A number of commentators are saying it's finally over, that Hillary will have to drop out now. Well, yes, but nothing has changed. The numbers are exactly what they were two days ago; there were no surprises last night. So what's going to make her drop out now?
« Price elasticity of gasoline, again | Main | Is the middle class really doomed? »
Is it over?
07 May 2008 09:34 am
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/21233
Comments (50)
Nothing. Hillary is the Jason of Dem politicians. The question, now that her probability of being the Dem nominee is basically zero, is whether she'll make a third party run when the Dems finally give her the boot. She's got the money. Any thoughts?
It would appear to the rational soul that she should drop out but she has been fighting to the bone on this. The math really doesn't work now (although it didn't work earlier either) and she should face facts. She needs breathing time which the Obama will give her lots of and then it is time for the party to reunite. The biggest hurdle the democratic party faces is to reunite under one candidate.
The super delegates and donors, or more precisely, the lack thereof, will force her to drop out. And she'll drop out precisely because there WASN'T a surprise. She needed to show that she was still viable. She need to demonstrate she could deliver the breakthrough victory, especially since conditions were heavily favorable to her--a big win in PA, a surge in donations, a month of no-holds-barred attacks on Obama, and a steady stream of bad news for him.
She failed. Instead of a big margin in Indiana and a narrow win or tie in North Carolina, she ended up with just the opposite.
Now, even if Florida and Michigan are added into the mix using the formula most favorable to her (which won't happen), she cannot overtake him in pledged delegates or popular votes. Her campaign is broke. Given all of this, why should the super delegates and donors stick with her? Answer--they won't.
It will probably take a little time for this to play out. She won't fold her tent overnight. She may stay in through the June 3 primaries in the desparate hope that Obama somehow implodes. But I think the results of last night have changed a lot of people's perceptions of the race.
The numbers are not the same: The number that has changed is the amount of delegates still open to be fought for. Whether that will convince Hillary is another matter.
She hasn't had a realistic path to the nomination for over 2 months now, but that hasn't stopped her. The only thing that will stop her is for the rest of the superdelegates to endorse Obama right now. The thumping win in NC provides the correct opportunity to do so- it is Obama's first significant win since February. If they don't move now, the drubbing he takes in West Virginia and Kentucky will push things into the summer.
I don't want to break Godwins law here but at this point I'm reminded of Hitler's total refusal to acknowledge defeat even when there wasn't a snowballs chance in hell of pulling out a victory or even a draw.
But Megan, Tim Russert said it last night! TIM RUSSERT! The Lord hath spoken...
The numbers are the same not as they were last night, but as they were before Pennsylvania. Except that now there are 3 states less left to decide.
It's much more "over" than it was 24 hours ago or 3 weeks ago.
The spread may not have changed much, but remaining to work with just got a lot smaller.
Geof
I think it is in the Democrats' best interests for Hillary to stay in the race. The time between now and November is an eternity in politics. A few extra weeks of the primary is not going to be remembered come September. The problem that the Democrats have is that Obama is still not ready for prime time. He has not been able to attract the votes of any one beyond black people and the guilty, white, overeducated and smug. That is not a winning coalition. Obama needs more time to hone his message to the rest of the country. He needs to have his Sister Soulja moment where he convinces the country he is not just another angry liberal. If Hillary were to drop out, the Obama campaign very well could be lulled into a false sense of complacency about his liabilities. The media will no doubt assist in this by endlessly cheerleading him in a cult like manner. Well, a lot of the country is not yet in the cult.
Why should she drop out?
Really I guess you are right...i mean it's not logically NECESSARY so why do it?
No reason for at all for her to drop out before the end of the primary season on June 3; as Rachel Maddow said last night on MSNBC, Senator Clinton has been in a "post-rational" phase of the campaign for some time now. While her finances may force her campaign minimally in West Virginia and Kentucky, where she is already favored heavily, there's no reason at all for her to officially throw in the towel.
The far more important question is, how does she campaign from here on out? Does she continue to run the negative campaign she began in Pennsylvania? Some pundits are saying she'll abandon that tactic now. I'm skeptical, but here's hoping.
black people and the guilty, white, overeducated and smug
...also known as the "Democratic party base".
Hillary can't be bargained with. She can't be reasoned with. She doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And she absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
On a more serious note: what's the cost to her of staying in? If she can get the money, what's stopping her from playing the (increasingly narrower) odds that she actually winds up the nominee? The good of the party? Ha. The good of the country? Double ha. The cost-benefit favors her staying in.
'The media will no doubt assist in this by endlessly cheerleading him in a cult like manner.'
Yeah, because they completly ignored Rev Wright.
So what's going to make her drop out now?
Maybe nothing. I don't think many people are under the impression it's particularly likely that she'll drop out before the last primary. But last night most assuredly did changes things: there's no longer a potential game changer out there for Hillary Clinton. A Clinton victory in North Carolina -- even a modest one -- coupled with a strong Indiana victory, could genuinely have given Hillary a plausible shot at accomplishing the various items she would have needed to somehow pull the nomination away from Obama.
There no longer exists any foreseeable, potential dynamic-changing event standing between Hillary Clinton and the cruel logic of mathematics. Twenty-four hours ago it (an Indy/Carolina two for two upset) still existed.
Nothing will "make" Hillary drop out; she will be running for the nomination this time next year. But prescient observers (unlike, say Megan McArdle?) are at last forced to concede that Obama has triumphed and Hillary can only be regarded as obstructionist.
I think part of the problem is that a whole lot of democratic power brokers are really scared about an Obama primary win, and perhaps even more scared if he wins in November. These guys, like Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, (to say nothing about Bill Clinton himself) etc. have been at the heart of the Democratic Party for 15 years, and if the candidate they suppported en masse, using every possible insider advantage, gets taken down, then it really does mean they've lost control of the party to Howard Dean and the next generation of Democratic insiders.
For these people, the old guard, it is a fight for survival. Yes, they've already lost, but like the boxer who refuses to stay down despite the beating they're taking, they just keep getting back up, hoping for that one lucky punch.
In short, I expect no concession speech until every possible option is exhausted. The will then reluctantly accept that their time as the party power brokers is over.
Because we're two primaries closer to the end and Hillary lost ground. So she's worse off.
There's a lot of pressure for her to quit, but I'm not sure it's justified. If Obama was the obvious winner, why is he going to need superdelegates to win the nomination? That's never happened before.
So, the Clinton campaign's best strategy is to hold on and hope something changes. Most likely nothing will, but you never know.
Lastly, why do so many people vote for Hillary if she's doomed? What's going on? Protest votes don't typically win states...
"'The media will no doubt assist in this by endlessly cheerleading him in a cult like manner.'
Yeah, because they completly ignored Rev Wright."
They only covered it when they were forced to. Then when they did they down played it and tried to claim the Wright was mainstream. They then called Obama's Philadelphia speech, a speech we now know to have been a disaster, the greatest speech since Lincoln's second inagural. Then when Obama finally threw Wright under the bus, the media acted like the Philadelphia speech had never happened. This is one time where the liberal group think of the media hurts Democrats. Just like they convinced themselves that John Kerry could sell his military record, the media will again help the Democrats convince themselves that Obama can carry anyone beyond the McGovern coalition.
It may be a much longer long shot now. But if Clinton were going to drop out, she wouldn't have just "loaned" her campaign an additional $6 million plus.
It is also worth noting that if the Democratic Party had winner take all primaries like the Republicans, Hillary would have put this thing away months ago. Hillary has netted about 48% of the delegates so far. This race is statistically a dead heat. The only reason Obama is considered such a shoo in is his messiah like standing among the media. If the roles were reversed and Hillary had the lead, no one in the media would be calling on Obama to quit. Hillary is probably going to win big in five out of the last seven primaries and finish just a nose behind Obama in the delegate and popular vote count. She will finish close enough to be ahead if you counted Michigan and Florida. Who is to say those states won't count? Who is to say that Obama won't crack under the pressure and say something stupid like he did in San Francisco? Who is to say there are not more skeletons in Obama's closet lurking behind the collection of former terrorists and black supremacists that have already been unearthed?
I have long been an adversary of Hillary Clinton, but that woman doesn't owe the Democratic Party a blessed thing. Who are they to tell her and her millions of supporters when they should quit? Hillary is a lot of things not all of them positive, but a coward is not one of them. I fully expect Hillary to see her campaign through to the end and as much as I disagree with her about issues, I have to respect her for doing so.
John,
Your spining so fast I can't see you, just piles of RNC crap.
What is it about rationality and common sense you find so menacing?
"Your spining so fast I can't see you, just piles of RNC crap.
What is it about rationality and common sense you find so menacing?"
Oh what an original and intelligent response. I am sorry to see that you have nothing of substance to say about issues. In some ways I envy you going through life without having to you know actually think about anything or engage anyone who doesn't echo what you already believe.
One other thing to consider; in 1980, Ted Kennedy had 36% of the delegates and took his campaign all the way to the convention floor. Hillary will have 48% and have a much stronger hand than Kennedy ever did. No one ever seems to hold it against Kennedy for taking his fight to the convention with 36%. How can they now hold against Hillary for doing the same thing with 12% more of the delegates? Maybe Democrats just have a problem with women who don't know their place?
The only reason Obama is considered such a shoo in is his messiah like standing among the media.
Um, no. The reason Obama is now considered such a shoo in is the simple mathematical reality that Clinton needs to win something like 3/4ths of the remaining superdelegates (assuming she manages to win 60% of the remaining pledged delegates -- in itself an incredibly unlikely scenario). It's the math, stupid.
Lastly, why do so many people vote for Hillary if she's doomed? What's going on?
Clinton was a heavy underdog headed into yesterday's contests, but she wasn't yet doomed. She now is. Expect her vote totals to drop precipitously.
"Clinton was a heavy underdog headed into yesterday's contests, but she wasn't yet doomed. She now is. Expect her vote totals to drop precipitously."
Dream on. There are a lot of people who are voting because they can't stand Obama and will vote for her out of protest. Second, there are always going to be Republicans who come over and vote for her just to cause trouble. Third, do not underestimate the about of bad blood this race has caused among the supporters of each candidate. Every Clinton supporter I know, and there are many of them, are not going to stop supporting her and loath Obama's supporters. I think a lot of them will still vote for Obama in November, but they are not going to give up on Hillary if for no reason other than the unbelievable arrogance and obnoxiousness of many of Obama's supporters. Her support is going to stay right were it is.
One other thing to consider; in 1980, Ted Kennedy had 36% of the delegates and took his campaign all the way to the convention floor. Hillary will have 48% and have a much stronger hand than Kennedy ever did.
Today's DNC rules make it virtually impossible to prevent the nomination of a presumptive nominee. Which is exactly what Obama will be shortly -- very likely before then end of May. A Hillary Clinton convention disruption would rightly be seen as a hugely damaging exercise in futility.
There are a lot of people who are voting because they can't stand Obama and will vote for her out of protest.
Mabye. But there aren't enough of them to deny Obama the nomination.
Not that this is likely, but Obama could positively limp to the finish line on June 3rd (ie, get crushed by Clinton in West Virginia, Kentucky, etc.) and still win it. She needed a game changer, and yesterday was the last one on offer. Hillary Clinton has run out of runway.
Yes indeed--some of us have been asking this question for a long time. i) HRC now needs 68% of the remaining superdelegates to get the nomination (that got worse). ii) HRC missed another oportunity to 'close the deal' in a big way. iii) The (the real reason) the media are starting to say it is over.
No one ever seems to hold it against Kennedy for taking his fight to the convention with 36%. - John
What are you talking about? Kennedy was widely blamed for having lost Carter the race.
The numbers are exactly what they were two days ago; there were no surprises last night. So what's going to make her drop out now?
Before yesterday, there was still a nonzero chance of a surprise last night, but now there isn't. Merely because the results were the expected ones doesn't mean that there was, particularly in her reckoning, a zero chance of a surprise.
She won't drop out, but she will effectively stop campaigning to win. She has been borrowing millions of dollars of her own money to stay competitive. She will continue on to WV and KY in order to recoup financially. Last night wasn't the end of her campaign- that won't come until May 20th at the earliest- but it was the end of her run for President.
Re-watch her Indiana speech. The first part was dedicated to keeping the illusion alive, the second to acknowledging that she cannot pull it off. The kind of people she's expecting donations from won't pick up on the nuance.
It's over.
John, it's just not the case that Florida and Michigan will pull HRC over the top. She's now nearly 200 delegates behind, and even the most favorable distribution of delegates in Florida net her 55. And Michigan didn't even have Obama's name on the ballot (per DNC rules, and HRC was for them before she was against them), and there's no way they're going to award the entire delegation to HRC. In fact, if Florida and Michigan had already been settled, she'd have an even weaker case because she wouldn't have the "uncertainty" card.
Obama needs about 180 delegates to clinch it. It isn't the media (which loves an exciting horse race) which is pulling him over the top, its the delegates.
Seriously, there is no viable path for HRC to win the nomination. I certainly understand why that is disappointing to her supporters who have been working for her for 15+ months. But it's crazy conspiracy-theory talk to say some secret pact between Obama and the media resulted in a mind-controlled majority of democrats casting their lot with another candidate.
Jumbalya:
Hillary will win WV and KY, but Obama will win the rest of the states, including a big win in Oregon(which is the biggest state left).
Clinton has had no chance at a normal victory since March 4th. She has been hoping for a mass movement of superdelagates flocking to her after attempts at portraying Obama as unelectable. Yesterday showed that the teapot-tempests of "Bittergate" and "Pastorgate" are nothing. If she doesn't quit, she will need to gin up some other scandal to use to "Tonya Harding" Obama.
The war, the housing crisis, the price of gas, the price of food, healthcare costs - these are in people's faces everyday. People have no patience for garbage issues. The votes in PA, NC and IN all turned out about like the polls before the media began hyping those silly stories. At this point Clinton needs a "dead girl or live boy" story.
Hello,
Hillary should not quit!
Hillary has not lost anything. Obama cant win the pledged delegates either, those won during the primaries and caucuses. Since the super delegates are non binding, those dont matter until the convention.
I look forward to a great summer watching Obama lose steam and watch Hillary gather momentum.
Hillary has her own cash at stake. What does Obama have? Oprahs!
All the pundits and Obama supporters dont want this to go to the convention for the sake of the party! I think it will be a great exercise in democracy when it does go to the convention.
I think Hillary is in great shape no matter what the talking heads say.
Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
She won't quit because nobody knows whether Jeremiah Wright is going to drop the bomb on Obama.
What happens if a YouTube clip surfaces of Obama sitting in the pew clapping during one of Wright's firebreathing semons? Or if his wife reloads her jaws with another choice soundbite or two? I estimate the odds of each at better than 50%.
She's hoping the horse will learn to sing.
Marcus
She's going to quit pretty soon. The way the media covers her campaign is going to shift, and she won't be able to keep it up anymore.
Tough call, but I suspect she may soldier on, at least for a bit longer for at least two reasons.
1. This is her last shot, almost certainly. If she doesn't get the nomination this time, she's pretty much done.
2. Despite the odds against her, she's hoping for Obama (or an Obama acolyte) to stick his foot in his mouth again, and blow up Obama's campaign.
Given Obama's inexperience, thin skin, elitist tendencies, and fatigue, the likelihood of his dropping the bomb are respectable. Add in Michelle's stupidity, her big yap, and her tendency to run said yap, and the chances improve markedly. Throw in Wright (Obama must flinch every time Wright clears his throat) and the chances improve even further. And mix in a pinch of Ayers, Rezko, and the intrinsic griminess of Chicago politics, and the chances are becoming excellent.
So if Hillary continues, she's probably counting on the cockroach theory, that where there's one, there are more. Or, in this case, where there's several already, there are probably more. Possibly a lot more.
At this point, she may as well go all in, and pay to see the last card.
Okay, let's take on the numbers, and assume for whatever reason Michigan and Florida are seated as is. Michigan had 157 delegates (128 pledged, 29 super), Florida had 211 (185 pledged, 26 super). Going just by the percentages (I have no idea how this would actually look based on districting), Clinton took 55% of Michigan - around 70.4 delegates. Let's bump that up to 71. She takes 71, "Uncommitted" (i.e. Obama/Edwards) takes 57. In Florida, she took 50% (93 delegates), Obama took 33% (61) and Edwards took 14% (26). That only adds up to 180, so let's give the extra 5 to Clinton, for a total of 98. Just off the top of my head, let's say 3/4 of the superdelegates are grateful enough to Clinton for getting them there, that they vote for her; she gets 42 to Obama's 13.
Including both of those states, that means Clinton gets 211 (incl super), Obama gets 131 (incl super), Edwards gets 26. Most optimistic scenario, she's cut his lead by 106; least optimistic, she's cut it by 80.
That would mean that Obama would have 1973-1999 total delegates, to Clinton's 1897-1923. Under the most favorable conditions possible, including Michigan and Florida, Clinton is still 50 delegates behind.
I'm tired of seeing Hilfans toss around Rezko like its an actual liability. First, his ties to him are weak, at best. Second, you need to readup on norman Hsu's $850,000 and the 260 clinton contributors he brought into her fold that she refused to disclose! Oh yea, and did I mention that she's CURRENTLY under investigation for campaign finance fraud for her senate run in 2000? yeah, you won't hear that in the media because its a buyout. I'd also like to remind everyone that Hillary Clinton declared on live television that if Obama were the nominee he could, and would beat McCain in the fall. OOPS. Kinda leaves her with nothing left, doesn't it? The republicans are going to dig trash on whoever the nominee is. So A) they can scrape around in Obama's well disclosed and relatively short history, or B) they can look at 35 years of republican-snubbing, tax-dollar wasting, white lie-ridden elitism that is the Clinton legacy. Seriously, you don't think the republicans will have plenty of dirt to throw? Their history in and out of the white house is a gift that keeps on giving.
So A) they can scrape around in Obama's well disclosed and relatively short history, or B) they can look at 35 years of republican-snubbing, tax-dollar wasting, white lie-ridden elitism that is the Clinton legacy. Seriously, you don't think the republicans will have plenty of dirt to throw? Their history in and out of the white house is a gift that keeps on giving.
All the mud that can be thrown at the Clintons has already been thrown. All the mud that could stick is already sticking.
Obama? Republicans are keeping their powder dry for now. Between Wright, Ayers, Michelle, and his two published autobiographies, there's a world of material.
It's pretty hard to paint the Boy from Hope as an out-of-touch liberal elitist.
Obama, on the other hand, wrote two books painting himself as an out-of-touch liberal elitist. You bet that choice quotes from his autobiographies are being set to music and video as we speak.
"You bet that choice quotes from his AUTOBIOGRAPHIES are being set to music and video as we speak."
As I said, well disclosed and relatively short history. Fresh dirt will be found in the white-house papers that the Clinton library is being forced to release.
But really, its not about what sticks, its about how much you can throw. Everyone loves to see it too... but will never stop saying they hate it. The American public has a very short attention span, not to mention a short memory. Republican attacks are going to be rehashes of what we've already seen, and they're going to throw mud just to saturate the media. And last time I checked, the Clinton's have one of the longest rapsheets in the business.
As for the "out-of-touch liberal elitist" accusation, please remember that Hillary is a world-traveling ex-first lady multi-million dollar lawyer/multi-term senator from NY with a Yale law degree that her father paid for. I'd like to believe that the American people can see through her blue-collar facade, but I doubt it.
If Clinton had followed up Ohio/Texas and Pennsylvania by winning Indiana by ten points and coming close in NC, then a reasonable case could have been made to the superdelegates that Obama had been shown to be a nine weeks' wonder, a candidate with no staying power and fatal flaws exposed by a long campaign.
Now, she can say it, but nobody's going to buy it. Obama took body-blows for two months, and bounced back.
Clinton cannot be forced to drop out by this change. But now she has no argument to take to the superdelegates. Whether she keeps running or not, the race is over. Hillary's only roads to the nomination now are "a dead girl or a live boy", or a Sirhan Sirhan.
I have long been an adversary of Hillary Clinton, but that woman doesn't owe the Democratic Party a blessed thing. Who are they to tell her and her millions of supporters when they should quit? Hillary is a lot of things not all of them positive, but a coward is not one of them. I fully expect Hillary to see her campaign through to the end and as much as I disagree with her about issues, I have to respect her for doing so.
At the risk of being accused of spinning for the RNC . . . ;)
I have to say that I agree with what John Lynch wrote. While I’m pretty used to thinking of Senator Clinton as an adversary and won’t vote for her because she’s wrong on most of the issues but I honestly do admire her willingness to fight for what she wants until the bitter end. This is her one shot at running for President and they’ll have to pry it from her cold dead fingers. If she were a Republican and my first choice for candidate, I know that such determination would be enough to inspire me to fight for her until the bitter end.
But she’s not and I won’t but I can certainly understand and appreciate why her supporters (wrong as they are on most of the issues) are willing to stick it out with her.
It's simple. If Clinton goes down fighting to the last, she's in a much better position to say, "I told you so," when Obama loses the swing states (and the election) to McCain.
A lot of people assume that by persecuting the high and exalted Barack "Baby Jesus" Obama, Clinton's just being a mean power-hungry ogress. Few people seem willing to consider that she simply understands that Obama will lose the election.
| 
She was only in it last week because of the perception that while she could not catch up in the delegate lead she could at least win the remaining primaires, maybe pull an upset in his turf to show how he has been harmed and damaged to the point the superdelegates should overturn his lead in pledged delegates for the good of the party.
That perception is not there any longer. He outperformed expectations and she has no way to catch up to him on any of the metrics (pledged, popular vote, states won) that the Clintons have been laying out. And moving the goal posts is the only reason she has been in the race.
That is over.
Posted by Rhoda | May 7, 2008 9:51 AM