Why Clinton Will Hold Onto Her Delegates (For Now)

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 13:16


Despite the wildly contradicting information about whether or not Senator Hillary Clinton will concede either today or tomorrow, the general consensus seems to be that she will "acknowledge" the delegate reality once Obama reaches the magic number. Two of her national campaign co-chairs, Terry McAuliffe and Tom Vilsack, have both used the "acknowledge once the magic number is reached" language. Given that Obama is only 34.0 32.5 30.5 delegates from reaching the magic number, according to Democratic Convention Watch, and that he will probably secure 17 delegates tonight in Montana and South Dakota, that puts Obama only 14.5 13.5 superdelegates away from reaching the magic number. Given the current rate of superdelegate endorsements, and the many reports of the rate signficiantly increasing as the week progresses, that is a number he will probably reach tomorrow. At the very latest, Obama will reach the magic number on Thursday.

However, while Clinton will acknowledge the delegate reality once Obama reaches the magic number, it does not appear that she will endorse Obama this week or release her delegates. As I explain in the extended entry, there are at least three strong reasons for her to keep her delegates, and wait a little while on the endorsement.  

Chris Bowers :: Why Clinton Will Hold Onto Her Delegates (For Now)
Why Clinton Will Keep Her Delegates (For Now)
  1. Respect for her closest supporters: Delegates tend to be some of the strongest supporters of a candidate, and have done the most work on behalf of the candidate. Asking those delegates to stay pledged to her for now is actually a show of respect for those delegates, and an acknowledgement of all the work they have put in on Clinton's behalf. Many other candidates, including Howard Dean, asked their delegates to stay committed long after their campaigns were formally suspended.

  2. Just in case... Keeping her 1900+ delegates will keep Clinton in position to be the nominee on the extreme longshot chance that Obama either drops out or completely tanks sometime between now and the convention. It is highly unlikely, but given that her chances to be the nominee have been highly unlikely for the past three months, it also fits into a long-term pattern of behavior.

  3. Leverage: This, of course, is the real reason to keep her delegates, for now. Clinton's 1900+ delegates give her leverage over the DNC platform, paying off her campaign debts, finding employment for her staff in Obama's general election campaign, and possibly also over Obama's high level cabinet picks, including Vice-President. Maintaining a huge delegate block is a source of leverage, and right now leverage and influence is something that Hillary Clinton will need to start rebuilding her political career.

Just as it was for Edwards, the day that Clinton endorses Obama is the day when she functionally releases her delegates. Unless a deal is quickly reached to make her Vice-President, I don't expect such an endorsement to happen either this week or next week. I have no particular insight into the odds of an Obama-Clinton ticket, although I have no doubt she will push for one. Personally, I suspect Obama will choose someone else, but I also wouldn't completely rule it out as a possibility. Until a decision is made, expect Clinton to keep her delegates in place, and make vague statements about being willing to "help the nominee" in "whatever way she can."  

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Why Clinton Will Hold Onto Her Delegates (For Now) | 36 comments
This makes me feel dizzy. (4.00 / 6)
How can we move on until she endorses? Tempers are hot and people are worn out. We need a clean break. Even if Obama were to chose Clinton, we need to believe he did so of his own free will. Who wants a candidate who forced herself on to the ballot?

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
I don't see (4.00 / 6)
why her not officially endorsing him will prevent us from moving on, as long as she behaves in a restrained manner.  Obama will declare victory, Clinton will acknowledge that he has the numbers, the primary season will be over, and the general election will heat up.  Meanwhile, there will be serious negotiations behind closed doors between the two democratic camps.

My caveat is that I don't think this will work if Clinton is regularly on TV talking about winning the popular vote and saying that she's the most electable candidate.  That has to stop after today.  She should be free to negotiate with as much leverage as possible and bide her time for a bit.  But she has to cede the stump to him and stop publicly contesting the nomination.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
the effort to beat McCain could probably use more than a tepid "restrained manner" from Sen. Clinton.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 1)
I have little doubt that she will end up endorsing him, lauding him in her speech in Denver, and then campaigning hard for him in the fall.  If she doesn't, then that would greatly upset me.  But I don't see any reason to fear that.


John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
[ Parent ]
I know it'll eventually happen (4.00 / 1)
But it'd be nice to get her going sooner than later.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
We just do. (4.00 / 1)
Chill.  Get on with the General campaign.  Obsess about VP and cabinet picks, platform, Congress, whatever.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
This Is Bullshit (4.00 / 1)
So she'll recognize that Obama has the delegate count, but she won't concede? These are not the actions of someone who will whole-heartedly back the party nominee in the fall.

I'm telling you, she's going to go indy.

I don't think so (4.00 / 2)
She has more delegates than anyone who has lost, and oftentimes they "suspended" their campaigns and the like. Let the process work out, she should certainly negotiate on the issues that are important to her.  


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
Its also worth keeping in mind (4.00 / 12)
that no candidate with a position nearly as strong as hers (and many with positions much weaker) has not taken the fight to the convention.  I don't expect Clinton to do that, nor do I think she should.  But people need a reality check.  If she ends up dropping out and not bringing the fight to Denver, that will be a move that is historically unprecedented.  If anything, she should be lauded for not prolonging the fight, as all her forebearers in similar positions have, rather than being skewered at every opportunity for not dropping out sooner or for using her leverage to win some concessions.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
[ Parent ]
I find myself wanting to (0.00 / 0)
put this comment in Quick Hits ...
[ Parent ]
Going to the convention... (4.00 / 1)
Unlike the previous contests you refer to, I think it's become conventional wisdom that fighting all the way to the convention is not good for the party. Someone posted, I think here at OL, a recap of the last few elections and their results. I think only something like two of seven ended in November wins for the eventual nominee.  
[ Parent ]
Bad idea (4.00 / 1)
Going to the convention is certainly a bad idea and I in no way support her doing that this year.  I do think, however, that the causality is a little hard to trace out when considering those historical races.  A big part of the reason that convention fights happen in the first place is because no leading candidate has been strong enough to win support across the diverse democratic electorate.  If you look at those convention years, what did we have?  An unelectable McGovern and a once-beaten Humphrey in 72, a deeply unpopular Carter in 80, a largely uninspiring Mondale in 84.

I think Obama is a far better candidate than any of those guys, so don't take this as a criticism of him.  Just thinking about history...

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
I don't think this is the same (0.00 / 0)
The link in all those years is that the Democrats had horrible candidates.  Not so, this year, as you note.

Let's go the convention.  I'm not going to tell Hillary Clinton to drop out.  I may tell her that she's clinging to slim chances and ignoring reality like Bush in Iraq, but I won't tell her to drop out, concede, and endorse.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Not really (4.00 / 1)
Most candidates in the past who were in a position to get into the position she's now in, have dropped out much earlier, and so didn't get to the point of being "as strong as her".  The very very few who did, did so in order to take it to the convention.  By narrowing the context to only those few, you artificially make the choice not to go to the convention seem unusual, but in fact the truly unusual thing is that she's chosen to continue for this long, something that usually only marginalized candidates with no chance of real media attention ever  do.  If she ends up not taking it quite as far as the few who went all the way to the convention, she'll still have taken it further than most past candidates who we can compare to her.
[ Parent ]
Like who? (0.00 / 0)
Most candidates in the past who were in a position to get into the position she's now in, have dropped out much earlier, and so didn't get to the point of being "as strong as her".

Who had over 800 pledged delegates and over 1000 total delegates after Super Tuesday and dropped out?

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
Bit of a weird question (0.00 / 0)
Super Tuesday hasn't really been around long enough to meaningfully make such comparisons. Meanwhile maybe one would not find it surprising to find Clinton won more delegates on Super Tuesday than any other candidate (except of course Barack Obama)-- after all, Super Tuesday has never been either this early or this large.
[ Parent ]
Ok fine (0.00 / 0)
Name me one candidate who "was in the position to get into the position (HRC) is in now, but dropped out much earlier," as the previous commentator alleged.  Who was in the position to win 48% of the pledged delegates and roughly 50% of the popular vote and decided that they would just drop out instead?


John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
[ Parent ]
Very hard to tell (0.00 / 0)
Because in general the non-marginal candidates drop out when they realize they won't win, we can't say for sure.  For example, in the last cycle, Howard Dean dropped out when fewer than 25% of delegates had been voted on, and he had a substantial number.  Could he have gotten into a position similar to Clinton's if he'd kept going?  Maybe, maybe not.  What about those who dropped out even earlier?  That happens every year.  The point is that what Clinton has done is very unusual (though not unprecedented) - she stayed in the race long after it was clear she wouldn't win, despite being a serious contender initially, and treated as such by the press.  Most don't do that.
[ Parent ]
Not a good comparison (0.00 / 0)
For example, in the last cycle, Howard Dean dropped out when fewer than 25% of delegates had been voted on, and he had a substantial number.  Could he have gotten into a position similar to Clinton's if he'd kept going?  Maybe, maybe not.

Dean had very few delegates, no wins, and was regularly losing contests by 30-40% to Kerry throughout February.  He had zero chance of ending up where Clinton is now.

Nobody has ever dropped out who could reasonably have expected to have 48% of pledged delegates and 50% of the popular vote at the end of the process.  

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
Much of the Clinton style is about parsing... (0.00 / 0)
*Bill did not have sex with that woman based on your definition of what 'is' is.

*Hillary did not vote for the war in Iraq, she voted for presidential authority.

*Hillary did not vote for aggression towards Iran, it was a negotiating tactic.

*Hillary didn't lie about sniper fire. She mis-spoke.

I don't think she is going 'indy'. Then she would lose all standing in the Dem part.

But I do think she will tread a thin line, weakly backing Obama, so if he loses, she can say I told you so.

Again this makes me feel ill.

I understand Hillary's tactics here, but if she does not fully endorse Obama very soon I will believe she does not wholeheartedly want Obama to win in the fall.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
Have we gotten this weak-willed? (4.00 / 2)
convention fights used to be a regular occurrence.  No one is even predicting a convention fight.  Everyone will treat Obama as the noiminee after today.  Just let her hold onto her delegates if she wants.  All that will happen is that the press will Huckabee her.
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. (4.00 / 1)
She's not.  She may take  hr time. take a rest, whatever.  Fien with m.  but nohow, no way does she "go indy."

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Here's my counter-argument (4.00 / 1)
First of all, simply "acknowledging" the obvious is not going to gain her the slightest bit of good will; this is like admitting that the sun is going to come up tomorrow.  Whatever language is used, she simply has to start doing her part to unify the party (and her supporters) behind Obama.

And if she does not move in that direction loudly and clearly THIS WEEK she is not going to have any serious leverage at all.

Now, I don't pretend to understand the technical distinction between ending a campaign or suspending a campaign, or the legal ramifications of an endorsement or releasing one's delegates.  But frankly, this is all semantics.

I have no doubt that Clinton can find the language to throw her support behind Obama, even while avoiding whatever pitfalls come from an official "endorsement" and "release" of delegates (even assuming, that such terms really have permanent, irrevocable consequences).  

Consider the two scenarios.  This week, she unequivocally embraces Obama (whether or not the word "endorse" is used).  Undoubtedly, she will gain considerable good will and stature in the process, making her a much more viable VP candidate. But if she waits or equivocates past this week, people will resent her more, she will seem even less of a team player and will lose her dwindling influence and chance at the VP spot.

Briefly put, this moment is the time when she has the most leverage.

No VP for Clinton (0.00 / 0)
By whining about getting VP and threatening to hold her breath until she gets it, Clinton only makes it less likely that Obama would give her the VP slot. At this point it would make him look very weak, like he caved to Clinton.

Not to mention that Hillary and Bill have said some horrible things about Obama, that they still haven't disclosed their financial records, and they bring lots of potential scandals to the table. Oh yes, and they destroy Obama's message of change.

McCain is going to pick Sarah Palin as his VP, believe it. Which means that Obama should think strongly about picking a woman, someone like Claire McCaskill. But NOT Hillary.

She may very well have the floor votes to force it (4.00 / 2)
It's the convention's choice, not the candidates.  The Republicans gave Reagan a VP he didn't really want in 1980, and the Democrats gave Kennedy a VP he didn't really want in 1960.  

And Claire McCaskill?  Blech.  That would be more of a signal that Obama wants to be a third Clinton term than Hillary Clinton herself would be.

[ Parent ]
Not likely (4.00 / 1)
While technically the convention could do so, it would have to do so against the obvious wishes of the nominee, Obama, who will by that point have already declared who he wants as his VP (something that in the distant past didn't always happen before the convention, but now always does).  Given that context, I doubt Hillary will have the floor votes to force a choice other than Obama's choice.
[ Parent ]
It's been a while since I read about it (0.00 / 0)
But didn't JFK offer LBJ the VP slot with the expectation that he would decline and didn't LBJ accept because history had shown that 1/4 of presidents had died in office, so it was his best chance at the White House?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Please provide an example of this: (4.00 / 2)
"By whining about getting VP and threatening to hold her breath until she gets it, Clinton only makes it less likely that Obama would give her the VP slot."

Has Hillary Clinton actually done any of this?

I don't think so.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
She hasn't. (4.00 / 2)
But, I think we all get the point. How dare that bratty little girl run for president?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
I reject the point (4.00 / 1)
to the extent that there was a point.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I'm not so sure (0.00 / 0)
I've heard a lot about Sarah Palin being picked as GOP veep, but the woman just had a child, I'm uncertain she would want to embark on a national campaign and relocate to Washington.
[ Parent ]
Who cares if she keeps the the delegates (4.00 / 1)
I don't even know whether a formal "endorsement" matters exactly. The question is whether Clinton makes it clear she supports the democratic nominee, or whether Clinton gives wink-nod encouragement to her faction to not support the democratic nominee. The question is whether we as a party are going to spend the next three precious months distracted from the election, by Harold Ickes and MyDD constantly insinuating Obama didn't really win and occasionally serving as a conveyor belt to introduce right wing talking points into the left. The question is whether Clinton decides we are allowed to begin the general election campaign.

And that's a question about message-- what Clinton says tonight-- not about convention mechanics.

Please don't select Clinton as the VP (0.00 / 0)
How can BHO embrace the concept of a new type of politics if he accepts a  symbol of the old type of politics as VP?  

I admit that there is a large wound to heal with the Clinton supporters and Obama needs to be sensitive to that.   There are ways to heal that wound without putting Hillary on the ticket.    

Three reasons (4.00 / 3)
But not three good reasons.

1. Non-sequitur.  Respect would be giving them the freedom to choose.

2. Unnecessary. While Clinton has made the "something could happen" argument, to disastrous effect when she got a little too candid about the universe of possibilities, if something were to happen she would obviously be the nominee whether she held onto her delegates or not.

3. This is the real reason. Puts Clinton above party unity, undercuts Obama, and is pretty much what I would expect from her.

John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


Holding a gun to his head until the convention (4.00 / 2)
that's what this scenario sounds like.  If he doesn't walk the path she lays out for him and make the concessions she wants, she'll use those 49% of the delegates to hurt his chances in the general.  I am now starting to realize she wants keynote speech at the convention as her stage to endorse Obama.  What she's threatinging is Obama will only get 51% of the party apparatus to fight McCain with until August.  If he wants it before then, he needs to cut a deal, ala VP for her or a loyalist, campaign debt and a spot for Ickes and a few other key guys in the WH.  If Obama is fine fighting McCain with one arm behind his back until August, she's ok with that too, as 2012 is right around the corner for the Clintons.  

Sort of makes me sick to my stomach and I've always been a Hillary-defending Obama voter, saying don't let the clinton's tragic flaw of putting their own political interests above all blind you to the fact that these two have devoted their lives to fighting for democrats and their causes around the country.   If the cold hard logic of this last powerplay doesn't turn you off to the Clintons (and possible politics in general), I don't know what will.  

Baghdad Hillary (0.00 / 0)
Let her keep em and let her not endorse. Watch her likability numbers plummet to lower than dirt. Maybe it will finally shut up Feinstein and Rangel too.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
Why Clinton Will Hold Onto Her Delegates (For Now) | 36 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox