The debate over whether Hillary Clinton should stay in the race or drop out continues today with the Washington Post editorial board and Washington Note editor Steve Clemons saying she should stay in and Maureen Down saying she should drop out. The reality is that you can make good faith arguments either way. But there are some very bad arguments being made that deserve rebuttal, and others that warrant further examination.
One of the strongest arguments being made for Clinton staying in is that the process is helping the party by boosting registration and grassroots activism. Here’s how the Washington Post puts it.
There is no lack of excitement in the Democratic Party. States that have cast ballots have reported record turnouts. Registrations are through the roof. Just last week it was announced in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22, that since November the number of registered Democrats increased by about 161,000. Altogether, Democrats now outnumber Republicans there by about 830,000.
Let us concede the point that contested primaries have helped the Democratic Party so far. Yet, most of that advantage has already been accomplished. Of the ten states that remain to vote, only Oregon and Pennsylvania voted for either Al Gore or John Kerry, and Pennsylvania’s voting registration closed last Monday. It’s true that heated contests in Kentucky, Indiana, and South Dakota, for example, would boost the party somewhat, but with what Electoral College consequences? Could any of those states be put in play as a result of Clinton remaining in the race to contest them? And if the Democrats are winning in Montana and North Carolina, isn’t it a foregone conclusion that the election has been a blowout? In short, the upside of engagement in the remaining 10 states is very limited, but the potential damage to party unity and the candidates’ images is not limited at all.
Another Washington Post argument is that the campaign has been filled with surprises, from the resurgence of John McCain to Clinton’s upset win in New Hampshire, to the strength of Obama’s strategy. In other words, we’d be foolish to predict how the campaign will unfold from here. This has a kind of superficial appeal, but it ignores that Obama’s campaign has predicted the winner of every state but one since Super Tuesday. The one they got wrong was Maine, where they defied their own estimates and pulled out a decisive victory. They also predicted that Clinton would win Texas and gain a 101-92 delegate advantage. As it turned out, she won only the primary portion of the contest and wound up losing the delegate count 99-94. The race has unfolded almost exactly as Obama’s campaign predicted, except that he won by wider margins than expected.
So, unpredictability hasn’t been nearly the factor that some would have you believe. But there is another problem with this argument. And that gets to what people call ‘The Math’. Barack Obama has a 1414-1248 advantage in pledged delegates. To demonstrate what ‘The Math’ means, you can go to Slate’s Delegate Calculator and give Clinton 60%-40% wins in every remaining contest. Even in such a scenario, Obama would retain a 1639-1595 pledged delegate advantage. This shows how unrealistic it is to believe that Clinton can win on the basis of the vote as expressed (according to the rules) by the electorate. The outcome of the upcoming contests may be in doubt, but ‘The Math’ is not.
Likewise, the popular vote is not in much doubt. The best estimate of the popular vote shows that Obama currently leads by about 827,000 votes. Even if you include Michigan (where Obama was not on the ballot) and Florida, Obama still leads by 94,000 votes. There will be no revote in Michigan, but if there were Obama would not be giving away 328,000 votes to Clinton in that state. We can confidently predict that Obama will emerge with more popular votes than Hillary Clinton.
So, even conceding a certain degree of uncertainty about the future, there is almost no uncertainty about the eventual winner of both the pledged delegate and the popular vote winner. That will be Barack Obama.
Another rationale for Clinton remaining in the race is that it is always possible that some scandalous information might come out that renders Obama unelectable. This is not a reasonable rationale. As the Clintons never tire of pointing out, even the pledged delegates are not legally bound to vote for the candidate they were elected to represent. Proving the point, one of Clinton’s pledged delegates in Iowa chose to vote for Obama. If Obama were suddenly caught up in an Eliot Spitzer-like scandal, his pledged delegates would have little problem voting for someone else. Clinton’s chances in such a scenario would not depend on how many delegates she wins in Montana and Puerto Rico, but how willing Obama’s delegates were to back her rather than some compromise candidate (like Al Gore or John Edwards). In other words, Clinton’s chances of winning the nomination in the aftermath of an Obama collapse are diminished, not enhanced, by further negative campaigning.
There’s another argument that I see people make that amounts to magical thinking. Here’s the Washington Post’s version from today.
We understand Democrats’ concern that Mr. McCain benefits most as their candidates tear each other down. Recent polls show the favorable ratings of both Democratic candidates declining, Ms. Clinton’s more than Mr. Obama’s. Making the case that you’re better qualified inevitably involves, to some extent, explaining that the other candidate is less so. But instead of continuing to blur the line between civil discourse and destructive denunciations, the candidates and their campaigns could talk more substance…
The list of issues to hash out is endless, and doing so in polite political combat could produce a stronger Democratic candidate for the fall and a better-informed electorate.
According to this theory, the campaign can go on indefinitely without any harm to Barack Obama, provided that the Clintons stick to substance and eschew ‘destructive denunciations’ and remain ‘polite’. Anyone familiar with the Clintons knows that they aren’t genetically capable of polite political combat. When low-key and thoughful Clinton surrogates like Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter are attacking Obama’s choice of church you know that there is nothing the Clintons won’t stoop to to win this race. A leopard can’t change its spots, and it is disingenuous to say that Clinton should stay in the race if it is predicated on her behaving in a civil manner.
What this gets down to is a cost/benefit analysis to Clinton remaining in the race. If she stays in she will continue to make negative attacks against Obama. Her surrogates will continue to push the racial divide by tarring Obama with his pastor and criticizing his well-respected church. They will weaken him among whites, drive up his negatives, shorten his ability to campaign everywhere, and make it harder to reunite the party.
Some will argue that this is nothing different from what the Republicans will do to Obama once he is the nominee. That’s true, but attacks from your allies have added salience. They provide excellent 30-second advertising fodder. “Even Mayor Nutter said he would have quit that church.”
But what if Obama really is vulnerable because of his church? Well…Clinton is vulnerable because if the Tuzla, Bosnia video. If she was the near inevitable nominee would it be wise for Obama to bring that video up constantly to argue she was unfit for office? Obama’s vulnerability to race-baiting distortions is precisely why Clinton should be defending him. That she does the opposite shows a destructive and self-centered tendency.
There are also opportunity costs. Every dollar Obama spends to defeat Clinton is a dollar lost in defeating McCain. Every day he is forced to campaign in South Dakota or Oregon is a day he can’t campaign in Ohio, Colorado, or Nevada.
If Clinton is going to be the nominee it isn’t going to be because she won the majority of the contests that remain. That won’t cut it. If she is going to be the nominee it will because something came out that is currently unknown that killed Obama’s chances. If that happens, Clinton will be in a stronger position to claim the nomination if she isn’t seen as in any way responsible for killing off Obama. In other words, as Patrick Leahy said:
“Senator Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to. As far as the delegate count and the interests of a Democratic victory in November go, there is not a very good reason for drawing this out. But as I have said before, that is a decision that only she can make.”
It’s nothing personal. It’s what is best for the party. And if you have a vote in the Pennsylvania primary, you should vote for Obama even if you prefer Clinton. Losing Pennsylvania will weaken but not defeat Obama. Winning Pennsylvania will not do anything to help Clinton, and will probably hurt her chances in the long-run.
After all, if she drops out graciously after losing Pennsylvania, she’ll be in a much better position to win a brokered convention later than she would be if Obama supporters think she sabotaged their candidate.
Great post, and what I WISH the talking heads were talking about. I’ve come to believe this is all about ratings, for them.
I wish instead they’d be showing how Obama WON Texas, and how that should be the reason for Hill to drop out. Ah well.
This was my favorite part though:
If she loses PA, it really will be all over. If I felt better, I’d head for a local Obama phone bank right now. But I’m getting over some massive allergy induced something, and trying to catch up on small chores right now. Thanks for the note of hope!
The issue is not whether Hillary stays in the race or not. The issue is whether the Clinton campaign continues to try to win the nomination by assassinating Obama. That is the real problem with Hillary staying in the race.
Mark Shields made a suggestion on the News Hour Friday, credited I think to Dem pollster Peter Hart, which I thought was brilliant. Everyone knows the nomination will almost certainly come down to the superdelegates, maybe to some kind of backroom deal at the convention. Obama has the lead in almost every measure, but not enough to shut out Hillary unless she tanks in PA or one of the few remaining significant states.
If the nomination is ultimately decided by the super delegates, then the issue they should decide is who has the best chance of beating McCain in the fall. The super delegates should make clear that they will not tolerate any more fratricidal attacks between our candidates. Yes, this means you, Bill and Hill. And you, Mark. But also the Obama campaign and its surrogates. They have for the most part tried pretty hard to stay out of the mud, but not always. That shit has to stop, on both sides. The superdelegates should make clear to both campaigns that any more direct attacks on each other are automatic disqualifiers.
Instead, both campaigns should train their guns on McCain. Instead of giving him a free ride from now til the convention, they should make him fight a two-front war. The two campaigns should focus their efforts on who can make the best case against McCain rather than against each other. At the convention, the superdelegates should make their choice on that basis. Who has shown themselves best able to take on McCain. Seems to me that’s a perfect strategy.
RTFA. The Clintons have no way to stay in the race but by assassinating Obama. Their only path to victory is to make him radioactive and claim that he’s unelectable. Unfortunately, doing so would likely prevent any Democrat from being elected in Novemeber, so this is somewhat self-defeating. (But that’s hardly new for the Clintons, now, is it?) If both candidates turn their attention on McCain… Er… That means Obama’s already won and Clinton should drop out. Right?
If both candidates turn their attention on McCain… Er… That means Obama’s already won and Clinton should drop out. Right?
Probably. But that’s not the point.
It is better for either candidate, as well as for the party as a whole, to improve their position relative to McCain. It is better for either candidate as well as the party if they both work on bringing McCain down rather than giving him a free ride til the convention. It is better for each candidate to make the best case they can as a strong challenger for McCain.
It’s not good for either candidate to spend time and money beating up on each other. Even if Hillary managed to kill off Barack, it would be a Pyrrhic victory. She would do herself almost as much harm. And if she doesn’t, every bit of mud her campaign flings at Obama is more ammunition for the McCain in the fall. If Obama’s campaign gets dragged into flinging mud back, the same is true in reverse. In either case, the “winner” goes into the fall campaign as damaged goods while McCain gets a free ride in the mean time. And the longer it goes on the worse it looks for Democrats in the fall, and the better it looks for McCain.
That assumes that they’re out for the same thing – I would make no such assumption…they need to destroy Barack Obama, and they will do everything within their power to do so.
In other words, the Clintons’ only weapon is a hand-held nuclear grenade, and they’ve already pulled the pin…
FIRE IN THE HOLE!
no backroom deal…and on the fight to seat Fl and MI, Obama has an edge: The Math. It comes back to the math.
Donna Brazille, ex Gore campaign manager, on ABC’s This Week
(Watch Video, via TPM)
Brazile Explains Credentials Committee
Again, that’s not the point I was trying to make. I think it is very likely that Obama will be our nominee no matter what happens between now and the convention. The question is, what shape will he be in going into the general against McCain?
And even if Hillary manages to secure the nomination, by whatever circumstances, what shape will she be in by then? If she wins by assassinating Obama, or by some deal at the convention, any speck of legitimacy her campaign may still have will be gone.
In either case, our candidate goes into the fall campaign bloodied and bowed, while McCain has all summer to gain strength unopposed. That is not good for either candidate. It’s not good for our party. It’s not good for our nation or the world.
The super delegates should make clear to both campaigns that any further attacks on each other are an automatic disqualification. Period. They should make clear to each campaign that the real enemy is St. McCain and four more years of Bush, and that is where all our effort should be focused.
we’ve been too much at hand wringing about super -delegates, the re-vote for FL and MI; whether Obama is being damaged, whether McCain will win.
We’re over-estimating the McCain campaign. He’s breaking the cardinal rule in politics: don’t peak too early. McCain has began the general election campaign, airing ads. Fatigue will set in. Gawd 9 months to go!
“If she wins by assassinating Obama, or by some deal at the convention, any speck of legitimacy her campaign may still have will be gone.
Again I repeat, there’ll be no deal at the convention – back room or otherwise. The rules were broken. That’s the point of my comment.
My comment above was to throw light on little known facts of the inner workings of DNC – what actually happens in the credentials committee – the controversy over FL and MI b/c when those states are seated and they’ll be seated and the votes counted, “will impact the outcome no matter what happens between now and Denver.
You have over 800 uncommitted super delegates and as of now Obama leads less than 175 pledged delegates. That’s hardly a comfortable lead. SO it’s good to know he has an edge on the Credentials Committee.
Clinton, at 1248 plus 245 super-delegates, won’t throw in the towel. She’s counting on super-delegates who are indebted to the family and are afraid to piss off the Clinton machine.
Obama will be fine, win or loose. His star time chart shines bright.
While I root for Obama, what awaits the next president is troubling – from ugly shitpile crisis to uglier shitpile crisis – cleaning up after the Clinton-Bush years.
Josh Marshall on the Credentials Committee-
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186374.php
If you do watch that clip, and have a few extra minutes, wait until it is done, and the clip menu appears. A few clips to the right is a Fox interview with Mark Halperin, which I feel comes closest to spelling out Senator Clinton’s feelings and plan.
I’ve spoken before about the code-speak and racism of the Clinton campaign. Many here and elsewhere have touched upon it. But, I haven’t yet seen anyone in a MSM outlet come as close to saying “Clinton does not think Obama can win because he is black, but can’t say it out loud,” as Halperin does in this clip.
I’ve long felt that the Clinton campaign has been stoking the fires of bigotry, waiting for the “buyers’ remorse”/white backlash to reach such a level that they basically consume Obama, and leave the door open for Senator Clinton to step through and say “see, he’s unelectable because there is just too much racism right now,…but, maybe in eight years….”
This “unelectable” narrative has been pushed along by Clinton surrogates a lot more carefully since the Ferraro fiasco. Make no mistake though, I feel that Ferraro’s fiasco was, if not well planned, well accepted by the campaign because it put the issue out there in a way that allowed Clinton to benifit from the racism,…without appearing racist herself.
That’s been her problem, publicly pushing the racist narrative without appearing racist herself. The Rev. Wright situation has provided the best opening so far, and if you have a few more minutes, I suggest you listen to a radio interview David Sirota did with Jay Marvin late last week. You can find a link from Sirota’s posting on “Is Wright Right About Racism” in Huffington Post’s “Politics” section. Both the post and the interview are worth the time.
In any case,my feeling is that as long as the Clinton’s approach remains an ambiguous, behind-the-scenes whisper campaign, Obama just might lose despite the obvious. Her ability to plausibly deny the fact that her “chance” depends on racism and fear allows many of her supporters to keep feeding the fantasy without having to face the ugly under-pinnings of her campaign.
But if Hillary does win by racism, she’s going to lose the African-American vote in the fall. They already have to face mass disenfranchisement campaigns, hostile employers, and bigotry at the polls to vote. Having to vote for a candidate who destroyed the candidacy of a black man just because he was black is going to be the final straw there, I think. So while the Clintons might be able to seize the nomination, they’ll lose the general.
You are absolutely correct. But, it is a whole lot easier to create new bigots than it is to create new black voters by Denver, or November. If we think about it, Obama is already using up much, if not most, of the black vote just to win the Democratic primary. Even if every single black voter in America turned out in the general election come November and voted for Obama, it still would not matter in many key states. That, is the underlying “ugly truth,” that Clinton accepts, but just doesn’t say out loud for fear of being called racist; or worse yet for her, forcing enough Americans to have to face the issue, repudiate the racism,…and her along with it.
After all, it only takes is a few people in the right places hyping the idea of the uppity, unqualified, affirmative-action negro, not waiting his turn, and trying to take the job of president away from the experienced, deserving, white candidate. This idea is already being tossed around in some circles, and with Rev Wright on our screens being taken out of context 24/7,…we must admit that ugly might still have legs.
How many commercials with winking white women saying “Call me Barry,” would the right-wing need to scare the bejeezus out of on-the-fence white voters who are battling with their own….moral contradictions? Not many.
Now, of course Clinton cannot out race a Republican on the race-card. They have a formidable machine built, in part, on feeding bigotry, and most Democrats are not comfortable with, or accepting of the blatant racism that many Rebulicans are. So, she would lose Democratic support anyway. But, clearly, Senator Clinton’s campaign, fundraising, losses, logic, haven’t shown her to be someone who’s terribly interested in long-term planning. Right now, its about getting the nomination, all else (bills, facts, math), be damned ’til then.
And just to clarify, I do not feel that all of Clinton’s supporters are racists. And frankly, I do not think that she is completely wrong in her assessment that Obama may be unelectable, because of his race, considering the current climate of bigotry and sexism which exists in our country. Facts aren’t “wrong” per-se, but what one chooses to do with them can be. Moreover, her wishy-washy stance has given her enough plausible deniabilty so that even well-meaning supporters can avoid examining the ugly under-pinnings of her recent campaign. Like I said before, if enough Clinton backers looked logically at what she is doing and saying right now, many would not, could not allow themselves, in good conscience, to support her campaign.
Unfortunately for Clinton, instead of treating voters, black and white, like adults, explaining her fears, and appealing to our pragmatism, she basically abandoned black voters. Instead of pointing out, in a forthright and respectful way, that as more black-skinned voters support Obama, more blue-collar voters appear not to;…she hemmed, hawed, winked and nodded her way into being the racist she did not wish to appear to be, when her campaign ran into trouble.
Black voters would not have abandoned Clinton for speaking frankly about the ugly fact that’s been openly discussed in the black community from the minute Obama threw his hat in the ring. Her campign’s condescension, blatant disrespect of Obama, and shameless Dixiecrat assault is what turned the tide. You can only take so much before you say “hey, I know Obama has a snowball’s chance in hell against the war hero with the military base named after his grandfather, and the Pat Buchanans of the world in his corner; but how dare she claim to be on my side, yet treat Obama, and, by extension, me with such racist disrespect, and pretend not to notice.”
Hilary’s supporters will cast ballots, and McCain won’t gain thereby (although perhaps the Green candidate might if it’s not Nader). The Clintonistas have campaigned mostly to the traditional Democrats who’ll turn out for candidates below President regardless.
Barak’s supporters are more flighty because they’re newer at this whole idea of voting at all. Clinton might lose the election by turning off Obama supporters, but Clinton supporters are reliably Democratic voters, they might hold their noses, but they’re likely to vote Democratic regardless.
Each pulled more votes than McCain (and any other Republican) comfortably in every primary.
For a campaign which just lost TX, is being accused of not paying overdue bills, which was arguably in the red the beginning of March, which is facing a tally this week of the March financial status I’d say “It’s the economy (of the campaign) stupid.’
As more vendors in the upcoming states catch wind of her slow/no pay history, there will be a concerted effort to ask for payment up front for services rendered. In this economy a local pizza joint – like the ones she owes money to – are sublimely representative of those hardest hit by the economy she is pledging to fix on their behalf.
I meant to provide the video without the negative ratings!
I think it’s funny, and cute. I think there’s room for some self mockery in campaigning.
IMHO Hillary is hanging on because this election represents much more than just Obama beating Clinton. This contest is the moment where populist politics beats the old DLC style politics. This is the moment where an insurgent candidacy fueled by millions of small individual donors finally asserts its dominance over the big money and special interests that have traditionally held the upper hand in determining who the nominee will be. In many ways the Obama campaign is the fulfillment of the Howard Dean movement.
The Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and Rahm Emmanuel and Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson and their ilk view the Obama constituency as barbarians at the gates, armed with pitchforks and torches. They resent the fact that newly energized youth and African-American voters are threatening to upset the established order of things. Their beloved top-down management model is being challenged, and they are scared stiff that if Obama wins, things will never be the same.
Yup, and if they ALLOW the grassroots to win Gawd forbid that just might mean the little people get to sit at the grownups’ table?
To give Mrs. Clinton her due — and by the way I think she should drop out, too — Obama’s lead in the popular vote is essentially a product of his blow-out in Illinois, where he was expected to win big. Mrs. Clinton’s problems stem in large part from the premature FL and MI races, which had they been held in February would still have given her a big advantage due to her name recognition. That name recognition gave her an extremely strong position out of the gate, and it was what she was banking on to wrap it up in CA on February 5. Coming in third in Iowa screwed the pooch on that. She was up against two extremely strong campaigners in Edwards and Obama, and Dodd was no slouch at that point either.
She is being pushed hard to keep in by her hubbie and her staff. My guess is that if she had her druthers, she’d negotiate something Obama’s people. She’s got a lot of bargaining power at this point. The more she campaigns, however, the more she loses. Her problem has always been that her support is capped because people know who she is and have decided rightly or wrongly whether they like her or not. Neither Obama nor Edwards were labouring under that burden. She can’t break out, and is vulnerable to McCain’s candidacy. I think the Supers will start to turn soon. A big win for Obama in NC will do the trick.
Every candidate has their home base – Barack is the Junior Senator from Illinois and Hillary is the Junior Senator from New York – and what that says is that Barack did a better job of securing his home base than did Hillary. Conversely, it says that Barack did a better job of winning in the opposition’s home territory than did Hillary. Either way you look at it Barack Obama is the better candidate in this context, and that should be considered by the superdelegates.
There is one route left for Hillary:
She “suspends” her campaign soon declaring a lack of funds (true). She lets the Right wing attack begin in earnest against Obama. They deal him a fatal wound or he stumbles so badly he is sinking in the polls against McCain. In August Hillary comes back and humbly offers herself as a shining white knight to save the Democratic party. THe Super Delegates agree, switch votes if necessary and she walks away with the nomination as an enhanced candidate with the entire Democratic electorate now behind her. If he hasn’t faltered she is still in good standing and the party can offer her some consolation prize to get her to convince all her supporters to come over and make sure Obama wins.
…HRC’s campaign can’t pay its bills and can’t win the delegate count, so her campaign is doing one of two things:
Neither of those two options does one damned thing for the Democratic Party.
i can agree with 99% of what you said boo…the obama campaign should hire you…..but the nutter thing….it really doesnt belong there.
obama himself said if wright hadnt stepped down he would have left that church….i personally think obama is lying and pandering…..but he is running for office and thats what people do who are running for office….nutter isnt running for anything..in fact i predict in 3 and a half years he will be reelected with the largest margin ever….i dont have any reason to believe nutter is lying…personally i dont think he needed to make that or any comment at all….he should have said that would be between me and my pastor and left it at that.
you should rethink that nutter stuff.