The Bowers Scenario

Chris Bowers makes a fair case for why Hillary Clinton ought to drop out if she loses Indiana and North Carolina. Bowers urges readers to make this idea the normative Dem position going forward.

Here is the "but."

As a matter of strategy, so long as the superdelegate option is available to Clinton and so long as the earned delegate/popular vote disparity is close, she will probably avail herself of the argument. So the counter to this would be to get the superdelegates off the fence -- perhaps the next project of the Democratic netroots.

My other sense is that the other vulnerable spot for the Clinton campaign is the sense that Bill's legacy and Hillary's Senate future are perilously close to being driven by factors out of her control.

Can you imagine, or envision, a Democratic/Netroots' based Senate challenge to Clinton in four years?

Incidentally, if Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, then what? The party is already employing a version of the Mondale argument -- he went into the convention losing primaries in 1984 -- as if that was among the main reasons why Ronald Reagan beat him so soundly in the fall. I doubt that argument will work later.

Comments

This is turning into one of the longest weeks of the campaign...imagine what next week and the week after will be like. Nothing good will come of this if it goes on for the next 6, 8, 12 weeks.

Posted by heather | March 26, 2008 8:35 AM

In case there was any doubt about the Onion's prophetic ability:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/36525

Posted by xbjkbq | March 26, 2008 8:38 AM

Who says she's staying in this to win in 2008? She knows it's over. She's trying to destroy Obama so he loses to McCain - and then she can take on a 76 year-old in 2012.

Pretty sick...but I'm not surprised by it.

Posted by Jack | March 26, 2008 8:45 AM

"Primarying" Hillary (challenging her in the 2012 Senate primary) has been openly discussed in the more liberal blogs for several weeks (at least since "shame on you"; certainly since the Commander-in-Chief threshold nonsense.) Frankly, I don't think it will matter, because I don't see Clinton running for re-election in 2012 anyway. Either she destroys Obama now and runs against McCain in 2012, or, with President Obama in office and his VP as likely successor, she no longer sees a path to the White House and therefore no longer sees the point of being the Senator from New York.

Posted by sniper fire | March 26, 2008 8:48 AM

"Incidentally, if Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, then what?"

Then Obama ought to drop out.

He won't of course. But given that he won't be the nominee under those circumstances, he ought to.

Posted by Petey | March 26, 2008 8:59 AM

There is a very good argument for OBammBamm to drop out and wait for the next opportunity.

He has already achieved far more than most thought possible.

He is young, and will be able to try something else again in a few years.

I have serious concerns about him taking over a wrecked economy that is in the first few innings of a financial crisis, an unwinnable war, and finally, I have concerns about his personal safety.

Posted by D | March 26, 2008 9:08 AM

D: I'm going to ignore how stupid your premise is and ask you this question: You think the Clintons would just hand the keys to the party over to him when the time comes? I don't think so. He has no future and neither do the netroots if the Clintons.

Posted by john sfl | March 26, 2008 9:15 AM

"Incidentally, if Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, then what?"

Incidentally, if the moon falls into the Pacific Ocean and Ben Bernanke develops the power to turn straw into gold, then what?

Posted by TedL | March 26, 2008 9:15 AM

I have serious concerns about him taking over a wrecked economy that is in the first few innings of a financial crisis, an unwinnable war, and finally, I have concerns about his personal safety.

Last point aside, I personally have serious concerns about all three of the candidates w/r/t the economy and the war. Certainly, none of them have shown any great insight into our economy, though Obama has been damaged the least simply virtue of having said the least regarding the melting financial sector, specifically.

But I have no more confidence in Clinton or McCain on their ability to lead on these issues.

Posted by Yuppers | March 26, 2008 9:16 AM

"If the Clintons WIN." Left out the last word.

Posted by john sfl | March 26, 2008 9:17 AM

Pace Petey, Obama won't lose North Carolina, so there's no real point in speculating. If Clinton can win North Carolina (which would probably entail her winning all the remaining contests), I think she'd have a colorable claim to the nomination - although even then, the idea that Obama, who would presumably still be ahead in both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, should drop out as a result of that, is absurd.

But, barring celestial intervention of some kind, she can't win North Carolina.

Posted by John | March 26, 2008 9:20 AM

I have serious concerns about him taking over a wrecked economy that is in the first few innings of a financial crisis, an unwinnable war, and finally, I have concerns about his personal safety.

D doesn't make any sense. Sounds like a Clinton troll or even a republican troll. I can do better at the economy, stop the war of course. It is now an occupation not a war!!!!

Posted by the voter | March 26, 2008 9:22 AM

Can you imagine, or envision, a Democratic/Netroots' based Senate challenge to Clinton in four years?

No.

Posted by neil | March 26, 2008 9:23 AM

"Incidentally, if Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, then what?"

If Hillary successfully destroys Obama's electibility, her reward should be a Gore/Obama ticket. Seriously.

Posted by Podger | March 26, 2008 9:37 AM

the only way Clinton is going to drop out is if she is forced to. there will be no difference in the delegate math from now to if she wins Pennsylvania and loses N.C. and Indiana. the delegate situation for her will not have changed; she knows already that the math makes it impossible for her to win with any reasonable projections of the remaining states.

it's already apparent that she doesn't care the slightest about the Democratic party's chances in November, there's no reason to assume that she will exit the race just to help facilitate those chances. the only way she will leave is if the Democratic party leadership forces her out by endorsing Obama, or if she can't continue bringing in money (or loaning it to herself).

Posted by BA | March 26, 2008 9:40 AM

A primary challenge to Clinton? In New York? Yeah I can imagine that. It would be a total flop. Clinton has that Senate seat for life if she wants it. It would be nice if she would actually use it to promote progressive legislation rather than to endorse neocon hysteria about one Middle Eastern country after another, but I guess it's too much to expect a political celebrity to be held accountable by starstruck voters.

Posted by Ron | March 26, 2008 9:47 AM

I really don't see a scenario where she drops out. She's flush with cash and, quite frankly, will spent the next few months doing everything possible to morph Obama into the Angry Black Candidate. She will spent every last cent in an attempt to carve him to pieces. It makes me weep to watch this unfold, but such is the Democratic Party in 2008. The Republicans would have forced out "their" HRC months ago, and that's why they win elections. The Democratic Party is a study in incompetence.

Posted by Bill | March 26, 2008 9:49 AM

If Obama lost every single election between now and Denver, he would still have the pledged delegate lead and would still be given the nomination. Super delegates don't like Hillary Clinton. Also, there will be protesters at Denver and the majority of them will be Obama supporters. I can see Obama supporters marching, Clinton's supporters are generally passive, which is why she does better in a primary.

And can I see Clinton facing a primary challenge in 2012? Yes. I can see her losing it too. She's not a New Yorker, and she's successfully antagonized the African American community in NYC. You can run RFK Jr. against her, and if that fails, all hail Senator Mike Bloomberg.

Posted by Gabe | March 26, 2008 9:52 AM

That should read "spend" rather than "spent." My past-tense was wishful thinking.

Posted by Bill | March 26, 2008 9:53 AM

Candidates with money and delegates go to the convention. Idiots in the party and the media want some new rule to apply to the situation that Obama and Hillary are in but the old rules of thumb still apply.
Name the precedent for someone with over a thousand delegates to just pull up stakes and quit.
Did kennedy do that when he was a distant second in 80? did he lose power in the senate by not giving in?
Other idiots in the media and the obama campaign pretend that this will tear the party to peices or ruin our chances in November. Hillary is staying in because she is worried that the candidate is not ready, that the party is ill-served by choosing him, that she still has the ability to win. Her ego or vanity is no bigger than Obama's. AND if obama can't close the deal with the primary voters (he hasn't) then he will have to close the deal with her OR risk a nomination fight at the convention.
Keep in mind that he needs a solid 2025 to be the nominee and until he has 2025 he is not our nominee.
She's not playing for 2012 and she's not playing for second. She's earnestly trying to fight for the nomination.
Threatening her with a senate primary fight in 2012 is meaningless. She won with 70% of the vote. She's not vulnerable the way leiberman was.
And lamont was primarily self-financed. In this way Bloomberg might be a threat but not the fabled netroots.
The media underestimates how damaged Obama is by Wright. He could easily lose many of the remaining primaries.

Posted by Michael C. | March 26, 2008 10:04 AM

The opportunity for a Netroot primary challenge to Clinton was in 2006 while there was still raging anger over Iraq -- there's zero chance of it happening in 2012. Much greater likelihood of her pulling up stakes and joining Bill full-time at the Clinton Global Initiative, or running for Governor of New York in 2010.

Posted by dry_fish | March 26, 2008 10:10 AM

Hillary Clinton seems to morphing into George W. Bush, Jr.

First, her judgment: she and George both have dogged determination in the face of all odds. As, with George, Hillary doesn't seem to listen to anyone outside of her immediate advisers and is willing to go forward with her plans no matter what the facts are showing. Is the Democratic nomination becoming the Irag war revisited?

Second, she has no regard for the rules. In her most recent statements, she isn't just implying but stating straight out that pledged delegates really can switch at will, pledging doesn't seem to mean much. Delegates in her nomination seem to be like chads in the Florida 2000. Are they really pledged or just hanging? Should we count them? When should we count them... No matter what, it appears that the counting should be done by Hillary's Rules and no one else's.

Maybe there really is something to the Clinton Bush Dynasty -- they are beginning to seem a lot more like each other every day.

Posted by John C | March 26, 2008 10:27 AM

"Can you imagine, or envision, a Democratic/Netroots' based Senate challenge to Clinton in four years?"

I'd put money on there being one.

Posted by Dirk | March 26, 2008 10:31 AM

xbjkbq - great, scary headline. They really saw it coming...

Posted by evie | March 26, 2008 10:45 AM

Bill, why do you think Clinton is flush with cash? Most recent commentators seem to believe that she is effectively in the red, once she repays her debts - some of which go back to Iowa. That's pretty shameless, stiffing small businesses to get your own way, and I doubt that it will be forgotten any time soon.

As for primary challenges, it depends on several factors:

Has Clinton angered enough of the netroots to the point where it really is war? Possible. Increasingly likely as her campaign remains relentlessly negative on Obama, especially if she blows McCain a few more kisses.

Have enough leaders/focussers of netroots opinion been provoked enough to supply the leadership/cutting edge that such a campaign would require? Not yet, but getting there.

Could she heal the wounds by supporting Obama strongly after he wraps it up? Possibly, although I am not sure she would be willing or able to do so effectively

Would such a challenge be effective? Probably not, although a good challenger might embarrass Clinton - preferably a young, charismatic woman with real credentials. Clinton has brought in a lot of pork in her time ($2.2 billion I believe) and that feeds a lot of hungry... er voters. Obviously, if Clinton continues her string of lies/gaffes/general self-embarrassment, the challenger would have an easier task. Still, I'd guess that the challenger would have about a 20% chance against the machine. Also, if Obama is president, he might well prefer to heal wounds, keep Clinton on a tight leash (no big positions or nice committees), and generally to avoid creating an unnecessary problem.

Posted by maraschion | March 26, 2008 10:45 AM

Imagine? Envision? How about "assume"?

Bring it on.

Obama may lose the nomination. He may lose the election. Or he may take office and be a recognized disaster by 2006.

BO08 is built on totally discrediting the Clinton legacy (along with 60's activism and reams of other authentic history). Obama has elected to put the Clintons and their supporters "all in", legacy-wise.

A win for Obama is a triumph for the Arkansas Project, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh and all the other demons of division. Obama has carpet-bombed the middle ground (which appeared vast and fertile when the campaigns opened).

If Obama wins, his Classics Illustrated collection becomes the canon of history. We should expect none who buy this version to support a Clinton candidacy, and none who see through it to support an Obama candidacy.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | March 26, 2008 1:13 PM

Wow, RonK's comments are the most demented thing I've read in a while, and with all the crap flying around, that's saying something. I hope he was at least paid to make a fool of himself in public like that.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 26, 2008 1:30 PM

Who'd a thunka it - the ghost of L.Ron Hubbard reanimates here as RonK - and still sucks at writing!

Posted by morzer | March 26, 2008 2:35 PM

Is that the latest threat? A netroots candidate against Hillary in NY? Just like it was threatened against Civil Rights icon John Lewis until he caved in? If so bring it out now please so I can factor that into who I vote for in the fall. Maybe Ned Lamont could live in NY and run against Hillary, who supported him, while Obama supported the (net roots) vilified and hated Lieberman. Oh, right, Obama gets a pass on that one too. But its still OK to vilify and hate Lieberman, even though Obama is a fan. Hey, maybe Obama could support Hillary over Ned Lamont! That would be consistency.

Latest poll shows 28% of Clinton people leaning towards McCain. That figure used to be A LOT LOWER. On the Obama side it is 19% which is pretty close to where it has always been. Obama supporters who love to hate Hillary like the Republicans hated Bill, ask your self why it is that you have succeeded in polarizing and angering her supporters to this extent: almost 30% of half the party. You ratchet up the snark and accusations that everything she does shows she is a turd (and by implication also her supporters) on a daily basis. You attack Bill and Hillary as racists. You cheer when Obama says she is Bush-lite and sneer and get angry if she says....anything. And you all seem to be clueless what you are accomplishing.

Posted by Jammer | March 26, 2008 5:10 PM

Petey:
"Incidentally, if Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina, then what?"
Then Obama ought to drop out.
He won't of course. But given that he won't be the nominee under those circumstances, he ought to.

I wish we'd had your words of wisdom for Senator Clinton around after she lost 12 contests straight.

Oh, what's that, you say? You were around and carrying her water? Hmm. How intriguing.

Posted by Col | March 26, 2008 5:15 PM

I can't figure out who all these idiots are supporting the Clinton's. Hasn't it become obvious that they have no allegiance to the Democratic party and were bought off by corporate interests years ago? Bill and Hillary will go to their graves trying to destroy Obama in the interest of the corporate elite.

Posted by Clarke D. | March 27, 2008 1:59 AM

Petey, dear friend, you have simply fallen down. Edwards' loss sent you crashing under the waves and now your just, well, writhing.

Posted by bend | March 28, 2008 2:29 PM