the big delegate lead Obama has built up with far fewer uncommitted delegates remaining.

And that includes the superdelegates. Unless the pledged delegate dynamic changes radically, Obama doesn't need to "win" the superdelegates, just do reasonably well. And he is already doing well enough, with all the trends in his favor. So the idea that the superdelegate dynamic will suddenly turn around and save Clinton is just as far-fetched as the remaining pledged delegate contests suddenly turning around and saving Clinton.

Tim K,

But again, Clinton has to do more than just win from now on: she has to somehow counteract the lead Obama has built with only a fraction of the delegates to work with. And you basically want her to do that with the same arguments that haven't worked so far. That isn't much of a plan.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:36 PM

Two weeks ago we all thought Hillary would win I Ohio and Texas, but she would not win enough delegates to move the numbers. Unless she wins by 15% in both Ohio and Texas nothing changes.

Posted by bjd | March 3, 2008 9:39 PM

Igloo,

Actually, I am indeed not worried. This is purely an intellectual exercise for me now.

Anyway, as I noted to CK MacCleod, I don't actually think there has been much momentum in this contest, just the relatively predictable unfolding of pretty stable coalitions and electoral dynamics. Rather, what Obama has right now is a big lead, and with most of the contest now behind him. So, the bottomline is there just aren't enough uncommitted delegates left--including uncommitted superdelegates--for Clinton to catch him unless the dynamic completely and overwhelmingly changes in her favor.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:42 PM

Math is math. It's like Obama has the ball with about less than 2 minutes left, and Hillary has no timeouts.

Yes. Math is math. And the simple math is that if Hillary continues to compete, Obama can't win the nomination by eking out a narrow pledged delegate plurality. Just like Hillary, Obama needs superdelegates. And unfortunately for him, Hillary will compete vigorously for superdelegates if she has a good day tomorrow. And given the momentum she will gain from such an outcome, she may well defeat Obama in the contest for superdelegates, especially as buyer's remorse sets in with the rise in media scrutiny of Obama's record.

Posted by Igloo | March 3, 2008 9:42 PM

DTM:

The kinds of arguments I'm talking about have only just now begun with the "Children/3:00 AM" ad and the "True" (Afghanistan hearings) ad. There hasn't been an ad saying "Barack Obama wants to sit down with Ahmadinejad, wants to sit down to Raul Castro (think Florida), wants to sit down with Hugo Chavez" ... the argument must be made more explicitly. The subtext behind this is that Clinton is more hawkish than Obama, and I think her campaign has been afraid to just come out and make that case because it's a Democratic primary and there are a lot of peaceniks and ultra-leftists who are part of the process. But she should make the argument she is not only tough enough to take on the Republicans, and experienced enough to take on McCain on national security, but hawkish enough that she can't be called out as a wimp during the campaign.

How it is possible for her to win? She can whittle down his lead with pledged delegates to a manageable number (say a 40 delegate deficit for example) and the win the remainder with automatic delegates as Obama continues to trip up.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 9:43 PM

Igloo,

But again, if Clinton remains way behind in pledged delegates, she has to do more than just "defeat Obama in the contest for superdelegates." She has to beat him in that contest by a much larger margin than she is beating him right now--and all the trends in that area are against her. So, you are basically hypothesizing that whereas her victories in states like New York, California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey didn't do it, somehow winning in Ohio and Texas would close the deal with a huge percentage of the remaining superdelegates.

But why on earth should I believe that?

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:48 PM

You don't have to believe anything. Nothing in this race is hinging on what you do, or do not, choose to believe.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 9:51 PM

Tim K. -- the difference between a pledged and a super delegate is that the pledged delegate reflects the will of voters, whereas the super does not necessarily reflect the will of voters.

If the supers contradict the pledged delegates, there will be a serious poltical cost that is absent in the supers affirming Obama.

Such a "veto" of the public will would contradict all of these cherished democratic ideals people have about choosing their leaders, as opposed to having their leaders chosen for them. You're living in a dream world, imo, if you think the supers are prepared to disabuse their consituents of their cherished ideals, particularly given the racial implications in this year's election.

My firm sense is that this is over; the only question is how much damage HRC does to Obama before leaving.

Posted by John D. | March 3, 2008 9:51 PM

Tim K,

Wait, so you acknowledge the people voting in the Democratic primaries are not particularly hawkish, so your plan for Clinton somehow making up a huge number of pledged delegates in the few remaining contests (which is what it would take to get it even as close as 40) is to be really hawkish?

Again, that doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:51 PM

The funniest thing about the news reports of the polls closing in texas and Ohio is that they are exactly the same as the polls that were closing in california and the polling narrowing in NH.
What happens if what happened in those two states happens in these two states. Then 11 in a row stops being a talking point and mr. inevitable looks less inevitable and more akin to mr. Can't close the deal.
He's spending two to one in both states: if e can't win with twice as much money then there's going to be some talk wednesday.
Jack Nicholson should get the credit, probably.

Posted by Michael C. | March 3, 2008 9:52 PM

Tim K,

I'm just trying to see if people like you and Igloo actually have a plausible plan for Clinton getting the delegates she would need to win the nomination. If you are admitting that you are basically just hoping for that to happen with no good reason to believe it will happen (at least not a reason that you can explain), then fine by me.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:55 PM

DTM - there are nearly 800 Super-Ds (looking up the number, I just learned that the absolute number hasn't and can't be precisely set up until the Convention itself!). All of them are free to change their minds up until the moment they official cast their votes. Here's a crazy scenario for you: They could even deny either candidate a majority and throw things to multiple ballots (odds of this scenario, about equal to lightning striking).

The Hillary Comeback Scenario that doesn't require a "bolt from the blue" does presume that the dynamic has in fact already reversed, or that at least it has changed, and that the primaries tomorrow will confirm the fact. It also presumes that, following two bad weeks, Obama won't be able to re-capture the magic.

Most of all, it presumes that, as in '04 and as less openly this year, the Dems are highly motivated by perceptions of electability, and that if they manage to convince themselves that Obama is less (or a lot less) electable than they thought in February and January, they'll do whatever they can, if the possibility is still out there, to deny him the nomination. Against the prospect of losing in November, giving it to him on the basis of slight advantage based on caucus and small state wins back in ancient times (half a year or more before the convention) may not seem so attractive.

Note: As for voting coalitions remaining stable, obviously there have been shifts. Without them, Obama would never have had broken out in Wisconsin, and would have had much smaller margins around the Potomac primaries.

It's not over til it's over.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 3, 2008 9:57 PM

Michael C.,

If by "can't close the deal" you mean "Obama won't beat Clinton in every single contest", then that is not actually news--he already lost some contests on Super Tuesday.

But of course he doesn't need to win every single remaining contest to win the nomination.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:58 PM

But again, if Clinton remains way behind in pledged delegates, she has to do more than just "defeat Obama in the contest for superdelegates."

If Clinton wins Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, I believe a momentum shift will begin to occur -- thanks to the absurdly lofty expectations generated by the media and focusing on Obama's inevitability -- that insures she does not remain "way behind" in pledged delegates, but will significantly narrow Obama's lead, and quite possibly overtake him. I know you Obama fans don't think a case of serious buyer's remorse is possible, but I think it is possible, and has indeed begun to occur now that Clinton's attacks are beginning to raise doubts about his suitability for the nation's highest office. And if Obama's association with Austen Goolsbee is what does him in in the end, it will be sweet justice indeed for those of us who have been sounding the alarm since day one about Obama's reactionary views on economics.

Posted by Igloo | March 3, 2008 9:59 PM

DTM:

Well obviously it doesn't sound like a great plan to you, and that doesn't really surprise me. I really doubt you are all that representative of the views of the median voter, or even the median Democratic primary voter. The typical Democratic primary voter isn't particularly hawkish, but they don't want to nominate a loser with extreme views. Neither do the automatic delegates.

I don't know what it is about this concept that you fail to understand, but Clinton doesn't need to have a pledged delegate lead in order to be nominated.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 10:00 PM

Tim K. -- Also, FWIW, polls show that your "brilliant" strategy of criticising Obama's willingness to engage in dialogue is not a winner. HRC tried to make a big deal out of this, when it first came up in the debate last year.

Apart from the politics, we need to engage with Iran. Because of the Iraq fiasco, Iran is now a huge problem for us w/ de facto power over swaths of eastern Iraq. They share some interest, however, with us in regional stability. We can't afford not to talk with them, regardless of how odious it's leaders may be.

Posted by John D. | March 3, 2008 10:03 PM

CK MacCleod,

I am happy to agree that if the contests tomorrow show that the dynamic has already changed in the way Clinton needs it to change, then she has a chance. But that would require her to win Ohio and Texas by around 20 points each. A less dramatic "win" in both states is actually consistent with the dynamic up to this point. By the way, once you factor in regionalism, both the Wisconsin primary and the Potomac primaries were predictable (down to Clinton doing better in the Appalachian parts of Maryland, in fact).

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 10:04 PM

John D.:

You call it "opening up a dialogue." Sounds fine, sounds reasonable, sounds nice. It can also be called promising a face-to-face meeting with a holocaust-denying, terrorist-sponsoring theocratic dictator Ahmadinejad who may be pursuing nuclear weapons and wants to wipe Israel off the map. You think that's going to fly in the general election? How about talking to Raul Castro without preconditions? Florida is a critical swing state Obama could be kissing good bye.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 10:13 PM

Igloo,

Again, to catch up in pledged delegates at this late date would require a huge and unprecedented changed in the dynamic. There just aren't enough contests left for anything else to work.

Tim K,

First, neither of us should be relying on intuition. I am relying on the fact that you aren't coming up with new arguments, just slightly more forcefully stated versions of the same old arguments that haven't worked.

Second, I have repeatedly addressed this idea that somehow the superdelegates will save Clinton. If she got the pledged delegate count pretty close, that might well happen. But if the pledged delegate count does not get close, the superdelegates would have to vote for her in overwhelming numbers to make up the deficit--which they have not been doing so far. And as I keep pointing out, there is no more reason to believe the superdelegates will spontaneously reverse themselves and start doing that to believe ordinary voters will spontaneously reverse themselves and start doing that.

So the bottomline remains the same: even including superdelegates, it is just implausible that Clinton can make up her current deficit barring an overwhelming change in the dynamic. So, you have to come up with a plan that would overwhelmingly change the dynamic, and a few more marginal big state wins and some negative ads on the same old themes isn't much of a change strategy.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 10:14 PM

Tim K,

Actually, all indications are that ordinary voters have no problem with the President meeting with our enemies face-to-face. In fact, I would suggest the memory of us doing that in the Cold War days is so strong that most people have a hard time understanding why this is even an issue.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 10:18 PM

DTM:

I disagree... if she is 75 delegates behind Obama in June among pledged delegates, then she only needs a 76 delegate lead among automatic delegates to be the nominee.

I think you're living in fantasy land if you think Jewish voters are fine with the President meeting with Ahmadinejad, or Cuban-Americans in Florida are fine with meeting Raul Castro. That's naive.

Liberals have a long history of being out of touch with ordinary Americans. Ordinary Americans were never supposed to re-elect Richard Nixon over George McGovern in 1972, or elect a former Hollywood actor in 1980, or re-elect George Bush in 2004. Liberals don't have a great track record on predicting the behavior of "ordinary" Americans.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 10:27 PM

Tim K,

First, what makes you think that she will get Obama's pledged delegate lead down to 75, or her superdelegate lead up to 76? Again, it is easy for you to just make up the necessary numbers--you could have said 40 and 41, or 150 and 151, or whatever you wanted to make up so the math would work out. I just want to know if you actually have a plausible plan for getting her the numbers you are making up.

Second, with all due respect, I doubt you are any more qualified to speak on behalf of ordinary Americans than I am. I am working off polls of this issue, which have shown that Democrats overwhelmingly agree with Obama, and also that a plurality of the general electorate agrees with him.

And third, it is not like Clinton hasn't tried to make this an issue already. So, you really are just trying to push a strategy which has already failed.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 10:37 PM

Hillary is making a super comeback, but has the expectations game gotten away from Wolfson and friends? Leading in most polls means that the media will expect another HRC comeback.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | March 3, 2008 10:47 PM

that would require her to win Ohio and Texas by around 20 points each. A less dramatic "win" in both states is actually consistent with the dynamic up to this point. Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 10:04 PM

As to the second point, what you say regarding the dynamic MAY be true from a certain perspective, but if HRC wins OH by, say, 7 points, and TX by 2 points, then it will a) put an end to the overwhelming momentum for BO story, and b) it will show that he hasn't "closed the deal." As for Super-Ds, there is no meaningful trend or dynamic among them, except for a bit of bandwagoning and a reluctance among the already declared to switch their votes. HRC still has more declared SuperDs than BO.

Again, you and other analysts are probably right that she's highly unlikely to close the pledged gap, but, if she's still mathematically in range, and has re-gained momentum and opinion poll leads, then the pressure either to count FL and MI, or to re-vote them will intensify. Again, even if she falls short in the pledged numbers, if she wins those extremely important states, her argument will improve even more. At that point, his lead may rest all or mostly on arguably less-democratic caucus results.

If she takes 3 out of 4 tomorrow by reasonable margins, she can take this through June, and anything can happen. I'm not saying it's likely that she'll come back, just that the possibility is more than negligible, and it doesn't rest on her winning by overwhelming margins.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 3, 2008 11:03 PM

CK MacCleod,

I really think you are not accounting for just how deep a hole Clinton finds herself in, and how little that dependend on momentum. But I guess we shall see.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 11:14 PM

The Harold Ickes impersonators should stop pretending that Obama can't/won't go negative. Rezko is pretty small beer next to an aggressive push on Boratgate, Hsu, or other sleazy dealings, including Bill's post-Monica infidelities.

Posted by some dude | March 3, 2008 11:18 PM

By the way, just some actual numbers:

I believe there are 981 pledged delegates available in the remaining contests. 370 of those are at stake tomorrow.

So, that is why she needs to make up a lot of delegates on Obama tomorrow. There aren't enough delegates at stake afterward, and those later contests are overall not as favorable for Clinton. So if she can't make use of the opportunity she has tomorrow to cut way into Obama's lead, I see little reason to believe she will be able to use the remaining contests to get close.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 11:27 PM

This is great news!!! For Hillary!!!!

Tim K:
"She can whittle down his lead with pledged delegates to a manageable number (say a 40 delegate deficit for example) and the win the remainder with automatic delegates as Obama continues to trip up."

Tim K, please show your work. Where and how does this manifest itself? Do share! i.e. Name me the states and your delegate projections from the remaining contests that would bring Clinton to your dream position. If that's too difficult, or you fear your political acuity might be scoffed at, don't worry... I imagine it already has been, often.

It's amazing, btw, your delicate sensibilities were offended by Sally for her use of a three letter abbreviation and that you'd choose not to engage her rather substantial argument on merits rather than copping out. (FOS, everyone knows, means 'fresh outta sense').

THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!! YEARGHH!!!

Your pal,

II

Posted by idiotic impersonation | March 3, 2008 11:35 PM

This is great news!!! For Hillary!!!!

Tim K:
"She can whittle down his lead with pledged delegates to a manageable number (say a 40 delegate deficit for example) and the win the remainder with automatic delegates as Obama continues to trip up."

Tim K, please show your work. Where and how does this manifest itself? Do share! i.e. Name me the states and your delegate projections from the remaining contests that would bring Clinton to your dream position. If that's too difficult, or you fear your political acuity might be scoffed at, don't worry... I imagine it already has been, often.

It's amazing, btw, your delicate sensibilities were offended by Sally for her use of a three letter abbreviation and that you'd choose not to engage her rather substantial argument on merits rather than copping out. (FOS, everyone knows, means 'fresh outta sense').

THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!! YEARGHH!!!

Your pal,

II

Posted by idiotic impersonation | March 3, 2008 11:37 PM

This is great news!!! For Hillary!!!!

Tim K:
"She can whittle down his lead with pledged delegates to a manageable number (say a 40 delegate deficit for example) and the win the remainder with automatic delegates as Obama continues to trip up."

Tim K, please show your work. Where and how does this manifest itself? Do share! i.e. Name me the states and your delegate projections from the remaining contests that would bring Clinton to your dream position. If that's too difficult, or you fear your political acuity might be scoffed at, don't worry... I imagine it already has been, often.

It's amazing, btw, your delicate sensibilities were offended by Sally for her use of a three letter abbreviation and that you'd choose not to engage her rather substantial argument on merits rather than copping out. (FOS, everyone knows, means 'fresh outta sense').

THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!! YEARGHH!!!

Your pal,

II

Posted by idiotic impersonation | March 3, 2008 11:38 PM

If I understand the Hillary supporters right, the only way she can win this nomination is by claiming a phantom victory tomorrow, getting the gullible media to believe that narrow victories that result in, maybe, a 10 delegate gain for her are more than a phantom victory, getting the superdelegates to believe she has some sort of phantom momentum, claiming that Obama's supporters were actually just phantom voters and not "real Democrats," and then, of course, claiming the Barack Obama is a phantom candidate himself. Stop and think for a moment if this strategy even makes sense.

He cut her superdelegate lead in half since Super Tuesday. If she doesn't blow him out tomorrow, the superdelegates will continue to trickle to him. TX and OH are demographically pro-Hillary states (which is why she led by more than 20 points two weeks ago there) and Obama will have made a close race of both. He is winning over her base. She is not winning over his. The superdelegates are the only ones who can convince Hillary to drop out before taking the campaign to Pennsylvania and beyond. Bill Richardson even said he would support the candidate leading among delegates after March 4. He isn't alone. Barring an implosion, the superdelegates will look to close this out. And blowout wins in WY and MS will erase any delegate gains from March anyway.

Hillary Clinton has no plausible path to the nomination anymore. She blew it on Super Tuesday. The party should recognize this and start to repair the base and consolidate support for Obama after a vicious campaign.

Posted by Elrod | March 3, 2008 11:40 PM

This is great news!!! For Hillary!!!!

Tim K:
"She can whittle down his lead with pledged delegates to a manageable number (say a 40 delegate deficit for example) and the win the remainder with automatic delegates as Obama continues to trip up."

Tim K, please show your work. Where and how does this manifest itself? Do share! i.e. Name me the states and your delegate projections from the remaining contests that would bring Clinton to your dream position. If that's too difficult, or you fear your political acuity might be scoffed at, don't worry... I imagine it already has been, often.

It's amazing, btw, your delicate sensibilities were offended by Sally for her use of a three letter abbreviation and that you'd choose not to engage her rather substantial argument on merits rather than copping out. (FOS, everyone knows, means 'fresh outta sense').

THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!! YEARGHH!!!

Your pal,

II

Posted by idiotic impersonation | March 3, 2008 11:40 PM

This is great news!!! For Hillary!!!!

Tim K:
"She can whittle down his lead with pledged delegates to a manageable number (say a 40 delegate deficit for example) and the win the remainder with automatic delegates as Obama continues to trip up."

Tim K, please show your work. Where and how does this manifest itself? Do share! i.e. Name me the states and your delegate projections from the remaining contests that would bring Clinton to your dream position. If that's too difficult, or you fear your political acuity might be scoffed at, don't worry... I imagine it already has been, often.

It's amazing, btw, your delicate sensibilities were offended by Sally for her use of a three letter abbreviation and that you'd choose not to engage her rather substantial argument on merits rather than copping out. (FOS, everyone knows, means 'fresh outta sense').

THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!! YEARGHH!!!

Your pal,

II

Posted by idiotic impersonation | March 3, 2008 11:41 PM

This is great news!!! For Hillary!!!!

Tim K:
"She can whittle down his lead with pledged delegates to a manageable number (say a 40 delegate deficit for example) and the win the remainder with automatic delegates as Obama continues to trip up."

Tim K, please show your work. Where and how does this manifest itself? Do share! i.e. Name me the states and your delegate projections from the remaining contests that would bring Clinton to your dream position. If that's too difficult, or you fear your political acuity might be scoffed at, don't worry... I imagine it already has been, often.

It's amazing, btw, your delicate sensibilities were offended by Sally for her use of a three letter abbreviation and that you'd choose not to engage her rather substantial argument on merits rather than copping out. (FOS, everyone knows, means 'fresh outta sense').

THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!! YEARGHH!!!

Your pal,

II

Posted by idiotic impersonation | March 3, 2008 11:43 PM

This is great news!!! For Hillary!!!!

Tim K:
"She can whittle down his lead with pledged delegates to a manageable number (say a 40 delegate deficit for example) and the win the remainder with automatic delegates as Obama continues to trip up."

Tim K, please show your work. Where and how does this manifest itself? Do share! i.e. Name me the states and your delegate projections from the remaining contests that would bring Clinton to your dream position. If that's too difficult, or you fear your political acuity might be scoffed at, don't worry... I imagine it already has been, often.

It's amazing, btw, your delicate sensibilities were offended by Sally for her use of a three letter abbreviation and that you'd choose not to engage her rather substantial argument on merits rather than copping out. (FOS, everyone knows, means 'fresh outta sense').

THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY!!! YEARGHH!!!

Your pal,

II

Posted by idiotic impersonation | March 3, 2008 11:46 PM

I blame the server for the above repetition. Sorry folks, I only meant to call out the ridiculousness once.

Posted by idiotic impersonation | March 3, 2008 11:50 PM

If Hillary continues her negative attacks, and they prove to have worked for her in Ohio and Texas, then Obama will have no choice but to go negative on her back.

The chutzpah of Hillary to cry about Rezko... unbelievable, really -- it belongs in the chutzpah hall of fame. President Clinton's sleazy pardons at the end of his presidency, alone, trump anything Obama has ever even dreamed of doing. Obama will really need to spell out for voters the kind of amoral creatures the Clintons often are, so they're clear about just who they'd be putting back in power.

Such negativity won't be a good thing for the Democratic party, but Clinton certainly will deserve it.

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 3, 2008 11:56 PM

Well it's wonderful to see fanatical Obama supporters are filibustering against negative comments.

On the subject of public opinion and this issue of unconditional meetings with certain leaders of states of concern, the devil is always in the details. A poll in an information vacuum - before all the arguments have been made by both sides and the issue has risen in the public consciousness - and expect to get an accurate reading.

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 12:20 AM

Ban Johnson:

What a ludicrous remark. As if Barack Obama has run some kind of laudably positive campaign. Are you blind, deaf and dumb? Calling people divisive, dishonest, will say anything to get elected, calculating, can't win over your supporters, distorting their views on NAFTA, accusing them of racism... that's not a positive campaign.

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 12:23 AM

http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1062a1TheDemocraticRace.pdf

That's a link to a new ABCnews/Washington Post poll. Allow me to summarize it for you all.

It asked if Hillary Clinton wins either Ohio or Texas tomorrow but loses the other, should she stay in the race or drop out?

67% of Democrats say stay in, 29% say drop out.

It also asks whether she should stay in even if she loses BOTH Texas and Ohio.

45% say to stay in, 51% say to drop out.

Even after 11 straight wins by Obama he only leads Clinton by 7 points (50-43%) in this latest poll,

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 12:28 AM

Tomorrow we have primaries in Ohio and Texas, as well as Rhode Island and Vermont. The MSM, most polls, and the conventional wisdom predict an Obama sweep of Vermont, Clinton holding onto Rhode Island, Obama eking by in Texas, and Clinton taking a close-but-still decisive win in Ohio. This likely divided result does not bode well for Obama's campaign, or, more importantly, the Democratic Party. But more on that in a minute.

Suppose things go another way, and the senator from Illinois has a great day tomorrow, winning not just Texas and Vermont, but the great blue-collar prize Ohio. Oh, what the hell, Rhode Island would be nice, too. If Obama can scrape by with wins in both of the big states tomorrow, I believe the nomination fight could be over. The media will pile on Clinton to drop out, superdelegates will start to shift en masse to Barack, and divisions within her campaign may stretch from existing cracks to Lois Lane devouring fault lines.

I don't believe Senator Obama has to win both of the big states by big margins for this scenario to come to fruition. If he wins both Ohio and Texas at all, I believe it's over for Clinton, and that she'll likely be out of the race by the end of the week.

Let's countenance the opposite, and say that Clinton wins everything tomorrow except for Vermont (she's not going to win Vermont even under the best of circumstances). Flush with $35 million in donations from last month, this campaign is going to claim the following: 1) she has regained the momentum; 2) she is the new frontrunner; 3) she is the new frontrunner despite being behind in delegates, because she has won BIG STATES, and Obama has apparently won little wimpy ones.

This is a recurring theme for the Clinton campaign, one they have been pushing ever since Super Tuesday, with increasing urgency after having lost the last eleven straight contests. Obama only wins small, reddish states like Idaho, Nebraska, and Alaska; Clinton wins big, true blue states like California, New York, and New Jersey. Never mind that Obama has also won large, densely populated states like Missouri, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Washington—these little pissers named Delaware, North Dakota, Maine, and Hawaii have clearly spoiled the barrel.

So a trifecta tomorrow for Clinton, despite the delegate math still clearly against her even with these wins, would guarantee that the NY senator carries on to Pennsylvania, where Ed Rendell waits with open arms, racist musings, and promising poll numbers.

Back to my opening paragraph: an Ohio/Texas split is the most likely scenario. It is the one that guarantees that while all the odds and indicators are stacked against Clinton, the moral victory of taking Ohio will prove too much for her to drop out. So while the delegate count will still be stacked against her, she will likely assume that if she can win Ohio, she can win the next, demographically-similar BIG STATE: Pennsylvania. When does that contest take place? On Tuesday, April 22: exactly seven weeks from tomorrow's supposedly "decisive" primary elections.

That's seven more weeks of Clinton being behind in pledged delegates, and losing super delegates, but still retaining some level of self-appointed viability. Seven weeks of continued character assassination of Barack Obama. Seven weeks of Clinton waving the bloody shirt of Florida and Michigan.

Seven weeks of John McCain and a united GOP campaigning against the Democrats, while the Democrats campaign with increasingly bitter, trench warfare tactics against each other.

So, no, I'm not really looking forward to tomorrow. I seriously doubt the outcome will be decisive in any way. And that's a bad thing for Obama, the Democratic Party, and the country's prospects of digging out of this hole anytime soon

Posted by Will | March 4, 2008 12:36 AM

That poll also shows Obama beating her 53-42 among Democracts. He's behind (!) among independents. Sure you want to hang your hat on it?

Posted by some dude | March 4, 2008 12:38 AM

Q: Using very modest projections if one adds up MS, OR and NC to Obama's delegate lead it reaches the number of 185 http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/4/01152/40974/481/468350

What's the pledged delegate lead Hillary needs to tie the delegate race:

A: About 74-26%

Q: What states has Hillary won by that margin?

A: Only her home state of Arkansas.

Posted by Yiannis | March 4, 2008 12:47 AM

Will:

For a second there I thought your post was going to be a thoughtful, thought-provoking contribution, until you started using slanted phrases like "character assassination" and "self-appointed viability."

As a Clinton supporter, as long as I see a path to the nomination for her (and I do) I would advocate her staying in the race. I think Barack Obama has the potential to be a total disaster as a nominee and as president. If he loses the election that will not assist America in digging itself out of any hole. Nor will it help America if he a leads a Carter-esque administration that gets is so inept, confused and scattered that it not only sees its domestic agenda stalled and going nowhere but becomes unable to confront America's great foreign policy challenges. I see both of those scenarios less likely under a Senator Clinton as Democratic nominee and a President Clinton in the Oval Office. As long as I and other Clinton supporters feel she will make the best nominee and president why would we want the race to end prematurely in March?

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 12:49 AM

Tim:

I appreciate your response. Obviously, I'm an Obama partisan. But, if you can give me any credit, it's that I don't don rose-colored glasses when it comes to the hard math of elections. Tomorrow looks like a pretty good day for your candidate.

My view is that Sen. Obama is the more electable candidate, the more progressive candidate, and those two reasons alone are more than enough for me to support him. Those two reasons are also why I believe tomorrow will be a bad day for the Democratic Party.

Posted by Will | March 4, 2008 1:03 AM

Here is a very interesting survey from the respected Pew poll.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1254

One highlight is while independents clearly favor Obama over Clinton relative to McCain in a general election match-up at this juncture, Democrats favor Clinton. Obama loses significantly more Democrats to McCain than Clinton would, and a very significant number of Democratic women.

Another highlight is that Obama would loses amongst Democrats with more conservative views on foreign policy, who believe Obama is not tough enough.

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 1:07 AM

Will:

I have serious doubts about Obama's electability. If the general election were held within the next month I believe Barack Obama would fair better against McCain than Hillary Clinton by a few percentage points. The problem that I see is that the election is obviously not going to be until November. I see perceptions of Hillary Clinton as remaining relatively static... her favorable/unfavorable rating is going to remain roughly where it is now, with about half of the voters having a positive impression, and about half having a negative impression. There isn't much that can be said or written about her that hasn't already been said or written. That cannot be said for Senator Obama. Considering the his victories and the positive tone of the press coverage that has surrounded his campaign, it's unlikely that things will get any better for him. There will be negative ads, scandals, mistakes and missteps, viral videos, rumors, and all of the rest. His unfavorables are certain to rise while his favorables are certain to lower. John McCain could see a similar thing happen, but again, it's less likely for him because her is better known. Maybe Obama will be able to withstand the attacks that are going to be coming his way, but I have serious doubts.

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 1:17 AM

Tim K,

Let me ask you one question. Do you really think that the super delegates will give the nomination to Clinton if Obama has more pledged delegates at the time of the convention? It just doesn't seem like the way that Democrats play ball. And if they did give it to Clinton, you would have to expect that turnout in regards to younger voters is going to slide in the general. You seem entirely convinced of Sen. Obama's inability to win a general, but you don't tell me how she will unify the party if the Super delegates take the nomination away from Obama. Sen. McCain is not seen as an impossible alternative to most moderate Democrats. I sincerely believe that id the super delegates do not ratify the will of the pledged delegates we would be handing the general to the Republicans.

Posted by Kobe Berg | March 4, 2008 2:32 AM

[if] the super delegates do not ratify the will of the pledged delegates we would be handing the general to the Republicans.

I find this to be the main point, and probably accurate. After tomorrow, we will see some projections of Clinton's needed margins of victory in the remaining states to close the pledged delegate margin, or at least reduce to a certain "manageable" number, as Tim K. has wishfully done (40). Those margins will be extremely imposing.

Look for the mainstream media to not know what the hell to do if the expected state split occurs tomorrow.

Posted by biwah | March 4, 2008 2:53 AM

If the Clintons win two of four tomorrow, they can stay in. But the party has to take charge and demand they stop with the baseless Rovarian attacks or the party will pull the plug.

Continuing the shrill desperation they have shown this past couple weeks will ensure the party split in two no matter who the nominee is and most assuredly ensure a McCain win in the fall.

Lay out the issues and campaign on them truthfully. Bald faced lies and Rovarian scare and smear are not going to garner them enough in the primary to win decisively and will make sure the new coalition will stay home or vote McCain in the fall.

That's not a threat, it's the dang truth.

Posted by G Davis | March 4, 2008 2:54 AM

Tim K,

Someone mentioned it above, but I have to iterate the point that your use of the phrase "automatic delegates" is not doing you any favors. Do you think there's some subliminal benefit to it? I assure you it is not more persuasive.

Posted by jiminyjilliker | March 4, 2008 2:55 AM

I suggest you read an article available at realclearpolitics.com by Jay Cost entitled "Clinton's moral claim to the nomination."

If she can narrow Obama's pledged delegate lead and take a popular vote lead by including the results from Florida then she can make a claim as the legitimate choice of most Democratic voters.

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 3:07 AM

jiminy:

The first mistake anyone can make during a political argument is to allow your opponents to define the terms of the debate and its language.

Super-delegates is the term you use so that's enough reason for me to refrain from using it myself.

In point of fact the correct terminology is Party Leaders and Elected Officials (PLEOs).

If you'd prefer I use the correct terminology I would be happy to, and would invite you to do the same.

Party Leaders and Elected Officials it is.

Posted by Tim K | March 4, 2008 3:12 AM

I don't know what it is about this concept that you fail to understand, but Clinton doesn't need to have a pledged delegate lead in order to be nominated.

It's not just him, either. I haven't seen a single reporter, analyst, or pundit genuinely grasp this reality--or at least admit to it, which is a different issue.

Ambinder is wrong when he says that Obama is up among Democrats. He's up among total primary voters, but that's not at all the same thing. Even if you think my analysis of the exit polls is off, there's no question that Obama's lead (if he has one) among Democrats is considerably smaller. The fact that 67% of Democrats think Clinton should stay in even if she loses one of the two big states is pretty bad news for Obama, as it suggests a substantial number of Democrats are unconvinced.

Do you really think that the super delegates will give the nomination to Clinton if Obama has more pledged delegates at the time of the convention? It just doesn't seem like the way that Democrats play ball.

That's precisely what the superdelegates are for. Clinton has an outstanding argument for electability. The very idea that the superdelegates are being asked to support a candidate that can't demonstrate he's won the base would normally be an absurd premise. The delicate issue of his strong support among blacks makes it difficult to bring this up--but the Democrats should point out that a candidate who can't win the base almost certainly can't win the election.

I just love the argument that Obama only leads in votes due to independents and Republicans being willing to vote for him. Like it's a bad thing to have support outside the party.

There's absolutely no evidence that the support stays constant, and plenty of evidence that it doesn't. Again, that support without the base is not much to hang a nomination on.

As for voting coalitions remaining stable, obviously there have been shifts. Without them, Obama would never have had broken out in Wisconsin, and would have had much smaller margins around the Potomac primaries.

This is incorrect. The demographics of this race have remain unchanged. He won Wisconsin by a large margin because one in three voters was independent/Republican, and won the Democrat vote narrowly because of the larger than usual youth vote and (even though it's a predominantly white state) the 5% black vote carried him over. Clinton won white Democrats in Wisconsin, which means that all the talk of Obama "winning" downscale voters comes from the third of the Republicans/independents who voted--which is not the same thing.

He won Virginia by a large margin because of the substantial black vote and a 25% independent/Republican presence.

I'm not saying this negates his victories; the point is that he has made no progress in convincing new voters. Even Texas is close because independents and Republicans are expected to be 30% of the voters.

Posted by Cal | March 4, 2008 3:39 AM

Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric.

"I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she said. "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."
Can we finally dispense with the idea...

...that Hillary Clinton is a good and loyal Democrat?

Posted by Kathy Millet | March 4, 2008 6:28 AM

Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric.

"I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she said. "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

Can we finally dispense with the idea...

...that Hillary Clinton is a good and loyal Democrat?

Posted by Kathy Millet | March 4, 2008 6:28 AM

Tim K:

You are one of the most obstinate, pedantic, tedious assholes I (and my guess is that this applies to most on this board) have ever come across. The heights of your blather evidently know no bounds. When the Clintons are eventually forced to pull out of the race, will you finally STFU with your bullshit and go back to your parent's basement?

Just wondering...

Posted by Melba Jones | March 4, 2008 6:59 AM

One of the interesting things about this primary contest has been how people are slowly (very slowly, admittedly) figuring out the math as the delegate counts mount.

So, here is a little prediction. Assuming the polls are roughly accurate tonight, Clinton may net a slight advantage in delegates (but perhaps only without including the Texas caucus portion). As people look at the resulting effects on the delegate counts, it will start becoming pretty obvious why that wasn't enough for her to create the proverbial "path to the nomination".

But as we saw above, without giving details, Clinton supporters will also claim that "momentum" will create that path. This claim will be tested on March 8 and March 11, as Wyoming and then Mississippi vote. If Clinton is not competitive in those states (meaning at least keeping it close in delegates), I think it will become obvious to people that whatever "momentum" she got tonight is also not going to be enough to create a path to the nomination.

Which would leave the superdelegates as her only hope (a point they have more or less admitted already). We have already seen this hope eroding ever since Super Tuesday as Obama has closed the gap in the superdelegate tallies. If that trend continues after March 11, it will mean an expanding lead for him in the headline delegate counts used by the media. And it will again become increasingly obvious to people that Clinton needs more than an electability argument that will persuade some superdelegates to back her. She will need an electability argument that can persuade the vast majority of superdelegates to back her, all despite Obama actually beating her in most of these elections and Clinton clearly benefiting from working with a primary electorate rather than the general electorate. And she has yet to come up with such an argument.

And that is more or less how I predict things will stand as we enter the long period before Pennsylvania. I would also expect Clinton to keep making new versions of her same old arguments: winning Pennsylvania will save her (even though first Super Tuesday, and then Ohio and Texas, did not), or maybe the momentum after Pennsylvania will save her (even though it didn't after Super Tuesday, or Ohio and Texas), or if all else fails maybe the superdelegates will save her (even though they didn't after Super Tuesday, or Ohio and Texas). I just think at that point, most people will realize there is no reason to expect any of that to happen, and in any event that Obama has built up too much of a lead for her to catch him even if she does change the dynamic a bit.

But we shall see.

Posted by DTM | March 4, 2008 8:13 AM

Hurray for Tim K. Keep it up.

Posted by Michael C. | March 4, 2008 8:15 AM

Hurray for Tim K. Keep it up.

I love his asshole-pundit credentials!

Posted by Michael C. | March 4, 2008 8:34 AM

By the way, I had previously read Jay Cost's article and e-mailed him a brief comment. As I noted in that e-mail, his article was flawed by the fact it didn't go into the details of exactly how compelling an argument Clinton would need with the superdelegates if Obama maintains or grows his advantage with the pledged delegates. As I noted previously here, that is also one of the basic problems with the analysis offered by the Clinton supporters above: when they talk about Clinton persuading superdelegates, they tend to omit any sense of exactly how overwhelmingly Clinton will likely need the superdelegates to support her--just winning them by a small percentage will not be enough.

That omitted bit of analysis has at least two implications. First, it makes this whole notion pretty implausible: only about 55% of the superdelegates so far are supporting Clinton. If the pledged delegate count continues on the current track, she would likely need that number to be much higher, and instead it has been steadily shrinking ever since the primary results started coming in. That is the basic problem with this whole idea of the superdelegates saving Clinton: the pledged delegates are just too numerous to get outvoted by the superdelegates unless the pledged delegate difference is very small.

Second, even if for some reason the superdelegates did decide to vote overwhelmingly for Clinton, in such a case it would be very obvious that the superdelegates were not acting as tie-breakers, but rather overruling the pledged delegates. As many have pointed out, absent a truly compelling reason for them to do that (meaning a reason not just Clinton supporters but also Obama supporters would recognize as compelling), nominating Clinton under such circumstances would be political suicide for the Party. So even if their natural inclination would be to vote for Clinton in overwhelming numberrs (and again there is no reason to believe that is true), it is quite likely they will refrain from doing so in the interests of the Party.

So that is why it is highly unlikely that the superdelegates will save Clinton, unless she can bring Obama's pledged delegate advantage way, way down. And again, she is simply running out of opportunities to do that, and her best remaining opportunity is tonight. So if she fails to significantly reduce Obama's lead tonight, then she really is just going to be waiting for a miracle to intervene on her behalf (because she will have failed to win the nomination on her own).

Posted by DTM | March 4, 2008 8:50 AM

DTM - You are correct. Hillary MAY (but not likely) pick up a few delegates tonight. After next week, people will see yet again that there is NO SUCH THING AS MOMENTUM in this race. Obama will be ahead by conservatively 180 pledged delegates.

That number is not going to be very much different at the end of April (-10) or at the end of May (back to 180).

The Party (including the Superdelegates) can allow it to play out for three months and fight over MI and FLA, and fight over caucus results, and allow a lot of negative messages to fill the airways or it can say in a race with two closely matched candidates 180 pledged delegates is a significant lead which would be destructive to our party and to our process to negate. And therefore, go with Obama.

They will have all the information they need to make that decision on March 12th. And I suspect many many will.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 4, 2008 8:54 AM

I'll admit the Clinton camp has done an excellent job of moving the goalposts. By retreating all the way to a narrow win (or even loss) in Rhode Island over the weekend as the new definition of victory, the renewed "whiff of momentum" seems like going forward, rather than highlighting that in "ancient times" (aka 2 weeks ago) her campaign was promising decisive, deleage-gap closing wins in OH and TX. And, as Marc points out, no matter where the goals shift, there's an existential reality of pledged delegates. Close that up to 10, and I'll admit she would have a shot at the nomination. (Though it should still go with the winner. Wasn't ready....didn't know the race would go on....just getting warmed up....not the words of a proven winner.)

I'm an independent. I vote in the primaries only when there's a candidate I think is particularly strong (this year) or one so awful I want to vote against them (Bush in 2000). The idea of open primaries is to judge crossover appeal and encourage outside interest, always useful in the general election. If the party has actually thrown up a candidate (for pres, gov, whatever) I notice and like in the primary, that's a really good sign. Doesn't happen often. But if Obama couldn't win on pledged delegates, I'd expect him to get out of the race. (I liked Biden and Richarson a lot, but they were gone before I could vote for them, bowing to reality.)

I haven't seen much indication that the superdelegates are eager to overturn the voters' will, except for Mr. Schaumer and Mr. Ickes. The various trials of that balloon (along with swiping pledged delegates) haven't floated well. The DNC has also clearly said they don't want a fight that goes all the way to the convention. When there are six candidates, that's very exciting. Everyone knows their candidate only has 15-30% of the vote and there's going to be a lot of dealing and multiple ballots. When there are 2 candidates, one already winning and one losing, the drama is high but the reasons for fighting it out evident only to the Republicans watching.

Posted by Deborah | March 4, 2008 9:09 AM

Again, just a few actual numbers:

There are about 800 superdelegates. To negate Obama's current pledged delegate lead of about 160, that means Clinton would need a 20% advantage among the superdelegates to overcome his lead. As noted, her current superdelegate advantage is more like 10%, and steadily shrinking.

To turn that analysis around, very charitably assuming that Clinton can hold onto her 10% superdelegate lead as the remaining superdelegates commit, she could maybe make up as much as an 80 pledged delegate deficit. But that would require her to cut Obama's pledged delegate lead in half, with only the remaining contests to work with. Due to the lineup of remaining states, that becomes wildly implausible unless she does most of that work tonight.

So, I'd say she needs to come out of tonight and next week (including the caucus part of Texas) having cut Obama's lead by at least 60 or so delegates, which would at least get Obama's lead back under 100. Anything less than that and she doesn't have a plausible path to the nomination, no matter what her supporters may claim. And to be clear, even if she gets that net of 60 delegates, she will probably still lose the nomination. But at least she would have a distant hope.

Posted by DTM | March 4, 2008 9:22 AM

On superdelegates, when we first started examining their role back in January, it was explained that an activist segment of the party could put forward a candidate who was unelectable, who couldn't appeal to independents or republicans, but could garner a narrow lead in pledged delegates. The supers would overthrow this to put forward someone who could win in the general.

Clinton was the choice of around 40-45% of democrats when this race started, and she's still right there. When she campaigns, that number doesn't appreciably rise. Sometimes it falls. In TX and OH she started with substantial leads which have whittled away. She doesn't appeal to independents, republicans, or a large segment of the base--see those high and steady negative ratings.

She is the candidate the superdelegates have been waiting for.

Incidentally, even with the argument above, if she were winning by a majority of pledged delegates, after competing by the rules in place when the contest started (i.e. winning elections, a good trait in a candidate), I wouldn't expect the supers to throw her over for Obama. It'd be too divisive, suggesting the party elders, many of them running this year, think elections are shams and the superdelegates understand what the silly voters really want--Ickes is actually making this argument, but unsuccessfully. I like Obama, but I like fair play more. However, no one has put forth an argument for how she's going to pull ahead in pledged delegates--Tubbs Jones ducked that question hard yesterday--so it's a moot point.

Posted by Deborah | March 4, 2008 9:26 AM

Hey, what gives? Only one Agbot post! We need more of this spot on humorist. I haven't had this many laughs since the National Lampoons of the 70's.

The Party Faithful indeed!

Posted by Fred Agbot fan | March 4, 2008 10:03 AM

Hey, what gives? Only one Agbot post! We need more of this spot on humorist.

Agreed, but you always have Tim K to fall back upon.

Posted by Dorothy | March 4, 2008 10:08 AM

If Hillary wins Ohio or Texas she has every right to stay in the race. If she is pressured to quit by "party leaders" there are a lot of Democrats (like me!) who will stay home on Election Day.

It's most unfortunate that Obama chose this election year to run. Aside from his lack of experience and accomplishment, he is running against a woman whose women supporters are emotionally involved in her success. Had he not entered the race, African-American voters would be one of her most loyal constituencies and she would have won the nomination (and the election) easily. As it is, the party is now split, which lowers the prospects for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

I wish Obama had completed his first term in the Senate, gained more impressive credentials and started his campaign for the White House for the election of 2012 or 2016. Now, if he loses either the nomination or the election his hopes of sitting in the Oval Office are probably gone forever. The Democratic Party, unlike the Republicans, don't give losers a second chance since Adlai Stevenson ran and lost twice.

Posted by myskylark | March 4, 2008 10:14 AM

The arrogance of Clinton supports - no one should dare run against Hillary - she is so far superior to any candidate. And anyone who succeeds against her has soiled it for everyone. Does Hillary have any cross over appeal or does she just appeal to women who are "emotionally invested" in her?

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 4, 2008 10:25 AM

Count me as a loyal Democrat who'll be voting Green if Hillary gets the nomination. Instead of running on her own record, she's turned whiny and negative, bemoaning her poor press and hitting Obama below the belt. It started with the plagiarism charge and continued from there. Plus, she keeps lowering the bar and threatening to take legal actions to seat Michigan and Florida, long after she agreed to the ground rules about those delegations. Her win-at-any-cost tactics have left a bitter taste in my mouth

Quite frankly, I also don't see how she wins on the experience question unless she counts Bill's experience. He was the one who answered the phone at 3 a.m.; she didn't have the security clearance necessary. Her main claim to foreign policy fame--she gave a speech in China. A speech? Funny, isn't that her main criticism of Obama--that he's all words, no action. Meanwhile, what has she done with her Senate position, the position she only won because she was Bill's wife? What major legislation has she passed?

Clinton will do whatever it takes to win this nomination, even if its sleazy, dishonest, and ruthless. And once she wins, it won't be worth much.

Posted by mbtogut | March 4, 2008 10:41 AM

Does Hillary have any cross over appeal or does she just appeal to women who are "emotionally invested" in her?

You also have castrated softies like Tim K.

Posted by Bubba | March 4, 2008 10:42 AM

myskylark, time to move on with this nonsense experience no brainer. If you're old enough, tell me, what precise experience did Kennedy have when he won the Presidency at the age of 42? Yes, age 42. And what precise elective office experience does Hillary Clinton have beside just over five years in the Senate? Here's news for you and all the ignorant others like you out there: the nation's greatest president Abraham Lincoln had exactly 6 years experience in the Illinois lower house and 2 years in Congress. Yes. 6 years in the Illinois House of Reps. 2 years in Congress. Period. Never lived abroad. Never fought in a war. Never held office in Washington or anywhere else. Opposed war with Britain. Opposed war with Mexico. But he turned out to be a great war president and saved the Union. Got that? Now compare him with hise fellow Illinois lawyer and legislator, Obama. Obama had 8 years in the Illinois upper house (to Lincoln's 6 years in the lower house) and now has 3 years in the Senate (to Lincoln's 2 years in Congress). Are you following, myskylark? Like Lincoln opposed war with Mexico (and his Defence Secretary's call for war with Britain), Obama opposed war with Iraq and will do his best to avoid war with Iran. And like Lincoln turned out to be a great war president without being a war hero himself (or being a first lady answering the phone at 3:00am fully dressed with jewellery and make-up), Obama will be a great war president. Lincoln did not need to have been in Washington for 8 or 35 years in order to be the nation's greatest president. And Obama, who has now garnered more legislative experience than Lincoln had, does not need to have lived in the White House for 8 years (or "served out his first term in the senate": what nonsense!) in order to be a great President. Like Lincoln he has the foresight and sound judgment to know what war is worth fighting and what is not, the courage to reach out across the aisle and work with all Americans irrespective of party affiliation, and the integrity and intelligence to understand that the Presidency is not an entitlement but a duty post. Now, drop that "experience" BS and get a life.

Posted by Bruce | March 4, 2008 10:54 AM

Comparing Barack to Abe on the basis of experience is actually kind of funny. Maybe after a couple of bhong hits, it's impressive. The differences between the office of the Presidency and the US itself ca. 2008 vs. 1860 aren't just substantial, they're astronomical. Anyway, saying that Barack Obama is only the least qualified serious presidential candidate in the last 150 years, rather than the least-qualified ever, isn't a high recommendation.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 4, 2008 11:59 AM

Marc,
Sounds like a paraphrase of an infamous Clintonian parsing: It depends on the what the definition of “win” is. Truly, what exactly does it mean to “win” in the byzantine undemocratic process that is the Texas primary/caucus? IMO, in this context, the popular vote in Texas is the sole determinant of victory. Not delegates and not caucus results.

Here is where your analysis is wrong and you and mot Obama supporters are completely missing the boat. As long as she wins the popular vote The Story stays intact. The Story is all that matters to her campaign now. The Story that Clinton wins all the big states except Illinois. The Story that momentum has shifted. The Story that Hillary Clinton is the new “comeback kid“. The Story is all that is needed to provide political cover for the superdelegates to vote for Clinton at the convention. Even a 200 elected delegate lead for Obama is the equivalent of a dead even tie, as long as The Story is intact.

Posted by mw | March 4, 2008 12:40 PM

mw,

What makes you think there are not at least 300 superdelegates (out of the 800) who would just as soon be inclined to vote for Obama? Because if he is ahead by 200 pledged delegates, that is all he needs.

Again, the premise of all this is that somehow the superdelegates are itching to vote for Clinton in overwhelming numbers, and they just need the thinnest possible cover. But the evidence is quite to the contrary.

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

Tim K:

That's a pretty nonsensical argument. The term "superdelegate" was the one in wide use, even by the Clinton campaign, until late January.

You're right that one should not cede language, but trying to get it back after already having ceded it looks so foolish that it should only be attempted when there is significant benefit to be gained. And there is no benefit to be gained even if everybody starts calling them "automatic delegates" or even "PLEOs."

It reminds me of Republicans shifting a few years ago very consciously and obviously to using the word "Democrat" rather than "Democratic." It was just baffling because it's hard to see what it accomplishes.

Posted by jiminy jilliker | March 4, 2008 12:59 PM

DTM, The superdelegates are interested in one thing - winning the election in November. If Clinton can present an argument that the best ticket to win in November is Clinton/Obama - the superdelegates will indeed support that ticket in overwhelming numbers.

Posted by mw | March 4, 2008 1:13 PM

mw, that's an interesting argument about a joint ticket but it is a fallacy, also. Particularly for the reason that a Clinton/Obama ticket is impossible. Absolute zero chance. Obama will not accept a vice presidency under Clinton. His non-traditional-Democratic constituency will not accept it (and by this I mean new Democrats, generally unaffiliated voters, Independents, temporary Republican rebels etc). There will be a sea change with super delegates this week depending on what happens today. Given that a sizeable number of superdelegates are worried--in fact angry--over the tone that the campaign has taken (Bill Richardson is an example), if Obama is able to keep his delegate lead today, many of them will say, well, he may not have won all of the big states but he has won some big states and some key states that Democrats need to win in November, and he has won the majority of states from New England to the West Coast, in the North as well as Deep South, from the beltway to the Mid-West, and he has held his own with pledged delegates. To avoid further acrimony within the party and stem Senator Clinton's leaning toward damaging negatice tactics, they'll break for Obama. That will hardly be enough to instantly put him over the required number, but if a sizeable majority of the remaining superdelegates break for him, that reduces Senator Clinton's chances of making up, and the game will be called. Remember, she has not received a single new superdelegate endorsement since Obama's beltway victories, in fact, she's lost quite a few instead while he has gained almost 30 since then. Brokaw reports another 50 waiting to declare soon if he holds unto his lead in delegates today. That will put him ahead of her in terms of both superdelegates and pledged delegates. And most news outlets believe his campaign will announce an astonishing $50m + grassroots fundraising haul for February, all of which will argue for rallying around him as the front-runner. No doubt a good number of superdelegates will make a counter argument and stick with Senator Clinton, but once the sign is clear which direction the party is going, many of the current arguments about Michigan and Florida etc will be moot. I believe that some compromise will be worked out regarding Michigan and Florida, but it will not necessarily benefit Senator Clinton and that's why her campaign has officially opposed (as of this moment) Governor Crist's offer to schedule a new primary. Yet, we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. In less than 12 hours, it'll all be clear as daylight.

Posted by Bruce | March 4, 2008 2:04 PM

Funny, CK McCleod, the problem with people like you who don't read their history is that it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you. You read the tabloids and you make up your mind and that's it. To say that Obama is the least qualified candidate for the Presidency in 150 years (whatever you mean by 'qualified') is not only stupid nonsense, it also shows you didn't actually fact-check the analogy with Lincoln. You're afraid to because you might find out that it is true. Of all the candidates now running for the Presidency, Obama is the only one who actually has a degree in foreign relations. What are Senator McCain's or Senator Clinton's 'qualifications' for the Presidency? Folks like you are the reason this country is going south: caught in a recession, caught in a useless war, caught in a multi-trillion dollar deficit, caught in a system that rewards mediocrity when we should in fact be leading the rest of the world. Too bad.

Posted by bruce | March 4, 2008 5:57 PM

mw,

As another poster noted, Obama will very likely not agree to take the VP slot, unless perhaps Clinton actually beats him among the pledged delegates.

In general, obviously Clinton will present her electability arguments, and Obama will present his. The question is whether enough of the superdelegates will believe that Clinton's arguments are the better ones, and so far that appears to not be the case. And again, unless she dramatically closes the pledged delegate gap, she will need to not only persuade an overwhelming number of superdelegates she is more electable in theory, but also persuade them that her electability arguments aren't outweighed by the obvious electoral downsides of nominating the person who lost the pledged delegate contest (in addition to Obama's other electability arguments).

But we shall see.

Posted by DTM | March 4, 2008 6:04 PM

Existential Realities Of The Democratic Race

Comments (134)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives