…or, Why Hoss Is An Idiot.
Over at MassChange, I have laid out my arguments for why Hillary should drop out today.
I am interested to hear how crazy you all think I am.
Here’s what I wrote:
Hillary Clinton should drop out today. Here’s a list of reasons why:
1. She is not going to overtake Obama in either delegates, superdelegates or a combination of both.
2. She has staged yet another “Clinton Comeback” and ought to go out on a positive note a la Brett Favre.
3. She has spent her ammunition on Obama to get to this point and will only sully herself further if she lets Mark Penn lead her further into the gutter.
4. She is not going to have the chance to win another primary for at least 7 weeks.
5. If she drops out now, she gives Democrats enough time to unite, because her supporters, who would undoubtedly be crushed if she dropped out, would come back around to support Obama come the Fall.
6. If she waits to lose it outright, she will have recklessly divided the Democratic party at a time when unity ought to become our defining mindset. The goal of energizing the Democratic base has been accomplished and we know that turnout will be huge for Democrats in November. Now is the time to begin harnessing that support into a coordinated, organized ground game that will blow the Republic party away.
7. She could assume the role of king-maker were she to drop out now and wield great behind-the-scenes influence, which, as we all know, is often more impactful than being the candidate oneself.
8. She could become Senate Majority Leader and play an even more important role in the future of the nation than if she were President. (See the role Massachusetts Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi plays for an example of the power wielded by a legislative leader.)
9. Were she to become Majority Leader, she could assist hundreds or thousands of politicians across the country with their political efforts, all of which would greatly aid her daughter Chelsea’s inevitable political ambitions.
10. She could write the final chapter in her and her husband’s political story and make it one of grace and eloquence. As of now, that story is a mish-mash of fabulous economic success and disturbingly icky politics.
It’s an interesting theory. But look at what’s coming down the pike: PA, which should be a good state for Hillary, plus possible do-overs in FL and MI, which also should be good for her. If she shows strength in swing states like OH, PA, FL, and MI, in addition to having handily won necessary Dem states like CA and NY (and MA), she looks pretty solid, no?
Because the delegate math doesn’t work out, especially if she gives up more delegates to Obama in MI, WY, OR, NC, etc.
<
p>The first thing she needs to do is to make sure she keeps it close in WY and MI. She also needs to pick up some new superdelegate endorsements, since she has been steadly losing ground in that department for weeks. She will also need to keep the money flowing in so that she can compete in all of those states.
<
p>None of this is impossible, so I don’t expect her to drop out, but the odds are still very much stacked against her.
<
p>
But what does that mean, exactly? The best Obama can hope for is to have more pledged delegates going into the convention — he cannot get to 2,025. But what if Hillary has a larger share of the popular vote, which seems quite possible? What’s “the will of the people” then?
Why is “popular vote” relevant when some states have a caucus-based system? I’m under the impression that there is no popular vote in such states.
If he gets enough superdelegates to declare in advance that they will vote for Obama, then he is got it. While it is not impossible, it is a lot more difficult to get superdelegates to switch sides once they have declared for one side or the other; for that to happen, Clinton has to do a lot more than live up to the existing pattern of losing small states by large margins and big ones by small to medium margins.
<
p>Also remember that even pledged delegates can technically vote for someone else, so if you are going to play that game you can never actually know who is going to win until the convention actually takes a vote.
if some one gets to 1605 or whatever it is to have half of the elected delegates (or higher if Michigan and Florida redo) the super-delegates should have the common political sense not to pick a different candidate so overwhelmingly to reverse the voters intent.
<
p>On the issue, it’s tricky as pointed out because of a mix of primary and caucus states, but the popular vote according The Green Papers is:
<
p>
Clinton13,287,96247.28%
Obama13,259,66147.18%
Edwards924,9643.29%
Uncommitted267,8520.95%
<
p>I’m pretty sure that is based on primary results and caucus results where an individual ballot is cast (as is the case in many). And it included not only Florida, but also Michigan where Obama and Edwards weren’t on the ballot.
<
p>I’m not sure which states are primaries that are left, but a real primary in Florida will move the pop vote in Obama’s direction (Clinton may win, but the vote split will be less), and the Pennsylvania primary will probably move the vote in Clinton’s direction a bit. North Carolina & Indiana’s primaries will give Obama more votes.
<
p>So the likely situation is both candidate with about the same “national popular vote” (though likely to continue to swing Obama’s way) but Obama with significantly more elected delegates. Even an about even split in Supers would give Obama the nomination (assuming the dynamic of the race doesn’t change significantly).
<
p>I’m probably gonna check out for a while after next and come back a month later to find out if the race does change…
This is so frustrating to me.
<
p>First of all I think Clinton’s campaign won because of her fearmongering, focusing on the nonexistant scandal of Rezko and Canada/NAFTA. While clips of Hillary on talk shows and night shows like SNL and the Daily Show circulated the news media, photos of Obama in traditional Samali garb got almost as much airtime as the pundits discussed it over and over and over again.
<
p>I have family members who still think Obama is a corrupt scary Muslim, one of whom is from Iran. I have heard countless stories from my rural pennsylvania hometowm of people telling my father (who sells life insurance at their homes) that they will never vote for an African. Fearmongering works among these folks. I’m not sure Philly can carry Obama in PA, and I doubt he can win central Pennsylvania based on my own experiences there.
CLinton has to face anti-woman discrimination too. Both candidates face this kind of crap from parts of the electorate. But I prefer to look on the bright side of it: americans are coming out in record numbers to vote for Clinton and Obama. The fact of their campaigns not just happening, but capturing the national attention in an excited (not a lynch mob) way is staggeringly positive in my mind. Just by dint of running and being such great candidates, they are both helping the country leap ahead. I am proud of them both.
I guess I just don’t see the fearmongering angle here. I don’t think it’s been established that the Somali garb picture came from the Clinton campaign, and I sure don’t believe anything Drudge has to say on the matter.
<
p>The “3AM phone call” ad was very tamely negative, if at all, and in fact raises the legitimate question of who is most prepared to be C-in-C. I don’t see why that’s fearmongering. And even if it is, you’re going to see far more of it to a much larger degree in the general, so I don’t see the basis of the complaint.
<
p>I also happen to the think Rezko and especially the NAFTA/Canada thing are non-scandals, but they are things Obama must address and try and put behind him before the general if he’s the nominee. But even to the extent that the Clinton campaign used these non-scandals as a strategy, I don’t see how it’s “fearmongering” as separate from normal campaign strategy.
Daily Kos contributor Troutnut alleges some ugly racist tactics a la Lee Atwater on the part of the Clinton campaign. Troutnut makes a convincing argument that, in one of Clinton’s recent ads shown before the primaries, video clips of Obama’s face were altered to appear darker and wider. If there is any truth to this charge, Clinton should fire whomever approved the alterations and apologize.
<
p>See also Huffington Post
<
p>Yup, I think you’re crazy! đŸ˜‰ Seriously, though, you make some good points but I don’t see how she could possibly drop out anytime soon.
<
p>As much as the most hard-core supporters of each candidate doen’t want to admit it, the fact is that both Clinton and Obama have excellent arguments for why s/he should be the nominee. Obama’s is simple enough: he’s got a solid lead in pledged delegates — a lead that is unlikely to shrink much over the next few months.
<
p>Especially after yesterday’s results, Clinton’s argument is, to me, quite convincing as well: she’s scored victories in both the big Democratic base states as well as the important swing states. CA, NY, NJ, MA, NH, NM, AZ, NV, OH, and (so far, if no do-over) MI and FL have all gone to Clinton. The states she’s shown the most strength in are the states Dems need to win. Obama has some key wins as well (CO, VA, MD, MN, WI), but more of the critical states have gone to Clinton.
<
p>Though my analysis was thrown off by an unexpected Obama sweep of the post-Super Tuesday states until yesterday and his still considerable delegate lead, I still think my prediction a month ago regarding Clinton reaching out to Obama to join a ticket is plausible. Of course, since Obama is ahead by ~150 in pledged delegates, I’ll admit the scenario is unlikely in the immediate future, but I do think that’s where everything is ultimately heading.
In my opinion, a swing state is one which was decided by 5% or less in the 2004 POTUS election:
<
p>1. Wisconsin, Kerry, 0.38%
2. Iowa, Bush, 0.67%
3. New Mexico, Bush, 0.79%
4. New Hampshire, Kerry, 1.37%
5. Ohio, Bush, 2.11%
6. Pennsylvania, Kerry, 2.50%
7. Nevada, Bush, 2.59%
8. Michigan, Kerry, 3.42%
9. Minnesota, Kerry, 3.48%
10. Oregon, Kerry, 4.16%
11. Colorado, Bush, 4.67%
<
p>Now, what do we know?
1. Wisconsin: Primary. BHO 58 HRC 51. 10 EVs.
2. Iowa: Caucus, not head-to-head. BHO 38 HRC 29 (JRE 30). 7 EVs.
3. New Mexico: Caucus. HRC 51 BHO 49. 5 EVs.
4. New Hampshire: Primary, not head-to-head. HRC 39 BHO 36 (JRE 17). 4 EVs.
5. Ohio: Primary. HRC 55, BHO 43. 20 EVs.
6. Pennsylvania: Primary. HRC ?, BHO ?. Clinton ahead a few points in most recent polls. 21 EVs.
7. Nevada: Caucus. not quite head-to-head. HRC 51, BHO 46 (JRE 4). 5 EVs.
8. Michigan: no-delegate primary, results unusable. HRC 55, uncommitted 40, Kucinich 4. 17 EVs.
9. Minnesota: Caucus. BHO 67 HRC 32. 10 EVs.
10. Oregon: Primary. HRC ?, BHO ?. No recent useful polls. 7 EVs.
11. Colorado: Caucus. BHO 67 HRC 32. 9 EVs.
<
p>Totals:
BHO: 36 EVs.
HRC: 34 EVs.
no-vote: 45 EVs.
<
p>So, no clear trend there at that simplistic level. But is this even the right analysis? After all, either candidate will need far more votes to win the state in the general than he or she needed in the primary/caucus. The Dem candidate will need to get votes from the Dems who voted for the other Dem candidate, from the Dems who stayed home, and from some unenrolled voters if the Dem is to win the state. How much do we know about the candidate’s ability to get votes from those three other groups based on their performance during the primary season? Not much methinks.
<
p>
<
p>For kicks, here are the states which were decided by more than 5.00% but less than 10.00%:
<
p>12. Florida, Bush, 5.01%
12. New Jersey, Kerry, 6.68%
14. Washington, Kerry, 7.18%
15. Missouri, Bush, 7.20%
16. Delaware, Kerry, 7.60%
17. Virginia, Bush, 8.20%
18. Hawaii, Kerry, 8.75%
19. Maine, Kerry, 8.99%
20. Arkansas, Bush, 9.76%
21. California, Kerry, 9.95%
<
p>Of those, which are on the table for BHO or for HRC? Personally, I think:
12. FL: HRC has better chance than BHO, but both could get it
13. NJ: either gets it
14. WA: either gets it
15. MO: equal chance, but low probability
16. DE: either gets it
17. VA: BHO has better chance, but low probability
18. HI: either gets it
19. ME: either gets it
20. AR: HRC has much better chance, medium probability
21. CA: either gets it
<
p>For the states above which haven’t had binding votes yet:
6. PA: I’m not sure. I think either has a real chance of losing PA. Just don’t know.
8. MI: I think HRC has the advantage here, because I think MI trends are similar to OH [although a bit more blue].
10. OR: either gets it, but BHO has an easier time of it.
<
p>
<
p>So, what does it all mean? I like lots about both candidates, though I am pulling for BHO. But have a look at this map and ask yourself who has a better chance at the lighter colors. I think either takes OR, that BHO will do better in WI and MI, I don’t know about IA, and that HRC does better in NV, NM, MI, OH, PA, and NH. On the close states, I think HRC has the edge. For states less close, I think either takes WA, ME, NJ, DE, HI. BHO has a better shot at VA and CO, but HRC has a better shot at AR and FL.
<
p>If I didn’t care about how the two candidates will impact American political culture… if I only ran the numbers to see who seemed to be in a better position to get the necessary EVs, then I’d say HRC is our candidate.
<
p>However, I do fear that her campaign will turn off lots of hopeful young Dem voters, who are the future of our party. I think she might turn off lots of black Dem voters, who will be instrumental to getting more help for cities and in breaking up the GOP hold on the South. HRC might help the Dems gain more Hispanic vote long-term, and they’re another future of out party. I do think that BHO fits better with the 50 state strategy which the Dems seem to have embraced, and that with BHO at the top of the ticket we’d make more gains in the House, and perhaps also the Senate. But — those gains aren’t as important as getting a Dem POTUS so that the House and Senate can get legislation signed, so that a Dem can make SCOTUS nominations, and so that a Dem can get science back on the agenda at places like the EPA, DOE, and NSF.
<
p>Man, this is tough stuff.
And this is indeed tough stuff.
<
p>I would add to your qualification that the primaries tell us little about how the candidate would do in the general by noting a few concerning things about Obama’s victories:
<
p>(1) the fact Clinton is doing better in the core constituencies (women, older voters, Latinos, working class voters) with the very important caveat that Obama is dominating among African-Americans. This is particularly true/concerning when one looks at women and older voters, both of whom have high turnout rates;
<
p>(2) apparently more Clinton voters indiciate that they will jump ship if Obama is the nominee than vice-versa; and
<
p>(3) that several (though not all) of Obama’s swing state victories have come in caucuses whereas only Clinton’s NV win falls in this category. This is important, despite the protestations on Obama’s side, because obviously the general election vote will be a primary and not a caucus, and therefore primaries give a better demographic cross-section of who will show up on Nov. 4th.
<
p>So there are some concerns here that I think strengthens Clinton’s case that she’s the better nominee. I would agree that if the campaign(s) goes ballistic (and goes late in the primary season), your concern about turning off voters is legit. In that case, I don’t see how they are not a ticket if s/he wants to win in November.
Anyone who can win Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania is going to win the election. The fact that Hillary trounced Obama in the former two states and will likely to do in Pennsylvania is a very good indication, to me, that she could be our best shot at defeating McCain. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge fan of the 50 state solution, but we’re just not there yet. Success in that vein must happen on the ground, in the smaller red states state legislative and us congressional seats first, before we can start even thinking of them voting for Democrats in a presidential general election. I’m just trying to be realistic here.
A primary election is nothing like a general election. In this primary, you have two candidates with virtually identical platforms (most people can’t tell you what the differences are). In the general, people will definitely see a difference in the candidates’ platforms. Only Democrats (and maybe independents) vote in a primary, while everyone votes in the general election. You can’t look at who did better in the primary and use it to make a useful prediction about who is more likely to win the general election. You will get better information by looking at polling data. What I’ve seen of polling data suggests that Obama would do better in the general election than Clinton would.
<
p>And the FL primary isn’t an accurate indicator of much of anything, because everyone who was paying attention was told that it wouldn’t count and the candidates agreed to restrictions on their activities there.
I’m saying that in certain key swing states, people have been more excited about Hillary than they were Obama. Many Obama supporters have swung that way given the fact that they think he has the best shot at winning. I generally like to avoid getting into questions of electability, but I fail to see how anyone could see Obama as being far more electable than the candidate who is trouncing him among the Democratic Primaries, all of which have been very high turnout and all of which (at least as far as I’m aware) have resulted in the top Democratic candidate receiving more votes than the top performing Republican candidates. Of course, that doesn’t mean everything in November, but it’s certainly a good indication that Hillary at least has a larger base of support to work with in those states compared to Obama, which is particularly important given the fact that they are probably going to be very competitive, close states.
I only skimmed your post before and responded to your general point – that primaries aren’t necessarily reflective of general elections, which is something I agree with. Though, I need to expand beyond those comments, now that I’ve read your post more closely.
<
p>First, I need to tackle this comment and its preceding points:
<
p>Huh?
<
p>In case you haven’t noticed, Republicans voted on the same day. Meaning, I reject this point:
<
p>
<
p>When more Democrats turned out to vote for Hillary than Republicans turned out to vote for McCain in Florida, when some people realized their votes “didn’t count” that’s a very, very strong sign – indeed, a “useful prediction” that Hillary would be very competitive versus McCain in Florida. Obama, by the way, recieved far less votes than McCain in that state, when at least independents had a choice of voting for either party and obviously chose in great numbers the other party (they’re not going to vote for the right one in the general election, either).
<
p>
<
p>Hogwash. A poll of who people think will fair best against a Republican opponent months and months from now is about as meaningful and insightful as a wigi board. A primary, on the other hand, represents voters who actually committed to a candidate at the ballot box in an official election, and will very likely come out to vote for that same candidate in the general election.
<
p>Try again.
before I get an angry email, I’m going to explain why you’re getting a 4 for a rating. You completely failed to explain why you think:
<
p>
<
p>Yet followed it up by using it as evidence to explain why Obama is more likely, according to you (and idiotic mainstream analysts) to do better against McCain than Hillary.
<
p>Also, any post written by a member of the netroots that STILL thinks electability polls have merit after John Kerry, et al, seriously warrants a 4 or worse. I have to question whether or not the people who gave that comment 6s actually read through the whole thing.
Unfair in many ways thought it may be. For example, what possible justification can there be for having primaries in some states and caucuses in others. Not to mention FL and MI.
<
p>It is a good discussion to have, but at the moment, given the results so far (voting, fundraising, campaign management, debates — all are part of the results in the broadest sense) I personally can’t see any good argument for either to fold their tent.
<
p>Let the process continue.
<
p>Most generally, I think all of this attention and drama is good for the Democrats: it keeps their campaign teams sharp, keeps the media focused on them, and keeps folks interested. There are costs, yes, but the benefits outweigh them.
<
p>Unfortunately, I don’t know that this is true. Now that McCain has officially clinched, he and the RNC can raise money for his campaign and save it going forward. McCain can also get some rest before the general election campaign (an always underestimated factor), and attack the Democrats while getting little fire back in return. He can also start thinking about a VP and consolidating his base.
<
p>Meanwhile, the Democrats will be spending money attacking each other, rather than McCain, further weakening their candidacies. They will get more media converage than McCain, but as we’ve seen so far, this isn’t necessarily a good thing. The continuing campaign also risks splintering Clinton and Obama supporters further, and give the victor less time to consolidate the base.
<
p>So I don’t share the optimism here, and recent history has shown that long primary campaigns for the Democrats don’t end well. Somehow “the party” (whatever that means) has to figure out how to end this before May. A re-do of FL and MI is probably a start, as is finally getting the many remaining superdelegates to decide.
The long, hard primary season – I remember – was supposed to spell disaster for Democrats in Massachusetts and lead to a Kerry Healey victory. Oops.
<
p>Long primaries generally won’t hurt the candidates; this much has been proven over and over again in elections across the country. They’re too good at fundraising and too good at campaigning to let a long primary season hurt them.
I would have to imagine that we will eventually reach a point, if we haven’t already, at which money raised and spent on the primaries is going to take away from the pool of money available to be raised for the general election, so that could definitely hurt the eventual nominee.
At the same time, JMcC hasn’t had to work hard recently at organizing his people since Shucksabee wasn’t a legit threat for the past few contests. Moving forward, he has no immediate reason to work his lists in PA, OR, NC, MS, or NM — states that just might get close depending on the Dem candidate.
<
p>The Dems, on the other hand, will have two organizations out registering new Dems, confirming addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses, and reminding them that this vote is important.
<
p>That’s money well spent, times two!
they’re not going to run out of it in the general, they’re just going to raise a helluva lot more. Don’t worry about that.
Don’t mean to pick on Hoss especially, his is better than most but it’s just the latest.
<
p>We have two extraordinary candidates (neither of them my first pick btw). They are virtually tied. They are both of them, contrary to popular whining, behaving well.
<
p>We have a democratic process that is not perfect (and never will be) but is pretty good. Everywhere this campaign goes it energizes voters and builds support for November.
<
p>With only two candidates one of them is sure to get a majority of delegates.
<
p>There is in short no reason to stop this early, except one, and it is unworthy of anyone here. Namely, that the other candidate should quit because otherwise my candidate might lose.
<
p>It’s particularly ungracious given that we’ve already cast our votes and participated in the outcome to date while others are still waiting their turn.
<
p>I don’t blame either candidate for not throwing in the towel–why should they? What would be the point? What kind of person would?
<
p>Jeez, everyone. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the sausage factory. It may not be pretty but it’s working just the way it is supposed to. You can tune back in in September if it gives you the vapors.
<
p>2. Funny addition from over at TPM….someone contributed this:
<
p>
2. the “hope” (young and brown faces) and “change” (moderate policies) talking points are losing appeal
3. In a day or two she’ll be over the 50% mark in national polling of the primary permanently, and in a week doing better than him against McCain
4. The narrative is changing to him being the lightweight
5. The puritan stance on Iraq that is all he has left to sell, and it’s losing currency
6. His hardcore support is running on resentment and a “my turn” claim, and the more it’s exposed the more centrist backlash there is to it
HC shouldn’t drop out because she’s still getting (roughly) 50% of the primary votes?
<
p>I understand the desire for a strong party, but what would that say about either candidate if while heading for the finish line, running side by side, one of them stopped because of jeers from their competitors fans? Should Gore have dropped out in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 because bush supporters were beating the drum louder? We’re looking for the strongest candidate for the entire country – and the entire country hasn’t even had their voice heard yet – who are we to say they can’t have their say? (I believe only the 2000 supreme court can do that đŸ˜‰
<
p>For some odd reason there are those that have been writing HC out of the race since Iowa and every win has become a “comeback” (to which I ask, doesn’t that mean that BO had the same number of comebacks?) To stop now would be a slap in the face of the (roughly) 50% of voters that cast ballots for her and, with such a close race, the remaining people who seldom get an opportunity to take part in the election process because the decision is taken out of their hands by groups of people standing in a cow patch in Iowa and a coffee shop in New Hampshire.
<
p>It’s easy to talk about getting people involved and getting them out to vote, but when a perfect opportunity comes about to show them that their vote DOES count – you want to stifle it. I say let the people vote and see where the chips fall – anything else is reminiscent of the election process under king monkey boy.