The Democratic race: what happens now?
Your comments are welcome.
« Update: McCain, GOP Unhappy With N.C. GOP AD | Main | Will Obama Go Negative? » Comment Thread -- What Happens Now?23 Apr 2008 12:13 pm Comments (114)
This just keeps going. Neither Obama nor Clinton can get the nomination on pledged delgates alone. Obama is likely to maintain a slight lead in pledged delegates, though Clinton could possibly close the gap slighly in Indiana, W. Va., Puerto Rico, and Kentucky. When all votes are done, Obama will likely have a 100 or so pledged delegate lead, but nowhere neare the 2024 from pledged delegates alone. The supers will then--some albeit quite reluctantly--have to fuse the ticket. With Obama on the top, and Clinton as VP. Won't make their strongest supporters happy, but we can all see this is where it goes. In fact, if supers want to shut it down, they ought to suggest this right now. 
The Clinton folks know that they have to find a way to surprise in North Carolina. No one expects them to win but if they get close (within 5%), and generate a demographic split similar to what's been seen in earlier contests, that could be the gamechanger they need.
Obama gets a steady stream of super endorsements in the next two weeks, wins Indiana and North Carolina, she drops out a few days later. She's broke, last night's $2.5m notwithstanding.
Sick! Sick! Sick! of Clinton. Will someone please make her go away, she is destroying Obama for the general. McCain will be the next president if someone dosen't stop her!!
Obama needs a night with his face all over the big screen behind Wolf Blitzer in order to finish this thing. That'll give the Super Delegates all they need to break his way, it'll end the nomination on an Obama victory, rather than a limp across the finish line, and Clinton will concede graciously and the party will begin uniting. Whether than happens May 6th or June 3rd I have no idea.
The Atlantic comes to their senses and finally fires Ambinder. Cutting off comments for a week? What are you, China? If you can't stand the heat, Marc, stop blogging. Fire. Ambinder. Now.
I'd like to say the supers will step in and stop the bleeding, kind of like the ending of the movie The Incredibles coming to save the day...but they're not going to. They are going to allow the MSM to portray this as a horserace and like today with PA as some major victory for the Clintons when its no suprise (Iowa was big, GA was not for example) and not near the numbers she needed to actually try and win this thing. In the end Obama will wearily limp to the finish line only to get his clock cleaned by a fresh and clean and untouched McCain. Not his fault really, he is up against a MSN and an establishment that dosen't want him to win and is working overtime to help prevent it, racism in America which couldn't be more evident than in the PA results, and a Democratic party that couldn't tell their arse from their elbow if it hit them in the face. Think back to Gore, Kerry, what they have done with control of the senate etc. This isn't the party of Kennedy, Roosevelt, Jefferson and Jackson, its the gaggle of kids fighting so hard to get a cup for water from the table first that they wind up knocking over the table and spilling it all and then no one can have any. At this point, I'm mailing in my Independent registration, embarrased to be a registered Democrat.
So in the last two months we've had "huge" Clinton victories is the "key states" of Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, a nonstop reality-show featuring such colorful characters from Obama's past as Rezko, Wright, and Ayers, and starring Hillary running around claiming that Obama is an "elitist" and is insufficiently enthusiastic about nuking Iran. And after all that, she still has no visible path to the nomination. The Clintons' main argument seems to be to imply that Obama has trouble with "key constituencies" which seems to be a roundabout way of saying that the superdelegates should weigh white votes more than black votes, all couched in the argument of electability. That is just not going to fly in the Democratic Party offf the twenty first century.
We're in a period similar to what happened after TX and OH. After a day or two of excitement amongst the talking heads, reality will set in that nothing has really changed.
The media continues to report that Clinton won by double digits, even though she won by 9. This semantical digit-blather matters because the media continues to fan the flame of Clinton's futile, exasperating campaign -against Barack Obama- err... I mean -for the Presidency-. Obama has an insurmountable lead in delegates, states won, money raised and (if you are compelled to irrationally omit official state caucus results) the popular vote. Obama has by far the momentum in accumulating super-delegates since Super Tuesday. Clinton has won the big states, which leads to her preposterous argument that implies that Obama would not beat McCain in California and other big states (but Clinton would). Clinton has a vain hope that superdelegates will switch the direction of their momentum and decisively endorse the loser of every campaign metric. Clinton won a 9 point victory in Penn., a state the demographics of which line up right with her past successes, after she led by 19-25 points. Meanwhile, McCain dodders around unchallenged, slowly inching up in national polls, as Clinton degrades Obama with nasty attacks based on nebulous or made-up "issues" . . . the media laps along. Obliterate Iran? No exit strategy in Iraq? Tax policy bankrupting schools and infrastructure? Supreme Court (J.Stevens)? Teetering economy? I am one pissed off American.
Some pundint's ask disingenuously, Why Can't Barack Close the Deal? The TRUTH OF THE MATTER, is that Barack is fighting TWO opponents, Clinton & the Republican Machine: Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Fox News and they fight a lot dirtier, louder, harder than "light"! They fight with lies, distortions, brain wash and money. Barack is doing something new and necessary, though slower because a loud voice gets a lot more attention than a sane, compassionate, low-speaking one, like Barack's. That is why he is having such a hard time. Look at the unevenness and unfairness of the last debate? The new Republican's and Clinton's talking point is why cannot Barack put it away. The answer is he is fighting a three-headed Giant, the Clintons and the Republican Machine -- it is a Giant compared to Barack and the assault goes on 24/7 starting with Morning Joe and continuing all day with Fox News! Then there are the new swift-boat TV adds and false emails, he is being blanketed with -- and then they smile to themselves and ask smugly, "Why can't he put her away? Knowing the dark answer to this question and the dark seed they hope to plant into the minds of the people who are unable to think for themselves and are influenced by fear and ignorance. But humanity's heart is opening to the light and the energy of goodwill. May be this time, we can overcome these awful forces of destruction to mankind, may be this time, so the people of Goodwill & Hope will have to do more -- whatever their intuition relays to them to do to aid Barack in this fight against the Clintons and the Republican machine!
I think we know what happens now - Clinton continues down the highway on her ego trip until the delegates (like mark says) get some stones & put a halt to this. IMHO, a more interesting question is, "what happens after Obama secures the nomination?" Clinton's refusal to face up to the fact that she can't win seems to be fueling the resentment of those in her camp. Will she be able to convince these people to vote for Obama & NOT McCain (she's not done too good a job of that so far)? Will she actively campaign for Obama? Does he want her to?
Thanks for finally letting us peons have our say. I honestly believed you had one of the highest ratios of good, funny, smart comments to bilious ones on the entire internets. But whatever. I think the superdelegates are going to hurry up and make their decisions. He's going to get all the SDs he needs pretty soon. And, even if she stays in the race Huckabee style, he's going to end with his typical 60% blowout in the final two Western states, which'll be a nice coda to the primary season. There are only 250 or so of the SDs left. He needs, what, more than 30% of them? 20% of them? He really doesn't have far to go.
My theory is that Obama is sitting on a reserve of unannounced superdelegates that grows weekly. Once he has enough pledged delegates, announced superdelegates and unannounced superdelegates to constitute a majority, he'll say that the race is over. However, he can only do this after winning somewhere (otherwise Hillary's supporters will call it elitist hijacking or something) so Oregon, Guam, or Montana primary nights seem like the likeliest end dates.
What happens now? The primary race goes on. The candidates turn their attentions to Indiana and North Carolina. And, barring an Obama blowout in both states or a superdelegate coup, this will go on until June 3.
The Dems have two options... let the campaign continue and continue to degenerate into an increasingly negative food fight with a severely wounded candidate and divided candidate limping into the general election to face a refurbished John McCain... or... Make a choice now and begin trying to rebuild party unity, give the nominee some time to rest and refurbish his/her campaign, replenish the campaign coffers, get out and support some of the down ticket candidates that could use some early support- and enter the general with a unified party and only slightly wounded candidate. Given the astonishing lack of willingness to show some leadership by stepping forward and making a choice between two good potential nominees, the (not so) super delegates will dither until the damage is done and the party split. Not only will that hurt the eventual nominee, but the down ticket races as well. It would really be nice if the "uncommitted" party leaders would lead, instead of trying to look like party sages, and voice a choice.
Hu Jintao reenabled comments on his blog too.
After Indiana and North Carolina, no matter who wins (unless Clinton blows Obama away in both, which will not occur) then someone (i.e. Gore, Edwards and Dean) show Momma the door. After all her breaks, she still can't close the deal, either. Marc made a comment earlier about Obama getting all this press love in PA, but seriously-- was the ABC debate and the recent media hype surrouding his SanFran fundraiser comments media love? No way, Jose (or Marc). Obama weathered a huge storm of bad news and still cut the huge Clinton lead down to 9. That's impressive. Sure, Clinton won, and she did so on the backs of the old creaky PA electorate. I wish the media would start saying that Clinton is the candidate of the elderly and of women. If Obama gets tagged as the rich liberals, blacks and youth candidate, then let's be honest: Hillary keeps winning these big states solely because of white women. If she were Chris Dodd, then Obama would have closed it all down by now. Women, understandably, do not want Clinton to go. But Hillary turned her head for too long at the process, and she cannot prevail. Drip drip of supers to Obama. The inevitable rises up again. To quote the Clintons themselves, "A win is a win."
Indiana...if he can beat here there, then she will finally get the push of the cliff that we have all been waiting for. If not it goes through June...at which point, McCain will have another month of unchallenged campaigning. Hopefully it will end then. George
The Clinton camp spins it as "if you only count the states Hillary won, she is dominating the popular vote."
The race is exactly the same as it was, except Indiana is the new Pennsylvania. I'm not saying that makes sense as an analysis, just predicting that's the narrative that's going to emerge. This is good for Obama, since he seems to be roughly tied with Clinton in the polls there. If he campaigns well, I give him a slightly better than even chance of winning. If he wins it, Clinton drops out. If he doesn't win, the race after May 6 will depend on the margin in NC. If Obama wins by less than 7 or 8, it gives Clinton a real boost. If he wins by more, as he probably will, nothing changes.
Clinton rarely, if ever, exceeds expectations, and therefore I don't think we're going to see any big shifts in North Carolina. That's Obama's state, and it will stay that way. She'll need to go there and press to make sure her people turn out to prevent an Obama win of 15 or 20%. Indiana will be close, but I think Obama should pull it out and end the race right there. You can bet that he'll spend her into the ground there, and that he'll trot out as many superdelegates as possible before primary day. At some point, I expect the hopelessness of Clinton's campaign will seep down to the voters. Clinton has done about as well as she can do in convincing the media that she has a real chance, but that can't last forever, not when she continues to fail to make significant progress on pledged dels or superdels. My prediction: NC - Obama by 11% (The real question is why does Obama have to answer any questions at this point... SHE's the one who has to move mountains to get the nomination. SHE's the one who needs to win basically everywhere by huge margins. He can coast to the nomination. I hope he knocks her out on May 6th for the good of the party, but he by no means has to do so to be the nominee.)
The Clinton campaign will limp along for the next few weeks, short on cash, behind in the polls and with just about no chance to win until the 5/20 primaries. Along the way, more supers will declare for Obama. On May 20th, Obama will pass the 50%+1 point for pledged delegates, Clinton's trickle of money will dry up and she'll be forced to suspend her campaign.
Obama knocks her out May 6th and the Democratic party can sing ding dong the witch is dead. Then I will suggest that they burn the body just to make sure she is dead. And Obama becomes President and finally a great presidency is born and finally we can rest this country from the fanatical right.
Clinton goes even more negative on Obama, and she continues to jump the shark with more batshit crazy comments about going nuclear to defend an already-nuclear-armed Israel. This prompts superdels to come forward for Obama student than they otherwise would have, in order to hasten the inevitable & quell the intraparty war in the run-up to November. Clinton stalwarts go ballistic & begin screaming about counting every vote (MI & FL), suggesting that they (like Gore in 2000) are being robbed of what's rightfully theirs. When November finally rolls around, some of the diehard Clintonistas vote McCain, but most of those hard cores stay home, handing the election to McCain. John Paul Stevens retires, and speculation about how much longer Ginsburg can stay on abounds. The makeup of the Supreme Court threatens to go 7-2 for generations to come. Needless to say, Roe is overturned.
Marc, My question is.. why do they keep asking why Obama can't close the deal? She's got the name recognition, the 'experience', a former first lady.. she should be KILLING it in delegates.. this shouldn't even be an issue? Additionally, she should have beat Obama by at least 20 points in Penn. To answer your question, however, she will continue to drag this out because she wants to change the rules that she originally agreed to because it's 'her turn'. Simple as that.
Grow some balls Ambinder! Turning off comments you wuss! Wahhhhhh people are mean in the comments!
What happens? The supers come to their senses and realize that Hillary's own argument for her candidacy is the one that sinks it: experience. If this is really the metric that she wants to be judged by, then she loses to McCain, hands down. He's been a Washington player for decades, not six years. Plus, he's a genuine war hero, not a craven fabulist who invented the threat of gunfire to enhance her credentials.
Barack Obama challenges Hillary Clinton to a paintball duel. Obama picks Claire McCaskill as his second; Clinton picks Ed Rendell. The appointed time is April 29th, high noon, in the middle of a mostly deserted Indianapolis Motor Speedway, with only the superdelegates in attendance. Clinton wins the toss, and takes aim at Obama's chest. She fires, but the pellet misses him by a few feet. Obama points his gun into the air, and with a mischievous grin, deliberately misses his shot. Clinton growls and takes aim again, this time at his crotch. The pellet zooms between his legs. Obama aims at her foot and shoots. The pellet misses it by an inch, spraying paint up her leg. She is dirtied, but still in it. Al Gore descends from the stands and announces that they will both take the next shot at the same time. Obama and Clinton both aim dead center, and the gunshots are deafening. Obama has a large pink stain on upper-left shoulder, but Clinton's entire torso is caked in paint. The superdelegates assemble in a circle and ritualistically sacrifice a lamb. The pour the blood in a cup and offer it to Obama. He sips carefully, and everyone erupts in cheers. The next morning, the remaining superdelegates all announce support for Obama. He immediately gains 10 points in the polls against McCain. Clinton gives a gracious concession speech, and the following month becomes Senate Majority Leader. Her and her family blow their multi-million dollar savings on a series of luxury vacations, where they all reminisce joyfully about the 8 years they spent living in the White House and running the country. Chelsea decides to become a space tourist, blowing a chunk of her hedge fund earnings. Obama wins the election in a landslide, and is remembered greatly for his beautiful speech on global warming and environmentalism, which influences the public to support several sweeping legislative bills.
Obama gets a needed narrow victory in Indiana 52-48, and a typical southern victory in NC 58-42. This combined with a drip, drip drip of superdelegates to his side helps stop the flow of cash to clinton. Obama secures enough pledged and super delegates by Oregon to gain the nomination outright.
McCain wins in November. Congratulations Democrats, another losing presidential election in the bag.
Obama will win NC & IN. The only states left that Hillary can assuredly win are KY and WV. They won't be near enough to overcome his lead.
According to Obama's leaked spreadsheet this will be over on May 6th. They have been accurate with their spreadsheet predictions from the beginning. I'm looking forward to detoxing on May 7th.
1) HRC has a money surge over the next week or two, but is exceeded by Obama's loyal small (and pumped/pissed) donors during the same period. 2) In Indiana, Obama brings in a ton of Red/Purple State surrogates/Supers, pours money into positive TV, comes after Bush/McCain on the stump, people realize (again) why they like him. He barely edges HRC out, then gives a stirring speech in Indianapolis at the same site where RFK spoke on the night of MLK's assassination. 3) In North Carolina, Obama cruises despite possible Edwards endorsement of HRC. I have had several conversations with staffers on the ground there who, while tight-lipped, are VERY confident and are working their asses off. These staffers are ones who performed well in earlier states and were kept on by the campaign. 4) By this time, Obama has erased any gains HRC received from PA. There's less reason to doubt Obama's ability to close the deal (among undecided Supers), or to talk about such possible doubts (among the MSM). The contests won, pledgee delegates, and popular vote margins remain insurmountable. More Supers are rolled out by Obama. 5) HRC has a decision to make. If she stays in, she still likely wins KY and WV. Obama wins OR, MN, SD, Guam, and Puerto Rico. 6) If any undecided Supers remain, they make up their minds by the end of June.
3 scenarios 1) Supers flock to Obama over the next 2 weeks. He squeaks out a victory in Indiana and wins +10 or more in NC. Clinton drops out. 2) Supers are weak. No movement. They split Indiana & NC keeping their coalitions. It goes on through June 3 and possibly to the convention. Both candidates incur more damage. 3) Supers flock to Clinton. She wins Indiana & NC. Stays in to the convention. Floor fight. Hate fest continues. In order of likelihood, I would rank them #2, #1, & #3. I think #2 & #3 effectively hand over the general election to John McCain.
Just to add, I agree with all the comments that it's really bizarre that the media keeps buying the Clinton spin about "expectations". Obama has to do this, has to win this state by that many points, has to closse the gap with these demographics, etc. Obama doesn't have to do anything. He competes in every state, does as well as he can, and will end up with more delegates and the nomination. Tapper jumped in yesterday, asking why Obama can't win Pennsylvania. What an idiotic question. He didn't win Pennsylvania because more Pennsylvania Democrats prefer Clinton. But most other states prefer Obama. And you don't have to win every state to win a national election. You'd think a political reporter would be able to grasp that.
Unsure. Maybe it comes out that Hillary Clinton eats babies. The media commentary becomes "Obama just holds babies. Why can't Obama close the deal and eat a few? It's just more proof that Obama doesn't have what it takes to be president."
What happens now? I think I told you how this whole thing would play out 8 weeks ago before Hillary had her triumphant "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment in Ohio. And frankly, I've been right on ever since, and expect to be right on through June 3 and the convention. The best thing to come out of last nights stunning and unexpected Hillary win is the fact that a large majority of people now realize that: 1) she can not conceivably win the most pledged delegates because of the ridiculous caucus system These realities, combined with her very high negatives (untrustworthy, declining national polls, etc.) show she really has no where to go but UP. On the flipside, Obama with all his high margin wins, delegates, popularity and bundles of cash has no where to go but down. If you want to win in October, you need momentum. Obama has peaked and has flatlined. The only way to get this momentum is in a thrilling comeback coup by state elders/party faithful - the automatic delegates know this, and I expect them to begin her coronation at the convention.
Clinton hangs in there waiting for something to come out of the rezko mess. Even though the national press hasn't given it much press recently many people in Chicago feel that unfortunately there is probably more dirt in there for Obama.
Clinton continues to play Tonya Harding, relying on her paid surrogates and unpaid pundits (Scarborough, Buchanan, Blitzer) to kneecap Obama... doing enough damage to guarantee McCain a win in November so that she can run in 2012. Obama will lock up the delegate count here in Oregon but I genuinely wish our May vote was irrelevant in the presidential nominating race. Finally, a note to "idiotic:" having read your post, your signature is redundant.
9.2% is not double digits. Marc, why can't the media get that one right?
Now, the proud citizens of Guam will finally have their voices heard. Elsewhere in the country, Clinton continues to make the "why can't he win big states?" argument. If Obama can counterpunch that deftly, lose by less than 10% (or squeak a win) in Indiana, and win big in NC, and get some of the superdelegates off the fence, he has it wrapped up.
It depends what is mean by "happen." Obama has the nomination wrapped up. It is mathematically impossible for Clinton to win the popular vote or pledged delegate count and a major of superdelegates are not going to overturn that metric regardless of the arguments she puts forward. This has been the case for months now and it hasn't changed since the end of February. From a public relations standpoint, what happens is much murkier. There is no question that Obama will be the nominee, but the media and much of America seems to be seeking some kind of definite closure on the issue that won't come from simply edging out Clinton with math. He really wants to finally land a knockout blow on her and it looks like Indiana is his best chance. If he can swamp her in spending again, I think his odds of beating her there are quite good.
9 more contests do they keep going. So far this primary season dems have seen record nubmers of voters register as dems, record numbers of dems voting and tons of new people getting involved. Gotta love it.
PA was hilary's last stand to make an impact... i think indiana is much more important to her as a must-win state...if she loses, she's out... the metrics will be totally against her in every way that matters
Obama clinches after June 3. Hillary is not the VP. We go on to a general election campaign.
If Hillary wins Indiana--and, that is very possible--then, we really are looking at "math at its fullest." The very important math of "pledged and super delegates" is a significant branch of math; and, as we move toward fall, learning the "electoral math path" to the White House becomes unavoidable and very significant. If Hillary wins Indiana, we will all take part in geography lessons as we look at the map of states won in the primary--and, calculate the probability of winning electoral votes in which states in the fall. (By the way: Florida and Michigan are on that map--their popular and electoral votes add up.)
I agree with the general consensus here. Indiana is really the only competitive primary left and if Obama doesn't win there, this will just go to the end. And at the end Obama will probably only need about 100 more supers to support which is about a 1/3 of them out there (seems like Pelosi's coattails should be long enough for that). Let me add that this campaign has shown that there is no momentum between contests and that neither candidate has shown any real ability to eat into each other's base, so I can't imagine that this result in Penn. will have any real effect going forward apart from the fact that it gets Clinton some cash.
What happens now? More kids get killed in Iraq. More people lose their jobs. More houses get foreclosed. And the stupor-delegates played on.
Here's my theory as long as we are talking trash. From here on out, Hillary will clobber Obama with the older voters, who let's face it, are more reliable than the college vote. Most of these voters were young during the 60's and most of us hate the 60's. It might have been prudent for Obama to tie his future to radicals in Chicago to win in Illinois, but it's just killing him nationally. The bloom came off the rose with Wright and is continuing with his other Chicago homies. To older voters, it difficult to get past Hil would be smart to keep poking those stories in people's face and Obama would do well to come up with some serious answers to put it to rest.
The Obama campaign needs to escape the standard how-to-counter-kitchen-sinking (Swift-Boating) advice. It's a trap...that is, Obama needs to stop feeling he can't ignore negative stuff. He not only can and but he must, especially when it's from Clinton. He can say, "There she goes again." He can develop some other standard, quick repostes which will show that he KNOWS better than to allow her attacks to distract from the important issues. He CAN accuse her of playing to the lowest common denominator. He CAN address media questioners the same way. He can tell them they are they going for cheap shots which are NOT in the interests of hte country. If he plans to focus on McCain on the issues as I think someone suggested he did, this is a good thing, a much more fruitful road to take. Kitchen sink (swiftboating)tactics get somewhere for a number of reasons, but among the most powerful is the fact that people are looking for an excuse to confirm their prejudices. Kitchen sink-ing (swift-boating)gives it to them. Once the swift-boating tactics have been used, there are some voters you shouldn't bother trying to work with. Even the candidate's own anger won't do much to change their minds. It's enough to make clear you don't accept the swift-boating and then to move on to the real issues FAST. REad a book called "Mistakes Were Made (but not by me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts)" by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson (Harcourt).
What happens: First, punditocracy (including you Marc) realize the issues about "closing the deal," about outspending and losing, about not having the white blue collar voters are all a canard sold by Clinton campaign. 1. I find it humorous that the implication is Clinton should win because she is still in the race and he hasn't closed the deal. Please someone explain why the trailing candidate should win in this scenario? 2. outspending. So what. Ad buys are marginal and move a few % points. Voters are not that gullible. And nonsense about favorable media in weeks leading up to PA? Please... 3/ White blue collar voters. Why can't we say Clinton cannot win the Black vote and therefore can't win in November? The primaries show that. That is the most loyal component of the democratic party yet she has lost that. What happens. Continued silliness, media running to and fro for 2 weeks with Obama beating her in IN by 2 points and NC by 10. clinton suspends campaign. By November - a tarnished Clinton legacy is the unfortunate side effect of this race but a self-inflicted wound.
Please, God, let Obama win IN!!! I'm cautious with that statement as it's a very conservative state. Still, it is a neighbor of IL, allowing for a tide of volunteers to hit the state from Chicago in the next two weeks. Clinton may have Bayh but Roemer was an early Obama supporter. I'm also wondering if Obama will play up his close relationship with Lugar. I'm also infuriated by MSM's psychobabble about Obama not closing in PA, despite all that cash. For heaven's sake, he had to play against a major Dem machine! Moreover, does anyone believe that, if HRC wasn't broke, she'd not have spent at least as much against Obama? PA would have looked like Gettysburg Redux. Hopefully, others are right and, should Obama win NC and IN, the superdelegates will come through the gates. Clinton will not be stopped. Like a mad pit bull, she'll have to be locked up or put down. It will be her own Dog Day Afternoon, crying "Florida! Michigan!"
Ugly, uglier, ugliest. That's how it continues. Now that she won Pa. by turning into a Republican, there is nothing to hold Hillary back. And Obama will hit her just as hard, if only to show the Supers that if they don't intervene the two will destroy each other and take down the party. Obama needs to rout in NC and win in Ind. He can't back into the nomination. He needs a really big night for things to break his way. Then if the Supers don't get off their asses, they might as well switch parties, because the Dems will be done for a while.
I think the most likely outcome is that by June 4 Obama will have both the pledged delegates and the popular vote lead. Florida may be counted, by Michigan never will for obvious reasons, and so Hillary will be behind. The question then before the superdelegates is who do we choose? I think they will move to one candidate almost immediately after the contest is over because they need the summer to define McCain as representing 4 more years of Bush. They will choose Obama, barring some unforeseen mishap, because he has the strongest claim to the throne so to speak. Both candidates have strong bases of support, and both are smart, capable candidates, whose elections would be historic if only for what they symbolize. In all likelyhood, there will be plenty of hurt feelings when all is said and done, but if the supers overturned the clear, albeit narrow, will of the people, the democratic party would collapse, snatching certain victory from its own mouth once again. African Americans are the most loyal of all the party's ethnic/cultural groups, and they have been dreaming of voting for a Black candidate for years. That that chance would be taken from them by the party's largely white elite would be a colossal slap in the face that would depress their turnout in the general, and perhaps even drive some of them away. Furthermore, Obama's incredible success in engaging young voters will pay dividends well into the future for the party. But those gains would be wiped away if he is pushed out by the supers while holding the lead by every metric. Young people are easily turned off by politics, especially the politics of their overly combative and divisive boomer parents, and that is why Obama's more inclusive and uplifting rhetoric is so appealing to them. He is the future of the party, and the party bosses would be loath to destroy their future just to sate the narcisistic wants of politics' most self-indulgent couple.
It seems pretty clear that the media narrative will focus on Indiana as the next major battleground. North Carolina will probably only get attention if she manages to do better there than expected, which means holding him to single digits, I would imagine. It also seems clear that Clinton will not drop out of the race unless Obama reaches 2024 delegates. If Obama manages to win Indiana, I expect the media narrative may turn against her to some extent, and there may be increased pressure on her to leave the race, but if superdelegates decide collectively to wait until after the final primaries in June to decide, then I don't believe the race will end until then. So, it seems more likely than not that the campaigns will continue at least into June. If the superdelegates decide for Obama, that may come before July 1st, as Dean would like. If some new political gaffe or scandal occurs, or Obama underperforms enough that superdelegates do not decide to end the race in his favor, I expect that there is little chance they would end the race in her favor in June, since that would seem to be such a clear repudiation of the "popular vote", even if Clinton is leading in one of the counts thereof. So I think he can win in June, but her only path leads through the convention. A big open question at this point, to me, is how negative will this contest get? Will he get more negative, as some in the media predicted this morning? They are already pushing the line on this with some of the "contrast" ads and direct mailing pieces, but there is a huge risk there of basically invalidating the foundation of his campaign's message by getting too negative. As an Obama supporter who is strongly against this kind of politics, I hope his campaign can resist the urge.
I think that Hillary needs to decide what she wants for her political future. Does she want to kamikaze it in this campaign, going for all or nothing? Or does she blink and bow out gracefully? I think she still has time to do so, with the shameful moments of her campaign getting swept under the rug as history moves on. If Obama can win Indiana, that's a clear opportunity for her to leave, as would be once the superdelegates finally show some guts and make their votes known. If Hillary pulls out, she can still go on to serve in the Senate, possibly become governor of New York, and even possibly run again. If she continues on to the convention, she is truly sealing her fate and making her conduct during this campaign her legacy. She'll be providing justification to all those who were weary of the Clintons since the Clinton justification, whether they were right then or not. She'll go down in history as the woman who played the referees and did her best to go against the will of the people and take down the first serious minority candidate with underhanded tactics. I hope that she'll choose to preserve the legacy of her and herself husband, rather than go for the extremely unlikely path to victory. I still feel like she will ultimately concede. She has given herself a couple of outs, with talk of how she's waiting until the issues of Florida and Michigan get decided. Still, with the way she's played this game lately, I'm not betting on anything.
What nobody, nobody seems to be addressing is what paths are open to Clinton to become president. I keep looking at this and I can't see it. Marc you commented on the campaign hurting Obama--it has surely annihilated Clinton. Her negatives were high enough before the campaign; they are stratospheric now (about 60%). Meanwhile Obama keeps hoovering up the delegates--can the party really turn around and hand Clinton the nomination. I can't see it. The story is that HRC is making no headway. It is time for the superdelegates to do their job.
A few things are certain for me, personally: 1. I have stopped donating to the DNC. Dean's apparent incompetence in getting the party out of this current mess, the Florida/Michigan situation that he should have seen coming, and his (public) lack of effort to get the supers to commit is infuriating to those of us who care deeply about the party. 2. I no longer identify as a democrat, but as an independent, and will switch my position after the primary here in NC. See above for an explanation. And this is coming from someone who has voted the straight ticket before. 3. While I won't vote for McCain, I not sure I can get myself to vote for Clinton either. It will take a lot of convincing. There have also been incredible ripple effects from this. At least in my profession, the women's listserves have been torn apart by charges of sexism and racism, and whatever was left of the feminist "movement" has collapsed as each side accuses the other of "not being a feminist." I wonder if the democratic party realizes that while this fight goes on, their grassroots coalitions are collapsing around them. Even if obama/clinton is able to rally the other's supporters around them to hold their noses and help elect them, will the coalitions reform in time to support progressive policies from a new administration? Or will we remain too "bitter" at the others side, creating permanent old/new splits?
I don't see Clinton dropping out as long as she has money, which a win by Obama in Indiana and North Carolina would squash. One thing I think is somewhat funny in the media coverage and narrative so far is that Obama is viewed by his supporters as some type of messianic figure. "Drinking the kool-aid" is a phrase I hope I never hear again after this primary is over. However, Clinton's argument to superdelegates is "he can't win". Some of her campaign have stated this is the reason that she perserveres. Somehow the voters have been suckered and Hillary Clinton is the only one who can save the party from itself. This sounds far more like someone with a messiah complex than Obama has.
Obama has won despite the fact that the party primary base is 58% women. Yes! 58% women. Despite this fact he is the leading on all fronts. That is the hard cold truth in this. Women vote for HRC. White men and Black for Obama.
Wow, an actual Ambinder thread open for comments and my personal ban is over too. In fairness to Ambinder, he seems to be being a little more careful lately to show balance and objectivity. And I'm not saying that to avoid another ban; if he was still being an ass, I'd say so. That being said, on topic. I'm a pessimist. Here goes: (1) No way it ends before June. (2) In June, barring a dramatic shift in the narrative, the suppers declare, and Obama goes over the 2024 delegates he needs to win without Michigan and Florida. He does not, however, go over the 2207 he would need with Florida and Michigan. (3) Clinton decides to keep fighting for the Michigan and Florida delegates till the convention. (4) Clinton loses the credentials fight at the convention, and Obama wins the nomination. (5) Obama goes into September with a double digit deficit to McCain, mainly because of the damaging convention fight. Can Obama come back to win in November despite all of that? Maybe. He has several things in his favor, including fundamentals, McCain's weakness as a campaigner, and so on. He could do it. Though his chances would be a heck of a lot better if he can somehow end it in June.
What nobody, nobody seems to be addressing is what paths are open to Clinton to become president. I keep looking at this and I can't see it. There are two paths. 1) A real scandal of some kind for Obama. But you have to think if there were real dirt, Clinton's people would have found it by now, and instead they've been leaning on Wright and "bitter." 2) She wins the popular vote by some metric that most Democratic voters consider legitimate. I don't think the popular vote is a legitimate metric at all, let alone one that includes Florida or Michigan--but that's irrelevant. In fact, any argument among commenters on the Atlantic blogs about what "legitimate" means is irrelevant. What matters is how the majority of Democrats view Hillary's claim to a popular vote victory. If her claim is viewed favorably, the superdelegates might give her the nomination. Even scenario 2) is unlikely. A popular vote count Michigan is never going to appear legitimate to a majority of Democrats. Her win in Pennsylvania was bigger than I'd hoped, but not big enough to give her a realistic shot of closing the popular vote gap even including Florida. And even if she did close that gap, it's not clear the superdelegates would support her in the numbers she would need. Of course, either of these scenarios would depress black and youth turnout in the general election. I don't think it's possible to predict how much, but it undermines any argument for her greater electability.
One point regarding Florida and Michigan - if they do end up being seated (unlikely) the nomination may come down to the Michigan uncommitted delegates and Edwards few delegates (this is close to Hilary's BEST case scenario, which is why her chances are so low & probably lower today that Monday). Does anyone have any reliable information about the Michigan undeclared delegates? Have they been selected? If so, upon what basis? If Obama gets those delegates, the math all of the sudden looks even better for him in the "Florida and Michigan delegates seated" scenario. Basically, right now Obama needs the following delegates (of any type, pledged or super) under the following assumptions: Michigan/Florida not seated: 312 Obviously the numbers are much worse for Hillary under any of those scenarios.
Mary, I think you are right about the internal shredding of the Democratic party. I also think McCain would be savvy at this point to wait out this fight before making any moves. It is quite possible that he would want to pitch his election bid to the losers in the primary battle. If the primary winner is Obama, he gets to pitch himself as a war-hero, tough-talking, in your face sort of guy, but one who would take a balanced stand on issues of import to women and the elderly. Expect someone in the mold of Susan Collins or Olympia Snow on the ticket. If the primary winner is Clinton, McCain gets what he really wants, the opportunity to boot the pesky nut-jobs out of his party by appealing across dissolving party lines to minorities and socially liberal (and often economically moderate) elites. He'd have to pick up a figure for VP who appeals to both groups. And, while I think it is a remote possibility, here is the chance at a multi-generational political realignment, the Republican party becoming slightly more economically moderate and realist and significantly more socially liberal, and the Democratic party becoming a coalition of economic populists and social conservatives. Quite frankly, in such a shift, I'd happily move to the party of Lincoln.
I hate to say it, but there is one "X" factor here that Clinton may be relying upon. As it stands now, one of the biggest electability issues favoring Obama is that he is the only candidate who can lock down the nomination in June, and that a convention fight will be incredibly damaging to the party. If Clinton can, though, credibly keep the fight going to the convention, Obama loses that particular argument. I happen to think that Obama still should easily win any electability argument, but I guess Hillary thinks that, if she can drag it out that far, her chances of winning the electability argument with the supers improves. Of course, while one can see why she would continue to fight on under those circumstances, her supporter's motivations are different. Or should be.
For now, continuation of the status quo. Clinton continues to attack the de facto Democratic nominee. The media and the voters continue to act like she has some chance of winning. Here are the variables: 1. When Clinton runs out of money. I predict that the Clinton campaign is gonna be flat broke on or about May 7. That alone might force an end to this thing. I'm also predicting Obama will will do better than expected in both IN and NC, completely wiping out her gains in PA. The superdelegates start moving en masse after that. Maybe not those representing the few states who haven't voted, but the rest of them just won't have any reason to sit on the sidelines anymore. Obama should control enough delegates that FL and MI won't matter. Clinton may or may not "take it to the convention". I honestly don't know whether she'd commit political suicide for one final, slim, desperate chance at the Presidency.
Back on 4/3 Rassmussen gave Obama a 23 point lead in North Carolina. So, using the logic of Obama supporters, anything less than a commanding primary victory by Obama of at least 20 points is really a Clinton victory. Through 4/21, SurveyUSA gives Obama a slim 9 point lead. So, really, Hillary has already won North Carolina (using Obama supporters' logic). Not really any need to vote there at all now. How does this play out? Just as we would expect by demographics. Hill wins a moral victory - per Obama supporters' logic - in North Carolina. Hill wins Indiana by a very narrow margin, crushing Obama's spirit (who has already conceded that Indiana is virtually a must-win for him). All other primaries go the way that demographics would predict. Hillary ends up with about 100 fewer pledged delegates than Obama. The RBC seats the FL superdelegates, recognizing that Dean imposed an illegal penalty per DNC charter, and further increasing Hill's advantage amongst superDs. All of those superDs are rabid Hillary supporters because she's the only one fighting for their voices to be heard. The MI and FL delegations are seated at half strength by either the credentials committee or all of the delegates at convention, because they recognize that the Dems have zero chance of winning unless they take one of those two states in the general. Hill therefore wins the popular vote once those two states are included. Her delegate disadvantage at that point is miniscule, not enough to sway any superDs with the silly 'overruling the will of the people' argument. That test vote (seating MI and FL at half-strength) also shows that Hillary may well win enough votes to secure the nomination. So furious negotiations begin and we get: Clinton/Obama (he sees the light!) or Gore/? as the nominee. Clinton will refuse the VP spot (she's too old) and will instead use her considerable power as a Senator to muck things up for the Democrats in congress. As we knew two months ago, and know today, it all comes down to the superDs. I don't believe they yet know everything they need to know to make a fair call, so the remaining primaries need to play out before they commit. I disagree with may of the arguments posed here today (per Protein Wisdom): Voters are tired of the campaign? "Voters in Pennsylvania were so tired of the campaign that they turned out in record numbers to prolong it." Hillary is hurting the party? "Democrats are evenly split on the question of whether the long campaign is hurting the party." Hillary should drop out? "No candidate who has won as many votes and delegates as Clinton hasn’t taken the fight to the convention." Clinton's negative attacks are hurting her? "There is no evidence that the tightening of the race was due to Clinton’s campaign tactics. We saw the same pattern in Ohio." Once voters see Obama the races tighten? PA ended up just the way we thought it would based on the demographics of the state. Obama would appear to be a crappy campaigner. He gave PA his best shot and he didn't move the needle a bit; demographics ruled the day.
Only in the United States could the losing candidate pretend she can win the nomination after most of the game is played by being a racist(come one we all know what she is doing) and lying about stances about issues. How many honest and trustworthy things are there left about Hillary Clinton at this point? But in country where an incompetent boob can be selected and reelected, the loser can win and expect US morons all over the country to vote for her. She's gonna steal the nomination and hopefully millions of Americans like myself will vote for John McCain because he has the experience she lies about and she will not get one young voter or African American to vote for her. BTW I'm a 48 year old white woman who has had enough of this soap opera. Only in America.
Hillary's gonna run out of money? "By the end of today, the Hillary campaign will have raised $10 million since she was declared winner yesterday." 'Nuff said.
I hate to engage in this, but @ sbj: "By the end of today, the Hillary campaign will have raised $10 million since she was declared winner yesterday." Oh, hooray! Maybe she can pay off Mark Penn now.
After skimming the above, it seems to me a lot of people just don't get the Democratic nominating process. It's a close race and anything can still happen, it's all up to the superdelegates. And now they're going to hang back and wait; they can keep changing their minds up until August and that's probably for the best. We need the stronger candidate and my guess is that we’re going to the convention. By the way, to all the people bemoaning the lack of Democratic leadership, the fact that superdelegates aren't taking charge, that they've done nothing in Congress, etc: how about giving Hillary Clinton a chance? You want a tough leader? Someone with balls and grit? She's obviously your girl. Otherwise it's just more of the same.
Clinton also won a few other key demographics: The Haters, the racists and the bigots. Those are groups she cannot win without!
Somehow we'll all get over PA and move on. Though I gotta' tell ya'....I'm really tired of this. Dana Milbank's column got it right today, "Somebody, please make it stop." If the pundits would stop talking as though being a dirty, negative campaigner is a good thing and shows how "tough" you are; and if they'd stop showing all the negative ads and gaffe's over and over again. If they'd stop repeating the slurs as though they were insight instead of the crummy tacatics that they are; and if just one pundit would ask Clinton what the definition of "obliterate" is, maybe, just maybe, we'd have a chance.
Uh, sbj, you do realize that Rasmussen and SurveyUSA are separate polling companies, right? SurveyUSA has always had Obama's North Carolina lead at around around 10 points - other polling companies differ. PPP has consistently had his lead at around 20 points, for instance. What's interesting is that whenever Obama has a commanding lead in a state, Hillary rarely, if ever, manages to narrow it.
1. Obama wins NC easily, loses Indiana by 3-5%. 2. Clinton(s) keeps running until the convention, or at least to the conclusion of all primaries. 3. By a small margin of super-delegates, Obama gets the nomination. 4. Hillary supports Obama, sort-of, but cannot undo the damage she has inflicted or the disgruntlement of her supporters. 5. Obama's vulnerabilities, both highlighted and validated by a member of his own party, cause him to lose by a modest margin to John McCain. 6. The Clintons blame everyone but themselves and gear up to run again in 2012. 6. A perfect opportunity for Democrats sacrificed to the Clintons' self-absorbtion.
Funny old world isn't it. The fact that SD's can even consider to go for HRC when the most loyal voting bloc in the party has been Blacks. Despite the fact that Dems have never won the majority of the White vote. To do so would be to allow McCain to position himself as a social liberal conservative and change the party equation for the first time since 40 years. Thats how bad it is now.
There is a lot wrong with sbj's post; it does, though , provide the most likely (albeit very, very long shot) scenario for a Clinton win. But in a thread already this long, I'll mostly leave it to others to debunk his post. (I will note that the kind of very pro Hillary assumptions that he makes about the remaining primaries would, mathematically, leave Obama with a slightly larger lead going into the convention than he posits. More like a 114 pledged delegate lead, rather than 100, and that assumes Clinton not only winning Indiana and getting within 9 points in NC, but also winning WV, Kentucky and PR by absolutely HUGE margins (30%). That really shows just how bad the delegate math is for Hilalry at this point). But you know what I noticed about the "arguments" that he purports to rebut? Yeah, I'm sure most of you saw it too. He misses entirely the strongest pro-Obama arguments out there, including the argument that letting this go to the convention would BADLY damage the Democrat's chances in November. The reason you don't see many Hillary supporters taking that argument on is because it is terribly, terribly strong. Oh, sure, you see some Clintonites asserting that it isn't true, but never with evidence or analysis. Whether we look at history, logic or both, a vicious convention fight, whoever wins, does not bode well for the Democrats in November. And that's a big reason why it is likely that the supers will try to end this thing in June, in Obama's favor, if the dynamics of the race don't change dramatically. Whether they can succeed at this, given Hillary's plans to fight to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates. But really, bottom line, in order to get to a Hillary victory sbj needs to make SO many borderline ridiculous pro-Hillary assumptions that his post ultimately reads almost as a brief for Obama.
I agree with mbuchels scenario way up above. I think the narrative will begin (and has already begun) to turn this race into one of survival and desperation for Hillary Clinton. If she really wants to demontrate that a "tide is turning," then she not only needs to win IN, but she has to win big, which is highly unlikely. She will also have to keep it close in NC, which is even more unlikely. All this while, she will have to somehow find the cash to play on these fronts, without the advantages of being close to her homestate and the support of the democratic estalishment she had in PA. I think Hillary will not even campaign in NC and she will try to make IN her next last stand. Here, however, Obama will either win or keep it very close. Backed by the MSMs nearly unanimous belief that Hillary is all but done for, the superdelegates will then flock en masse to Obama and Hillary will have to concede.
Hi LarryM - nice to see a response that isn't full of hateful bile. OTOH, I am a big fan of bile ... "He misses entirely the strongest pro-Obama arguments out there, including the argument that letting this go to the convention would BADLY damage the Democrat's chances in November." I don't refute that argument because I think it is true. But the alternative is that Hillary loses the nomination due to superdelegates overruling the wil of the people (in terms of popular vote) and that would also BADLY damage the Democrat's chances in November. You also ask her to concede wihtout an official vote which, as stated previously, has never happened - why must Hillary be the first to make such a sacrifice? As the first viable female candidate, I believe she has the obligation to take this to the bitter end. "And that's a big reason why it is likely that the supers will try to end this thing in June" Much as they might like to think that they can end this in June, they simply can't. Their pledges of support mean absolutely nothing - the only official tally comes at the convention. In effect, you are supposing that if the superDs throw their weight behind Obama in June, Hillary will see the light and concede before the convention. What leads you to believe she would do that? The supers might make their voices heard but Hillary would still take this to the convention (assuming a slim delegate lead for Obama and a pop vote lead for Hillary). As they say over at PW, "No candidate who has won as many votes and delegates as Clinton hasn’t taken the fight to the convention." She has an obligation to her supporters, and she has an obligation to history. History will not look kindly back on a Democratic party that forced the first viable female candidate to concede without even a vote. "sbj needs to make SO many borderline ridiculous pro-Hillary assumptions that his post ultimately reads almost as a brief for Obama." Two things: 1) A brief for Obama? In your dreams. Just to make this interesting - for me at least - what are the ridiculous borderline assumptions that I make? I'll counter with a pro-Obama ridiculous assumption: That she will run out of money. Monstretron - sarcasm is lost on you. The entire notion that a win is a loss is idiotic.
Anyone else pissed that we can't comment on the other stories? What's Marc afraid of? Well if he thinks we can't control ourselves then I might as well just let it rip in the one place he allows us to: fuck etc.
sbj said, and it bears repeating, "History will not look kindly back on a Democratic party that forced the first viable female candidate to concede without even a vote."
You open the comments for one thread to let the plebs have their say? How insulting. There may have been a few disgusting comments, but the vast majority were well written and insightful and, in many cases, better than your own posts. So I don't personally believe the reason you gave for turning off comments. I think it more likely that you didn't like the *substantive* criticism that was increasingly coming at you. Since I'm reading your blog a lot less now, I'll add that I miss hearing what your readers have to say a lot more than I miss you.
A couple of things. 1. The PA primary contest was masterful Briar Patchery on the part of Obama's campaign team. Yes, Hillary lived to fight another day, but all her funds were absorbed into one state. Now she has to raise funds to even pay off the pathetic Mark Penn. She can't spread herself into IN and NC like Obama can. I can see why the O campaign has long term confidence. 2. ROOOOOOOOVE!!!! Looks like the Dark Lanternists at our party's Black Bag division have decided to help Hillary. Okay, so after much gnashing of teeth, the North Carolina Republican Party will, eventually, pull the Reverend Wright ad from the air, but not until white working class and backcountry Democrats have had a chance to see it. Remember, the key to understanding what ails Democrats is something that white liberals have a hard time dealing with: the Klavern Vote. About 15% of Democratic voters would rather wear their sheets than sleep on them. And will not vote for a black man in November. Period. The Clintons know this. The Obama people know this. McCain's people are running from this as fast as they can. Polite liberals call this "the Bradley effect". In the real world? 15% of white, working class Democrats find their home in the Aryan Nations. They may tell one thing to the pollsters, they may say the right thing in public, but in the privacy of the voting booth, the sheet goes on. You will never get a liberal to admit this about his party, but 'tis da troof. It's why Hillary is still alive.
Because a Hillary supporter above charged Obama supporters with double standard, I'll say it:
I become more convinced each day that those who are hoping that Hilary will will throw her support to Obama when the nomination battle is over are in for a major shock. I am now beginning to expect that Hilary and Bill will either remain silent or endorse McCain. Everything she has said and done has indicated that if she can't be president, she won't allow Obama to be president. Bill was by many measures a pretty good president, especially in his second term where, despite the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, he was able to get things done. Bush has been so pathetically bad for the country that Clinton nostalgia has been at an all time high, with some people regarding Clinton as "one of the best" presidents of the 20th century. Hilary would surely be good in carrying on the Clinton legacy, and even if she ends up being better than him, it will always be seen as an extension of "their" presidency. Hilary's success would enhance, rather than threaten, Bill's historical record. But Obama is a game changer, and I think that an Obama administration, especially if even moderately successful, will make Clinton look bad bad bad, for Democrats and the country, in retrospect. Obama will be the New Democrat. Obama will do for gays what Clinton promised to do before throwing them under the bus. Obama will do for Democrats what the Clintons, I believe, desperately wanted to do, maybe even had some success in doing, at least for themselves, but not long term for the Democrats. Obama is calling the Clintons out and relieving all of us loyal Democrats from the obligation to carry the Clinton's water for them, while they lie, cheat and steal. Obama is doing what the VRWC could not do, which is make Democrats take a good hard look at what the Clintons really mean.
Mary, the Clintion administration was a disaster for the party. Both the house and the senate were lost and Bill became the butt of jokes. Your memory is playing tricks on you.
I guess that's my point, linda. It has become more obvious, in part because of Obama. And this is what really drives the Clinton's scorched earth policy against Obama.
I haven't a clue. No one does.
I'm reasoning back from the end. The super-delegates will give Obama the nomination when they're sure he's going to lock down a pledged delegate majority. He currently needs 139 more pledged, out of 416 still available, based on the MSNBC count. He'll probably close that a little when the last seven from Pennsylvania are awarded. By May 20, he'll have that. He only needs to get 52% in North Carolina and Oregon, and win Indiana and Guam or lose them by a couple of points. He can lose West Virginia and Kentucky by the predicted wide margins. By May 6, that arithmetic will be easy to see. He'll need fewer than 50, with more than 200 still available to win. When the party leadership understands that, they'll shut Clinton down. Yes, party leadership is an amorphous operation, but it's there. Big donors and bundlers are already backing away from her, and they can tell her she'll get no help recovering the $5 million she loaned herself or paying for a 2012 Senate run if she stays in. Reid and Pelosi have been clear about not overturning pledged, and they can speak their minds as soon as they think the pledged outcome is clear. I'd add in two more centers of power. Shumer and Emanuel are at the heart of the Senate and House campaigns, looking out for those candidates and knowing that all the sitting Senators and Representatives are super-delegates. Rendell and Rangel are Clinton power-players who have made it clear that they are also watching out for the party and the November endgame. Among those folks, there are voices strong enough to make sure both Clintons understand that the options are out-with-honor or down-with-disgrace. Those folks are probably already working behind the scenes. If they can make it happen without going public, we'll see closure before May 6. If they have to go public, May 7 will be a very exciting day, and it will be over May 10. (Before that, Obama should not say a negative word. Other people, netroots, bloggers, and commenters should push back hard on why Clinton can't close the deal after running for nine years and starting with a huge edge; how Whitewater, cattle futures, impeachment, Borat-gate, and Sniper-gate are three times worse than anything she's found on Obama; and how her net negative ratings in polls explain why she's systematically behind in national polls of November outcomes. We're citizens, we can raise the issues, and he doesn't need to.)
Obama will refuse to debate because he blew the last debate badly (see comments by andrew sullivan who lambasted obama for his terrible performance). He will claim a high ground in doing so, that they've had so many debates. the ratings of the last two debates (about ten million each) prove he is wrong and this will look like cowardice. Reports that ms. edwards will openly campaign with Hillary in NC prove to be true, including a commercial. This will penetrate MSM deeply and make it easier for super delegates to trickle to Hillary. Lines Hillary used in PA victory speech about women and little girls on dads shoulders will become mainstays of speeches and commercials and that plus the vote totals of women for Hillary will do damage to barack in NC and IND. Hillary will agree to go on chris mattthews college tour (just as she showed up on Keith Olbermann and looked like the stronger soul for doing so) and bat Chris around and he will look childish being played by a master- it'll be more you-tubed than chris on john stewart or as john stewart fucking with tucker carlson on his silly old show. Clintons will release the obama camp documents that Bill spoke of that suggest it was axelrods plan to play the race card on bill and the times will back track the 38 lobbyists on Obama fundraising staff bundling millions will come back next week and deeply embarrass barack. A 527 will show wright tapes as part of commercial campaign and a station will refuse to air them and earn a huge news story. Somebody will catch ted kennedy saying something really snarky about obama and it will be a very ugly one day story. Why Obama can't finish out will be a big negative story about obama. A glorious accounting of past convention fights will tell the story of FDR's improbable 3rd or 4th ballot win and this will show us the way to a hillary win and an electrifying august.
Opponents of Obama like to say that if you ask an Obama supportet what he stands for they cannot come up with anything. I wonder if you asked a clinton supporter how she will get the nomination they would say she is tied and let the voting continue. This is not true. Largely because the media would like this drama to continue and the Clintons' do/say anything to win there has been a rather successful misinformation campaign going on about what her chances really are in securing the democratic nomination. I wonder if many of those people in PA. really understood that the only way for Clinton to win would be to essentially take the nomination away from Obama, some (maybe 9.2%) might conclude it a waste to keep this thing going by voting for her. No Clinton supporter ever explains publicly how she is going to pull this off. They say let's just see what happens. The only thing that can happen for her to win is to destroy Obama. That simple. Why isn't this talked about more? And I will close by saying if the rolls were reversed and Obama was down by a similar margin but cotinuing to run to destroy Clinton the outrage would be immeasureable. Oh and where was Clinton's outrage about Florida and Michigan not counting last fall when something could have been done.
One simple point about Clinton running in 2012: given that her base relies heavily on older voters, and has alienated the young, she won't exactly gain ground demographically. After four years, part of her base will be dead, or simply immobile. Sure, it may not lose her a huge chunk of votes - but enough to tip the balance away from her. The young voters are unlikely to embrace her after her Republican-lite campaign this time around. The African-American vote is unlikely to find the Clintons palatable in future after the use of the race card. Given these factors, Hillary has one good reason to stay in the race: this is now her last, best shot. No, it's not a credible shot, and it is incredibly selfish, but it probably is her only chance of reaching the White House.
Emily- You bring up the 'say anything /do anything' story line about Hillary. This was an idea that Obama brought up a long time ago and has returned to heavily in recent weeks. This idea is on that his leading constituency -hillary clinton haters- love to repeat. How is that not the most negative attack of all? it absolutely attempts to villify her and mark her as toxic. its what asshole ex-husbands try to say about their ex-wives and vice versa. It was the ultimate dog whistle to bring all the hillary haters to him. Obama's problems in the last 6 weeks were all self inflicted, just as Hillary's bone headed bosnia thing was self inflicted. Wright was his fault. Elite gate was his fault. his awful debate performance was his fault. When Mrs. Edwards campaigns with Hillary in NC that will be totally his fault because he gambled on no mandates plan. The thing is just not over.
You are cowardly scum Ambinder! You forgot your lunch today sweetie!
What happens now? I do not believe that anything will induce the Clintons to withdraw from the race until the balloting at the convention is actually done. Not if Obama wins Indiana, not if he wins North Carolina, not if the superdelegates actually get off their behinds and make a decision en masse for him, not even if he goes over 2024 delegates committed to him. Delegates can always change their mind, Hillary has reminded us. She will not quit until there is absolutely no conceivable way for her to win. We keep hearing that this or that will force her out of the race. What evidence is there for that? All the evidence is that nothing short of the official nomination of her opponent will do so.
Rush Limbaugh & the other right wing talk back radio hosts are going to keep gaming the Democratic Primary and the media seems set to keep ignoring their impact and, especially with Indiana, this will have a profound effect on the sense of Clinton momentum.
Michael C., You on the other hand seem to be a Clinton supporter that cannot seem to face reality and clearly have bought into the Clinton spin that she does have some path to victory. She does not! She seems poised to fight to the convention without regard for the democratic party and you are surprised that so many people believe her capable of anything to win? You have every right to support Hillary. I do not hate her as you say. Again, a tactic you seem to buy into that if somehow one does not support her than one is an easily manipulated Clinton hater--who is being insulting now? The truth is that the candidate with the most pledged delegates should get the support of the super delegates who should ratify the will of the voters. Challenging that position makes absolutely no sense to me. I have no problem with her staying in the race but at least she could run a more dignified campaign and the media should be more forthright about her chances of victory. Otherwise voters are under the assumption that this thing is a tie and it is not no matter what she or her supporters say. Emily
Emily- it doesn't matter if you hate hillary. My point generally is that many many people do, the venom is there often in the comments these past few months. The disdain and rejection does not rise to the level of hate you say for yourself- fine. And yet you beleieve she would say that she would say or do anything. Is that Hyperbole or do you think she would pick a clarence Thomas? The rules are one must get to 2025 to get the nomination. So its Barack who didn't get the job done. He knew he wasn't going to run unopposed and he knew his country and party is full of people of varying priority.
1. Older white women - in Pennsylvania 47% of voters were white women while only 34% of voters were white men leaving Clinton with a gender advantage Obama couldn't overcome. I think he needs to skillfully speak directly to the potential frustration of women who are devoted to Clinton as their "vehicle" for gender vindication - breaking the glass ceiling, etc. In other words, Obama needs to acknowledge the issue openly and make a case that he can be an adequate vehicle for women's yearning. Perhaps speaking to a commitment to name women to the Supreme Court, key cabinet posts and potentially VP. 2. He's got to seize the moment as to who defines the context and "container" going forward. He did that best in three settings previously: (i) wonky discussions that got Iowa and NH to take him seriously; (ii) big arena inspirational talks; and (iii) his Philadelphia speech on race. The campaign is beyond (i) or (ii) mattering as much though he needs to retain the momentum of enthusiasm. I'd like to see two more key "presidential/leadership" speeches like Philadelphia: one on foreign policy and terrorism, and the other on economic issues. He's defined himself well on racial healing, but less well on the other key areas. 3. The "Obama Doctrine" - he is in a unique position to define something post-partisan like "hybrid" or "integral" - where the basis is "what works best to achieve the greatest good." The article "Audacity of Data" in TNR speaks of this. He has the pieces laid out but not the label of mantra. Defining himself the "Obama Doctrine" is good now, but even more importantly will inoculate him against the Republic plan to label him a tax and spend, lefty, soft on crime liberal.
IT'S TIME AMERICA: It’s time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP. Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too. But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up. Hillary Clinton say’s that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World. Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton’s have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes. If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human. Sincerely Jacksmith... Working Class :-)
Like the movie theatre screens of the '50s and
Dear dumb working class "jacksmith" of 11:58..
It all comes down to Oregon.
Michael C, given Clinton's long record of dishonesty and betrayal, plus her willingness to run as a Republican, I would not be surprised to see her suspend habeas corpus, nor would it amaze me if she appointed a second Rehnquist. Did you notice that she is now as big a warmonger as McCain? Democratic? I think not.
Michael C., I have worked on Obama's campaigns in New Hampshire and Maryland. I know several others who have worked in other states. I know many friends and family who support Obama (all democrats) and I never see this hatred you talk about. The people I have encountered on the campaigns are extremely respectful of their opponent, having never worked for a candidate before it actually surprised me, I thought political campaigns would be more nasty. In addition the exit polls in many states demonstrate that more Obama voters would be willing to vote for Hillary in the general election than Hillary supporters for Obama. Why is it so hard for Hillary supporters to accept that many people want a different kind of candidate this year? As far as this do/say anything comment you seem to have such a problem with let's think about all the things Hillary or her surrogates have said about Obama. He has not passed the commander in chief threshold, she and McCain have. He would be a roll of the dice. We have been reminded several times that he used drugs and perhaps even sold them. He can only win states with black voters (forget about Iowa, Kansas, almost NH etc.) His patriotism should be questioned because of his association with Willaim Ayers (read Hendrick Hertzberg for this "McCarthyism" tactic). He is an elitist, he is a whiner, his campaign has played the race card (which is one of my personal favorites).And he is not a muslim, as far as Hillary knows. None of these would be a surprise if they came from a republican. If you feel that the super delegates should have more of a say than the voters then this is not the party I thought it was. Past elections have shown that the superdelegates have followed the will of the people. It is only to Hillary supporters that this is unacceptable (another ex. of say/anything...) And to Jack Smith the working man: if you are suggesting that their is racism at work here and Obama should just accept it and move aside than I really have grave concerns for the future of this party. I was under the impression that the democratic party was the party of tolerance and inclusion. Are we to accept the desire of one constituency who has a hard time voting for a black man to be the voice of our party? I hope not. I love how so many Hillary supporters are too happy to turn into the worst elements of the republican party to win.
Emily- it is wonderful to have this cicil exchange even though we clearly aren't changing each others minds much. The reason 'say anything do anything' line often repeated by Obama beginning last november is hugely different to me than any of the riffs on obama by Hillary (that he isn't ready, etc) is that they suggest she has no moral compass and no scruples about anything. it is a wholesale indictment of her as a human being. you said in earlier post that you've held this view previous to working for obama and you certainly are entitled to believe what you want but I think this is bizarre thing to believe. I read somewhere just this morning that the two most painful words in relationship arguments are always and never because they completely write someone off. The absolute-ness of obama's riff on hillary is extreme and meant to destroy. Why is what hillary says about Obama different. She suggests he is not ready. that means he's not there yet. Bill made this same determination in 88 when he almost ran. Obama sought council from kennedy and daschle about this same issue before he decided. it is a real issue for both of them and more an issue for him. I believe that because the world has changed that the 1992 bill clinton would not be ready to run in our world today. His 1992 self would not be qualified yet. It is a high threshold and I don't think Obama is necessarily there. But her comments don't preclude from being ready soon. I think it exposes him if we say he must change because he declared the way he did based on his own calculations. He'd look like an idiot changing to "be fair" and he'd be going against the will of his state if he stuck with Obama because of some national concensus. Do the superdelegates who declared early have more rights and power to decide than the ones who declare later? That's a pretty sinister formula. regarding the ayers question at the debate it is a bit unfair to suggest that Hillary is resposible for this: the moderaters asked this question not hillary. Hillary answered the same question obama did. Obama did not refuse to answer it and neither did hillary. isn't it unfair to blame this ayers issue on her?
Michael C., You are probably right that we will never agree but I would like to comment further. Regarding the the do/say anything argument; I think asking counsel in private among people one respects is different then airing those views about an opponent publicly during a primary season. And as far as I can recall, Bill Clinton did not run in 1988 not because he was not ready but because he was not sure he could survive being attacked for all his escapades with other women. I really don't care what Bill and Hillary do in their private lives but I do care when it gets in the way of advancing the party and it's agenda forward. I do not pretend to know how Hillary believes privately. All I can go by is what she says publicly. She has made it very clear that nothing is off limits when it comes to politics. We now are all too familiar with the "kitchen sink approach." I fundamentally don't agree with that. Furthermore, I could never support someone who would rather take down their opponent and put the American people through chaos just to win. It maybe helpful to consider Al Gore at this moment. As far as Ted Kennedy taking the fight to the convention we all see what good that has done the party these last 40 years. And for all those superdelegates, I do think it is up to each one individually to decide who to vote for, especially for those who declared early. If one decides to declare later in the process clearly they need to weigh other factors like what the majority of voters are saying. Let the voters decide in the next congressional elections whether or not Ted Kennedy or any other superdelegate who declares support for either candidate made the right decision. They can vote him out of office. As Barack Obama often says it is all about the voters. We the people should decide who we elect and we are responsible for holding them accountable. A very Jeffersonian idea. I watch Olberman and Mathews. I agree there was a time where Chris Mathews seemed to support Obama Lastly, you should go back and watch the last debate. Hillary did not have to respond to the Ayers question. It was a cheap shot and you should not defend it.
Emily- About Ayers, yes she answered the question put to her and yes her answer did not make obama look good. I am 46 and grew up hating the vietnam war, hating nixon, hoping on mcgovern, kicked out the boy scouts for doing merit badges about malcolm X and King. My parents were anti war and took us to demonstrations and an innercity church that celebrated freedom theology. I am a lefty athiestic teacher in the inner city and teach similar ideas ala friere's writings. I have over the last 35 years sided with freedom fighters and non violent movements and whatever. Like a lot of us: nothing special. But a month before 9/11 I read uris's best seller trinity again and after 9/11 I realized that it would read differently now post 9/11: that it's be more difficult to glamorize and empathize with a terrorist. I've visited n. ireland and met the blanket people and was moved but post 9/11 I pass a monument to bobby sands in my school's neighborhood. Can you imagine a monument to bobby sands going up in an american town now? No way. And I wouldn't love it myself.
Michael C., Why was Bill Clinton's administration more aligned with wall street than main street? What about welfare reform? Why did the Clinton's run their 1996 campaign on anti-smoking? Think of all the issues they could have championed in those eight years; healthcare reform, education reform, issues of poverty. Instead they chose to take on the tobacco companies. And, why did the democrats lose both houses of congress and a majority of the governorships in the nineties? And finally, if they were so great, why did George Bush become president, you'd think people would want to continue with the great Clinton years and vote for Gore. People voted for Bush because they did not really believe there was much of a difference between the two parties. I remember in 2000 friends of mine saying they'd vote for Bush because what is the difference. And that is what the Clinton's did to the party. They completely blurred the lines between republicans and democrats--not to advance an agenda but to win an election. Finally, I cannot believe someone as left-leaning as you sound could support her after she voted to authorize the war in Iraq. If I had any doubt in my mind that she was an opportunist before it was gone after that vote. I think it's unbelievable that so many democrats,especially working class voters who are disproportionately paying the price for this war could support her after that vote. Where was her courage then? I lived in NYC during 9/11 and I find any politician using what happened for political gain disgusting. Hillary brings up 9/11 now to scare people and win votes Ayers has nothing to do with 9/11. Why are people like you buying into this stuff?
Emily- we are both married to our perceptions and our positions. The Clintons didn't run on anti-smoking but a thousand microissues. when the situation does not allow you to do big stuff you do little stuff: smart intelligent people probe for flexibility. Anti-smoking has made the quality of my life better by the way. As for 9/11 it is part of the landscape of our country and you and I both bring it up to describe our feelingas about what is and isn't okay in the election here. Voters certainly include it in their thinking about the world they are voting about. it isn't scare tactics when you and I talk about it so why is it when a ny senator speaks of it only very rarely in her run for the presidency. remember she's not doing a full guilani about it.
Michael C. You see the Clintons the way you want to see them. Your rationalizations for what they have and have not accomplished is shared by a lot of democrats who do not sem to think anyone else could handle the presidency except the Clintons. Or you just want to see a continuation of the hateful back and forth with the republicans--how depressing. Your arguments are exactly what Obama talks about. Here we are in 2008 and you yourself bring up the Vietnam War and the things you criticize Obama about, let's face it are trivial compared to what we could be talking about. We are letting our politics be defined by what happened in the sixties. And even worse we are letting a very mean faction of the republican party define how are politics will be shaped. The Clinton's solution seems to be we'll beat them by playing the game even meaner. That's a real honorable goal. I think it is sad that so many democrats have bought into the idea that the only thing that matters is to beat the republicans and as a result I don't know what the party stands for anymore. Political leadership and courage is charting your own course. Like Obama says we'll keep having the same old arguments that have been going on for years and nothing will change unless we, the voters say enough. It is an inspiring notion to believe that ordinary people can chart their own destiny. The most important accomplishment Obama has made thus far is engaging so many people in the process. And maybe instead of winning the presidency by a a point or two Obama may win with a true mandate, something Bill never did and I don't think Hillary ever will. And maybe the whole party will benefit because so many people are coming out to vote democratic that it will help whoever is on the democratic ballot. Since so many people who support Obama are young they are in fact the new face of the party. And the best part is that maybe our elections will no longer be decided by the "reagan democrats," an older change resistant, cultural conservative voting bloc who have demonstrated their unwillingness to support any real progressive change that ironically would help their own economic interests. And I do think it also ironic that so many democrats who opposed this war could turn a blind eye to her vote. That is the real shocker. She has never shown any political courage. She campaigns by pitting people against one another by class, culture, race, age. It's the old game of divide and conquer and too many Americans are too happy to go along. She does not enlighten she'd rather perpetuate ignorance (Obama's a muslim, letting race play a role, using her gender to conjure up sympathy and using it to claim sexism if she is challenged, pitting the haves against the have nots). I know for myself and talking to many Obama supporters that he speaks to concerns many of us have had for a long time. I feel like finally, for the first time in my life time, someone has come along who I really believe in and who seems to articulate a belief in the possibility of this country I have never heard before. I really hope he perseveres in the end. In many ways this fight he is in right now is the biggest one he'll face. The two are engaged in a fight for the soul of the party. It really is a choice of the past (look at those who support her) or the future (who supports him). I will always choose the future over the past and find change exciting not scary. Isn't that what Bill Clinton ran on in 1992. How times have changed!
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Clinton wins Indiana by two points, Obama wins NC by 10-15 and this thing goes on and on and on and on until the uncommitted super delegates grow some balls.
Posted by mark | April 23, 2008 12:25 PM