The 2012 Plan is a conspiracy theory that Clinton knows she cannot win the nomination this time around, so she needs to make sure that there is no Democratic incumbent in the White House in 2012. Therefore, the theory goes, her primary motivation right now is in weakening Obama and making it less likely that he can beat McCain in the fall. This entails not only negative campaigning, but a refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the process by which Obama won the nomination. Under the theory, Clinton will continue to talk about the unfairness of caucuses, the unfairness of the DNC rule on Florida and Michigan, and will never truly concede the race. When the primaries are over, she will pitch her case to the superdelegates despite being behind in both the popular vote and the pledged delegate count.
Personally, I am disinclined to embrace the 2012 theory. I think Clinton is just hoping something unexpected will happen and she wants to be in the strongest position possible to be a replacement nominee. I’ve written before about why negative campaigning against Obama actually makes it less likely that she would be selected as a replacement nominee (because Obama delegates would block her if they see her as responsible for the downfall of their candidate). So, even though I don’t buy the 2012 plan as a theory, I am beginning to wonder when I read things like this:
First, Mrs. Clinton must win the Indiana primary as a means of demonstrating to supporters and donors that she is building on momentum after Pennsylvania, they said, and she must run strongly enough in North Carolina to avoid the perception that she did no better than an even split. Then she must win in a state that catches people by surprise, like Oregon or Montana.
The Clinton campaign must also persuade the Democratic National Committee to seat at least some of the delegates she won in the disputed votes in Michigan and Florida. It must also persuade superdelegates to include the popular votes cast in Florida, and maybe in Michigan, in calculating the overall tally.
Without that latter success, it would be all but impossible for her to match Mr. Obama in the popular vote total. But that is a tough sell because since neither candidate campaigned in those states after they held their primaries earlier than allowed by the party. Mr. Obama’s name did not even appear on the Michigan ballot.
One of Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategists, Geoff Garin, said the campaign hoped to end the primary season on June 3 lifted by a series of victories, and by coming close in the pledged delegate totals and the popular vote — though he declined to say what close would be.
“We’ll know it when we see it,” Mr. Garin said.
This is just magical thinking. First of all, there is no official popular vote where you ‘convince’ people, the DNC, or anyone else to include numbers in the certified tally. Second, the delegates from Michigan and Florida can only be included if Obama agrees to include them. And that is something he will not do if they are going to swing the election to Clinton. Both of those options are as mythical as unicorns.
Third, no matter what happens, Clinton will not finish ‘close’ in the pledged delegate count. She currently trails by 156 pledged delegates. In a worst case scenario Obama might cough up 40-50 of those in the remaining contests. But something closer to 15-20 is more likely. If each state goes according to what the polls currently indicate, Obama will finish with an approximate lead of 140 pledged delegates. Obama also enjoys a popular vote lead of 611,000 votes. To catch up, Clinton would have to win all the remaining states except Montana and South Dakota.
Geoff Garin says they hope to win by ‘coming close in the pledged delegate totals and the popular vote.’ But enough people are on the record, including in Clinton’s own camp, as saying she must win at least the popular vote, that this moves the goalposts off the playing field and out of the stadium.
If I take Garin at his word, Clinton does not plan on conceding even if she finishes behind in both the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, and that is a key premise of the 2012 Plan theory.
Now, maybe this is just bluster, but if Clinton trails in the popular vote and pledged delegate count after the primaries are concluded and she doesn’t graciously concede, but instead argues that the process was somehow illegitimate or that Obama is a bad candidate, then it will be proof that Plan 2012 is in operation.
I hope you’re right to doubt it, but I’ve long since given up on the idea that Clinton will accept defeat and graciously bow out. Nothing has changed since the Potomac Primary and Wisconsin, when this race really became Obama’s. Nothing changed after Texas and Ohio. Nothing changed after Pennsylvania.
So, until she drops out, I’m a firm believer in Plan 2012.
Bah, gracefully bow out.
And it really doesn’t help that she keeps saying things like If we had the Republican rules, I would already be the nominee.
No dumbass–you knew the rules because you and yours wrote them. That you failed to execute because you and your campaign are lazy, vastly underestimated your opponent and failed to embrace new technology is your problem.
But another thing comes to mind: I think she knows this is bullshit, too. So why continue to tear down our nominee?
Somehow, I don’t think it’s only to win a round of “I told you so.”
Put it this way: If you don’t believe in Plan 2012, I think you have to be working with the assumption that the Clintons are not all about power — that they have some sense of decency. That’s a fairy tale, in my opinion.
Further, if she’s just hoping for Obama to implode, there’s still no reason to stay in the race. She could suspend her campaign, and, if Obama explodes, restart it to become The Hero Who Saved Us at the convention.
Usually when a candidate says, “I’m in this all the way to the convention,” that candidate is preparing to drop out. Hillary has been saying this for quite some time, but, despite the math getting more and more difficult, she continues to push onward and slime Obama.
In any event, it’s a good idea to hammer Plan 2012 into the conventional wisdom, so that none of the Very Serious People<sup>TM</sup> who rule our party are standing around saying, “There’s no way we could’ve known!”
The signs are all there pointing to it. Is it not better to be safe than sorry by assuming that’s what she’s doing?
Wow, this is truly Clinton derangement syndrome. If she loses the nomination then she will be Senator from NY for the rest of her career.
Truly, this theory works better for Obama, who is younger than Clinton.
but it doesn’t work for either. If we lose this year they will both be despised. Sort of like Mark Green and Fernando Ferrer.
There are going to be millions of Democratic women who will be very angry if Clinton isn’t the nominee, but somehow that doesn’t matter.
Let’s not borrow trouble, lets let the process play out.
Incidentally, Dean was on the Daily Show last night and said MI and FL will be seated. The reality oriented community knows you cannot freeze out those states and win in November.
yes, but they will not be seated in a way that gives Clinton the nomination.
How’s that now?
Millions of Democratic women will be angry but without any real reason. Obama will be the nominee simply by virtue of the fact that he won. I don’t argue that this doesn’t matter. I simply argue that it is stupid to not show up for Obama simply because you want to have revenge on him for defeating po’ lil’ Hill’ry and her sleazeball campaign. So what, exactly, is your point?
I do believe FL and MI will be seated. But I’ll guarantee they won’t make a difference in the outcome, because nobody’s going to take Hillary’s Soviet-esque victory out of Michigan seriously. Florida has some wiggle room, since everyone was on the ballot, but Michigan does not.
They might both be hated if Dems lose. Hillary will be, at the very least. But if Clinton drags it to a bloody convention, I submit that she’ll be the hated one, and rightly so.
Yes, she will be a New York senator for the rest of her career. But that career will end in 2012. She will not get reelected after her showing in this primary. No.
You say, “There are going to be millions of Democratic women who will be very angry if Clinton isn’t the nominee…”
I’m one Democratic woman who will be thrilled when Obama is named the nominee, and Hillary’s campaign is history.
If Hillary’s racist dog whistles, illegal and unethical campaign tactics, character smears and pledges to “obliterate” other countries with nuclear weapons sounds like feminism to you, so be it. To this feminist it’s old-style patriarchal politics, this time played by someone who happens to be female.
That there are women who back her with the explanation that we need to have a woman President, makes me embarrassed for my gender. Obviously men don’t have a monopoly on foolishness.
Me too. I had a positive attitude toward her in the beginning of the campaign, but I don’t want my country run the way she’s run her campaign.
Make that two middle aged white women.
To keep her hopes alive, Clinton needs to keep uncertainty in play, aided by a strategy of “Confusion” (bamboozlement) by continually moving the goal posts.
If Hillary keeps enough people confused, they won’t notice that she has moved the goal posts from the Meadowland into the Mediterranean sea. Folks will hear teranean and think the goal posts are still anchored on land.
Imho, Hillary needs a swift kick by the remaining dithering donkeys.
I know of no other country that would permit a candidate to go this negative with personal trashing of a fellow party member – nor would the media allow it. France, Britain, Canada, Australia comes to mind.
Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan are not running for office. Hamas is not a constituency. The MSM have long abandoned their rightful role. They fail us by choosing not to give both sides of the story. Ed Rendell praised Farrakhan. Rev. Billy Graham echoed Wright, and on and on. There’s John McCain’s Rev. John Haggee.
How many church-goers can’t tell you on any Monday what yesterday’s sermon was all about? Yet we reach back 40 years into a candidate’s cradle.
Take Ayers, Obama would have been 6 years old. Think of it real hard.
Beyond silly. It an assault. Why does an intelligent society put up with this crap from Corporate ownership?
At the very least, the intelligence of the society is called into question.
Yep, she is looking forward to 2012. There really is no other viable explanation for her recent actions. Unfortunately for her, she fails to realize that 4 years from now she is likely to have no more appeal than she does right now.
Plan 2012 smells a lot like, steal the nomination, or, failing that, spoil it for the winner.
Exquisitely Republican thinking, no?
Uh, I don’t see “Plan 2012.” As Duncan (I think) has argued, if the Democrat (whoever it is) loses this fall, both Hillary and Barack will become two of the least popular politicians in the country.
True, a key problem with the Plan 2012 theory is that it involves magical thinking. I see a pattern developing.
I don’t believe in the 2012 plan.
And I don’t take Garin at his word.
I agree that there is a lot of magical thinking going on but most of this is the equivalent of sports trash talk in my opinion. She needs to keep as close as possible to Obama in delegates and popular vote, even if it’s clear she won’t pass him. And she isn’t going to do that by conceding that she probably isn’t going to be able do it. People don’t like to vote for clear losers. But they’ll vote for you if they think you have a slim chance.
Her entire plan is to look like she never gives up and that’s why they should pick her as the nominee. Hence it is necessary to her plan that she and her team concede nothing and engage in magical thinking.
Your conclusion – which I interpret as advice to conspiracy theorists to wait until after June 3 before drawing a conclusion – is fine.
But I doubt you’ll convince the denizens of blogosphere who like nothing better than wallowing in conspiracy theories rather than figuring out the strategy a campaign may be using.
The problem with that is this: Clinton is a pragmatist. She knows she cannot win without multiple events in the “magical thinking” category suddenly becoming truth.
And yet she engages in this head-in-the-clouds garbage anyway, knowing Obama will be the nominee. Why?
Two things. Whoever inherits the White house in 2008 will be a one-term President (the economy, Iraq, Iran, etc will assure that) and Clinton is doing everything she can to sour her supporters on Obama, portraying him as the enemy, rather than McCain.
Plan 2012 is the only thing that makes sense, and you’d better believe there are a lot of Obama supporters out there who believe it as the truth.
uh. no.
Oh, I believe it.
Hillarybots don’t own the franchise on being irrational.
So what, we’re supposed to just chalk up her actions to “she’s just trying really hard and nobody’s got the guts to tell her it’s not working?”
Which is more irrational, Hillary still being in the race, or Plan 2012?
Both of them seem pretty insane to me, but given that an equal amount of wishful thinking invades both options, it doesn’t really matter which one Hillary’s actually doing, both are doing a bang-up job of putting McCain in the White House.
uh, no. Did you even bother to read my comment or did you just jump in because you noticed an off-key voice in the Obama choir?
Which is more irrational to believe? Plan 2012.
Why would she still be in the race? Because she believes she would be the best candidate against McCain, she can’t believe enough people don’t see that AND (most importantly) because she hasn’t been mathematically eliminated yet. It’s improbable that the math will work for her. But not impossible.
Until enough delegates (pledged and super) are in Obama’s column she’s not mathematically eliminated.
Obama supporters like to say that Obama has it locked up. He doesn’t. It is probable that he’s going to win but it is not absolutely a sure thing. It is probable that Hillary is going to lose but it isn’t absolutely a sure thing. I doubt she will quit until it is a sure thing. If we’re lucky she’ll agree its a sure thing when they endorse and not require that they actually cast their votes at the convention.
She’s not mathematically eliminated yet?
We’ve been down that road before. I think Hillary Clinton is infinitely preferable to John Angrypants McCain. But in the end, any argument for Hillary comes down to wishful thinking.
The math doesn’t work unless Clinton alienates millions of black voters. Period.
I don’t entirely agree with your assessment. I do agree that the next President is going to inherit a real mess. I believe that a Democrat will do better than Bush III at cleaning up that mess. If Americans are seeing progress by the end of 2011 the odds are good they’ll stay with Obama. If not, all bets are off.
It won’t be easy, but I would rather have a President up there telling us that it won’t be easy, but that it will be possible if we all pitch in and sacrifice and work together, than a President who pretends everything is sunshine and lollipops and rainbows and unicorns.
What? Did you get lost and end up here?
Welcome.
Of course she is not aiming at 2012. Why would she risk what will quite likely happen to this country if McCain takes over and continues to implement what BushCo has started here? There will BE no “U.S.A.”, or at least not one that is recognizable from a mugshot taken in say 1992. It’s barely recognizable now.
1-She thinks that she can win against McCain.
2-She thinks that Obama will lose against McCain.
3-She thinks that if she proves #2 to the Democratic Party…by creating a virtual stalemate in the primary system because that is now the only option left to her…the Dems will tapdance the rules and nominate her. And she may be right.
Face it, folks.
She is running AS McCain to some degree. Not necessarily in terms of policies, just in terms of image. Older, more experienced in the ins and outs of DC, shot and a beer with the fellas, etc.
Ma Clinton equals Granpa Mac.
Bet on it.
And…it’s working.
The Dem pros WILL hear this argument.
They will listen and then they will consider their options in the light of old fashioned self-interest, most of them.
You think that things have changed sine the late 1800s? Not in politics they haven’t. The hustlers still run the scene.
Is she “right”?
About being able to beat MCain? About Obama’s inability to do so? About the tactics that she has used?
I don’t know.
Politics is a blood sport.
If she wins…the nomination and the Presidency…then yes, she was right.
Tactically correct.
If not…no.
We shall soon see.
By June I think. If not sooner.
The DNC will force some hands by June.
Why?
Self-interest.
Watch.
AG
I mostly agree with you AG in terms of the psychology of this thing. But, the point of my post is that if she doesn’t concede at the end of the nominating process (assuming she hasn’t basically run the table at the end and gained at least a popular vote lead) then I’ll have to concede that Plan 2012 is in effect.
that when people have strong feelings based on some actions and facts that it becomes a “conspiracy therory”. Billary is a disgrace to womankind and the party. Her campaign tactics go against everything that most democrats believe in. She is operating straight out of the Rove playbook.
I do believe she is now operating on setting herself up for 2012. SHe knows she’s out this race. I will never understand what makes her think that people would be any more likely to vote for her then than now?
Another possible scenario occurred to me that may not be conspiratorial at all.This is what I call the Lieberman Scenario based on what happened in Connecticut’s Senate race.
As I see it, Hillary will continue to ratchet up her demands on the Democrats while losing the popular vote and the elected delegates.When Barack Obama gets nominated, Hillary will declare her intention to be an independent candidate a la Lieberman.The McCain Repubs will throw their support to Hillary and she will beat Obama in the general election.
This scenario is very plausible IMO and has the added advantage of giving Hillary what she wants.McCain will certainly get a coveted cabinet position and possibly the VP spot in 2012.
Hillary’s bipartisan wet dream,I call it.
I ran that one through my head too. She will do anything she has to to “make herstory” (intentional misspell). I will not put anything past her. The more we talk about it to our friends and family, strangers even too, the less likely they will vote for her.
I ahve a friend at work that is Latino and saifd that is the main reason she is voting for Billary. Her words now, not mine “Latino people will never vote for a black man.” I asked her to think about breaking that cycle and have been chipping aeay at her reasoning and I really think she may come around to Obama. If each of us could do that Billary would never have a chance.
While I’m sure there are individual Latinos/as who won’t vote for a black guy, I don’t think the evidence points to that. The polling in North Carolina actually suggests Latino support has flipped since Richardson’s endorsement. Obama won Latinos on the Potomac, too. And Obama, of course, wins their support in a big way when you look at general election polls. There’s a lot made of black-Latino tensions, but I just don’t buy it as a big issue.
I know Pat Buchanan thinks Latinos won’t vote that way, but that’s because he sees the two groups as being made up of gang members out of South-Central Los Angeles.
So long as the Latinos don’t experience prejudice at the hands of whites, they will direct their prejuduce at blacks whom they consider inferior.With the virulence being directed at immigrants by the likes of Buchanan,Dobbs and other racists, many Latinos see the writing on the wall and know that only an alliance with blacks will protect and enhance their rights.I think that bodes well for Obama’s efforts to reach out to Latino voters.
As for Hillary, her actions in the past eight odd years has been to show the ruling elites in Washington that she is one of them and they can count on her to pursue the policies of the Permanent Government.That is why you see her at the forefront of supporters of the IWR, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment etc.
She was hoping that she could deceive the core of the Democratic Party with her triangulation tactics but Obama came in spoilt the party.She had to come out and show her rabid Neocon Republican self in order to defeat Obama or at least to show that she can keep up with him.
And yet many Dems still vote for her. I can’t imagine why….
grew up in LA and still has all her family there. I was surprised by what she said and asked her why they felt that way. She gave some really ugly bigoted reasons(which she does not believe) but so many from her community still do. I was just passing along an observation. I still am surprised by racism no matter what sector of the population it comes from. How can people have such ugly thoughts??
Scorched earth policy afoot!
The level of piling on using the Rev. Wright controversy by the mainstream media is unprecedented in recent memory and is actually greater than the homegrown US propaganda used to promote morale during World War II.
Nowhere in the mainstream media is there any mention of the immediate connection to Clinton supporters as being directly responsible for providing a platform for Rev. Wright’s three recently nationally televised speeches.
The newspaper pundits worry in print that this “NEW” Wright controversy may just have sunk the Obama campaign. Their concerns in turn are picked up by TV news and broadcast as a “Breaking News” item. What we have here is an orchestrated constant national agitation and abrasive scrubbing using one single negative topic over and over across the media.
Whenever the Democratic contest is mentioned on TV, generally a film clip of Hillary speaking somewhere will be featured. Seldom is a clip of Obama seen in these routine reports.
So, this past month, and up to the present moment, Barack has been running against the Clinton dirty tricks machine, CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, The LA Times, NYT, all the way down to that rag, The Inquirer.
People, at times like these WE NEED to remember what Adam Clayton Powell used to say to his friends and constituents whenever he would depart from their presence, “KEEP THE FAITH BABY!!”
keep buying into it. They keep watching just as they would a car accident, waiting to see the wreckage, the blood.
Time to have a fax/email/letter campaign to every msm scumbag that is in her pocket.
Yeah. Right.
THAT’LL work!
The level of self-deception on the left is almost unbearable.
All outrage, all the time.
Why don’t you email and fax the drug companies that continue to put poisons out on the TV as wonder cures while you’re at it?
Send a lletter to ALL the liars telling them to stop or you will pout.
Lord!!!
AG
you are a jerk. Always have been. you tell people to f off all the time. I have not given up on our country yet. I am close but I would rather write letters, emails and faxes than waste my time on a jerk like you.
First you say:
And then you finish by saying:
Nice disinclination.
Plan 2012 is bullshit on the face of it. (Read my comment on this thread “Finally…a voice of reason!” for more on that idea.)
This continuing Hillary demonization is SO stupid. Every time one of you write a kneejerk negative comment about her plans or tactics…not a disagreement but an accusation of truly foul intentions…you push her further to the side of desperation.
But you’re obviously not going to quit. Just like your evil twin, Hillary white-college-educated-professional-middle-to-upper-middle-class Clinton.
Mommy hate, most of it.
So prepare yourself. WHATEVER happens in the next 4 or 5 years…most possibilities in that regard being extraordinarily negative as things stand now…it will have been the left that fucked up the last chance to stop the right-wing steamroller by its sophomoric, sheepish bleating about how bad Hillary Clinton is.
You have created the Hillary Clinton that you so passionately desired.
Mommy love/hate.
Now live with it.
Or…as is increasingly likely…die with it.
Good work. bro’.
Good-hearted man or just another callow pol, Obama has shown himself unable to appeal to the still-extant silent white lower middle and middle class majority that still swings elections here in the U.S., and he stands a good chance of losing to McCain despite the unthinkable acts of McCain’s Republican predecessors.
Nice work, folks.
Wake the fuck up.
AG
you sure to seem to think I am a powerful dude, creating this Clinton creature all on my own.
You are FAR from alone, and if that is not a disingenuous answer then you are terminally deluded as well.
AG
I’ll let Al speak for me:
Bootcamp for Chicken Littles.
Fasten your freakin’ chin-strap, Arthur.
Problem is, the 2012 plan and the try-to-win-now-at-all-costs plan are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, once it became clear that she could only win by making Obama a pariah in the eyes of the superdelegates, they became mutually reinfocing strategies.
Mrs. Clinton implants fear. It is remarkable how a basically bland, financially upper class senior citizen sets so many people atremble, either in revulsion or in servile adoration, known also as loyalty. I’d guess that there is much less method to her (staff’s) behavior than many posters would suppose. Just consider that she and her team are desperate, completely adrift, prepared to tear down the house before leaving, my way or the highway. Frightening. There is no 2012 for the Clintons, no matter what happens. Can anyone see her turning around and patting Obama on the back and campaigning for him. Raise your hands please. Can anyone see her beating McSame? There is no plan for 2012, they’ll do anything at this point to scare everyone into obedience. That’s my explanation for what is going on. Good old-fashioned spitefulness. A reasoned, strategic explanation gives the Clinton’s more credit than they deserve. They’re just trying harder and harder not to throw in the towel. That’s all.
She could have and would have beaten McCain if she had won this primary in the way it was predicted that she would. But now, her nomination would rip the party apart so badly that it is hard to see how she could win. I don’t think we should underestimate, however, just how terrible a candidate that John McCain is. He’s somewhere between Fred Thompson and Bob Dole, with a little Admiral Stockdale thrown in. And he’s selling dog crap. It’d be different if he had popular policies.
I agree with on the objective facts about McCain that you cite. But you omit a crucial variable: the press, which luuuuuvs them some Mccain and will do anything to avoid calling his wares the dogshit that they are.
Yes, the man is ghastly, really horrible. But no matter how anyone slices it, the Clintons have created a gigantic negativity factor which cannot be easily compensated for, whether she runs or not. If Obama wins the nomination, a woman will be shunned, a woman’s honor will have to be upheld. If she wins, she (and her husband) will be vindicated and have won the right to lord it over the whole nation.
Alternative conspiracy theory: Clinton as Plan B choice for oligarchy now does her dirty work.
The ruling class would just as soon own both horses in the race. The horses, being politicians, understand who owns them, and their politics reflect that. In the best circumstances for the oligarchy it’s between McCain and Clinton. That way they get either a Republican or Republican-Lite. Hillary would send hubby and Bush Senior on a world tour to make things better, not pursue indictments against Dubya and friends.
However, now that Clinton’s lock on the nomination is looking shaky, the kingmakers have yanked her chain and told her to soften up Obama for the fall.
Therefore, Clinton’s motivation here is not her desire to be President (though she is driven to be President) but her service to her masters.
Nicely said especially the parts about Republican-lite and knowing who her masters are, and, of course, her willingness to serve them. Such service has brought handsome rewards, indeed.
Some facts you have to hang onto real tight.
I left out the parts about the Oil Party coup in Dallas in 1963, but if I did I’d have to explain fifty years of American history.
This is all I got to say:
Yeah!