Mark Schmitt's blog post at The American Prospect on Hillary Clinton's strategy is really, really good.
But it's actually easy to understand. What would happen if an agreement were announced today that there would be re-votes in Florida and Michigan? Immediately, the previous primaries in those states would become dead letters. Instead of being 200,000 votes down in the popular vote (by her campaign's count), or 500,000 down (by my count, which gives Clinton her Florida votes), Clinton would be down in the popular vote by almost 1 million. And 193 delegates that they are currently counting would suddenly disappear.
And at that point, the magnitude of Clinton's deficit would be too obvious to spin away. Yes, there would be two additional large-state contests in which to win back the million popular votes and hundreds of delegates. But unless she did significantly better in both states than she did in the illegal primaries, she would lose, not gain, ground, by her own calculations. Since she was on the ballot alone in Michigan before, it's highly unlikely that she will do better there. It's very possible that she could do better than the 50 percent she won in Florida in January, but since it would now be a two-person race, it's a dead certainty that Obama would do significantly better than the 32 percent he got in January, thus adding to his total popular vote margin and delegate count even if he lost again, and so it would be a net loss for Clinton. Re-votes cannot help Clinton be "perceived" as the winner of the popular vote.
Contrary to the gullible media's belief that "time" is a "powerful ally" on Clinton's side, in fact, Clinton's only ally is uncertainty. The minute it becomes clear what will happen with Michigan and Florida -- re-vote them, refuse to seat them, or split them 50-50 or with half-votes, as some have proposed -- is the minute that Clinton's last "path to the nomination" closes. The only way to keep spin alive is to keep uncertainty alive -- maybe there will be a revote, maybe they'll seat the illegal Michigan/Florida delegations, maybe, maybe, maybe. In the fog of uncertainty, Penn can claim that there is a path to the nomination, but under any possible actual resolution of the uncertainty, there is not.
I think this is exactly right. But what I still don't understand is why they're doing this. Do they think that retiring later in the race will be somehow less humiliating? Are they simply unable to emotionally conceive that they have lost? Could they be hoping for a miracle or--conspiracy theory time--planning to work some of that old Clinton magic to bring Obama down? If the last, why do they need more time?
Those thoughts are enough to keep me occupied while I walk the puppy.
"Could they be hoping for a miracle or--conspiracy theory time--planning to work some of that old Clinton magic to bring Obama down? If the last, why do they need more time?"
They need as much time as it takes. Could it be increased attention on Obama's best friend, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Apropo of the events of this week, could it be news of a personal scandal yet to come? We don't know. But if this is the only way the Clintons will get back into the White House, they will ride this last hope all the way to Denver.
This is why Huckabee didn't concede until the end; and why his decision for a brief news cycle seemed to be vindicated by that foolish New York Times story linking McCain and a female lobbyist.
"walk the puppy": in a Clinton context, what might that mean?
Don't get me wrong - I think that by staying in the race Hillary Clinton is doing great damage to her husband's legacy and her own public image. But one of three things could make this an arguably rational decision:
1. She's trying to force Obama's hand in choosing her as his VP, which becomes harder for him to avoid the longer the contest drags out.
2. The Clintons assume that Hillary's age will make a candidacy in 2016 unviable, particularly if she isn't Obama's VP pick. We view 68 year-old men and 68 year-old women differently, rightly or wrongly.
3. Senator Clinton worries that Bill won't be around in 2016 to bolster her credentials and provide political advice. Although he's far from old, he has a history of heart disease.
This being an econoblog, I am obliged to point out that the prediction markets put her odds of winning the Democratic nomination at 27%. This is unquestionably better than the 0% chance she has if she withdraws.
Re: Michael's comment, Wesley Clark stayed in the race in '04 for just that reason (I believe his quote was, "Kerry will implode over an intern issue.") My take on Huckabee's staying in, though, is that he was trying to establish himself as the runner-up for this campaign cycle, given that the GOP disproportionately nominates the second-place finisher from the previous election.
It's obvious that she is waiting for him to mess up.
Perhaps there will be a cocky spitzer moment in his past (or present), or, maybe he has a flamboyantly angry pastor whose quotes of God damning America for perceived injustice will be quoted in papers across the U.S. as "Obama's Pastor Damns America" (a simplification that turns Biblical language into a swear).
She is just hoping that somewhere, somehow, scandal will arise and good judgement will leave her as the obvious sensible choice. Cynical, yes, but she's a Clinton.
"Those thoughts are enough to keep me occupied while I walk the puppy."
Instead of walk the puppy--which I've never heard before--I say, "I'm going to the library, and may be some time." I also say, "I have to check the furnace." Sometimes I even say, "I have to go powder my nose." It all depends on the circumstances. But now I really, really think I'm going to like saying, "I gotta go walk the puppy." I'm using that one first thing tomorrow morning.
Keep fighting, maybe something will change. Sometimes, it works.
The Clintons aren't doomed; it's not like Mitt Romney after Super Tuesday. Obama can't even win without superdelegates if the Clintons stay in. The Clintons have fought longer than any other primary team in history, except, of course, for Obama's campaign.
If Obama was so inevitible, why couldn't he put away Texas and Ohio? That's spin; but it's really good spin.
The numbers are really bad for them, and that's the truth, but the Clintons have no reason to quit if they can somehow win at the convention. And despite all the denials, they could do that. Again, if they are doomed, why do they have so many superdelegates? Doomed is as doomed does.
I'm still amazed that people are angry at Hillary for staying in a race that she could still win. How dare she!
Keep in mind that without a revote, Hillary either gets nothing (MI and FL aren't seated) or she gets delegates that will be widely viewed as illegitimate (MI and FL are seated as-is without a revote). Furthermore, sentiment within the Democratic leadership may favor not seating MI and FL over seating them. Under these circumstances, a revote gives her something rather than nothing by helping her close the pleged delegate gap with Obama and supporting her argument that he can't win competitive states like FL or OH or voter blocks that Democrats will need in November.
Clinton needs Florida and Michigan revoted if the delegations as they stand now cannot be seated (and they can't be), otherwise she has no chance. The analysis Megan quoted above is simply stupid wishful thinking.
I wouldn't give Clinton more than 4 to 1 odds of winning the nomination at this point in time, but no one ever won anything by giving up. Some of these Obama supporters in the on-line world are embarassing themselves with some really silly arguments.
That was the least logical thing I ever heard. Why wouldn't we see the same exact results in the re-vote that we saw in the original primaries?
Tray,
There is no way of knowing how Florida will revote. On January 29th, Edwards was still in the race, and everyone else was still on the ballot. A revote will presumably have only Obama and Clinton on the ballot. Clinton could receive even more votes in Florida than she did the last time and still wind up with a larger popular vote deficit afterwards than she has today with the January 29 vote counted. This, at least, was a solid argument in the piece linked to, but the rest of it was pretty silly.
Bottom line:
It's over.
Absent an Obama meltdown, Hillary can't win.
She needs either 58% of the remaining pledgeable delegates (if MI and FL revote), or 64% (if they don't).
Numbers here:
http://trueconservative.typepad.com/trueconservative/2008/03/the-real-delega.html
Again, unless there's a meltdown, it isn't gonna happen.
Hillary's best personal strategy is to hope for--and attempt to contribute to--an Obama meltdown.
But if she actually cares about what's best for the Democratic party (who cares, except that it's *crucial* that they beat the 'pubs this year), the country, and the world, that is definitely *not* her best strategy.
And the reason this kind of analysis isn't part of the normal reporting on this race, at this point, is what?
a. Most journalists don't think in terms of numbers and such?
b. Nobody's spinning exactly this story to them, and they just don't come up with independent analysis of their own of this kind?
c. Something else?
I mean, we're not talking about some kind of complicated analysis requiring hours of computer simulations and a team of political scientists and pollsters to put together. This is
counting.
Hillary's best personal strategy is to hope for--and attempt to contribute to--an Obama meltdown.
That's how you say it if you're an Obama supporter. I would say, "It's very likely only a matter of time before Obama melts down, regardless of what Clinton does. If that's going to happen, the best thing for the party and the country is if Clinton is still in."
But Yancey, Hillary's leading the latest Florida polling (pollsters went out and did some new polls there last week) by 15-20 points. Also, I thought Hillary was down by a little over 700,000 votes, not "almost 1 million."
Hillary will stay in because the money is still rolling in. When the money stops coming in, she will bow out.
Sometimes, playing a game like chess, you sacrifice a piece to gain a position. I believe that Ferraro was the sacrifice piece, and the position is race. The more scrutiny is applied to the supporters of Obama, the very people who will make up his Administration, and their very different philosophy, the uglier it will be for him. Hillary has suffered every time she attacks Obama directly, and suffers more when she brings race into the conversation. Hillary's supporters must be the ones to bring this topic to the fore on her behalf.
Hillary never gains in polling or in primaries when she is on the attack, she only does well in primaries or polling when she is "on the ropes". This is exactly the time for her to work the DNC into giving her a "revote" in FL and MI where she will gain over previous results because "she's the victim" here.
Hillary must change the subject of the "debate" in the Democrat primaries to force scrutiny of Obama, and marginalize him as the Angry Black Candidate. She must drive his negatives up, because she really can't bring her own negatives down. As I see it, the best way to do that is to force the debate into uncomfortable territory, because that is the only way to put Obama on the defensive.
This thing won't be over until Denver, and that's six months away.
Six months is a lifetime.
Tray,
I didn't write that Clinton can't win Florida by as much or more, just that it isn't really known that she would. She may, or she may not.
I will say that the dynamic of the race has definitely shifted since her victories on March 4th. Obama is catching a lot of bad press coverage that he was avoiding beforehand. If Clinton wins PA by 15 points or more, then she has a real chance of winning this at the convention, and a stronger chance of forcing revotes in MI and FL, or a revote in MI and sitting the delegates from FL. This race is not closed yet, despite all the wishful thinking of many Obama supporters. Obama has the upper hand, but he has not closed it out.
Hei Lun Chan,
The reason we're angry is because, by refusing to bow out now, Clinton is giving John McCain a chance to strengthen his own position. It is clear that, while the race may be theoretically winnable for her, she is the long-shot candidate now, and her victory becomes less likely with every contest that she loses or fails to win decisively. Therefore, rather than act as Obama's spoiler and potentially hand the White House to the Republicans, she ought to step down while she can still do so with a modicum of grace.
I remember reading an article about whistle-blowers and it said something like 80% of whistle blowers are women. They are less likely to 'take one for the team' and keep their mouths shut about whatever problem is at issue. Women focus more on themselves and their families while men think more about others than they do about their personal situation.
I wonder if the same dynamic is at play with Hillary and whether she should drop out early, like R Patnaik wants, or stay in till the end.
Women focus more on themselves and their families while men think more about others than they do about their personal situation.
Supposing this is true, doesn't that mean that women should be far less likely to endanger their jobs (and therefore families) and reputation by speaking truth to power, and men should be more willing to take the risk associated with whistleblowing?
On the primary: no comment.
Rob Lyman I remember the gist of the article but it was months ago when I read it so I am no authority. From what I remember, whistle blowers are offered protection. Women are more likely to be whistle blowers because they don't want to end up in jail or facing a massive fine.
Men are less likely to be whistle blowers because they are more open to their boss' argument about all the people who will lose their jobs, people in jail, pensions gone ... etc.
Men are more inclined to 'take one for the team' than women.
Why wouldn't we see the same exact results in the re-vote that we saw in the original primaries?
Are you serious? Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI. It'd be hard for him to get less than 0% with a do-over.
Men are less likely to be whistle blowers because they are more open to their boss' argument about all the people who will lose their jobs, people in jail, pensions gone ... etc.
Men are more inclined to 'take one for the team' than women.
Maybe men are less likely to blow the whistle because silence is remembered by their superiors and rewarded. Whistle blowers may get immunity, but at what cost to their career advancement? I doubt they're popular job candidates at rival corporations.
I don't believe men are less selfish than woman. Nor do I think women are less selfish than men. I think they have different priorities, and selfishly protect the things most important to them.
And since when is covering up illegal activity "taking one for the team"?