Other Factors (4.00 / 1)

But, it's becoming clear that the DNC will want to wrap things up quickly after the end of voting.

I think May 6th might be the close-out. Remember, there was noise that had Clinton lost Texas, a bunch of staff would have quit. If she loses both IN and NC, I think it will happen then, as it's clear it's over.

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:08:48 PM CDT

Totally Agree (4.00 / 1)

At this point, it seems that many want a nominee chosen within the DNC (I support this with the fact that Howard Dean, the chair of the DNC, has said that he wants the SD's to choose now, not later). The problem is, while Obama is clearly in the lead, it would look like an institutional coup if Obama were given the nomination after a Clinton victory (which is why this did not happen after Texas, because of perceptions, despite his winning about as many delegates). This of course won't happen, en masse, after Pennsylvania, if Clinton wins (as she likely will). As well, at this point, a majority of SD's backing Clinton would also be viewed as an institutional coup, since she is behind by most meters (delegates, national polls, etc.). But, if Obama has a blowout in Indiana and North Carolina, it would be very difficult for people to perceive this as a coup, if the SD's were to endorse thereafter, as he is clearly the frontrunner, and it would be after a major victory which could be portrayed as momentum and  a "knock-out blow." Thus, with prodding by Dean, I think that that could be the end of the nomination (assuming Obama wins both states, and even then it is still an assumption).

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

---

by: JewishJake @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:28:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

It almost has to end on May 7 (unless Obama by some stroke wins tomorrow). Obama will most likely win a bundle on May 6. But if the election were to continue, Hillary would win big margins in WV on May 13, and both candidate would win one blow out state on May 20 (KY and OR). So really, it ends before May 13 or it goes into June.

And I think the DNC knows it can't afford to have Clinton singing chorus for McCain for the next two months. Furthermore, Clinton can't afford this thing anymore.

So I think she'll "suspend" before May 13.

---

by: emptywheel @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:58:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

back in the real world... (0.00 / 0)

She did lose Texas!

---

by: redwards95 @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:59:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If she takes it all the way to the convention roll call then McCain... (0.00 / 0)

...won't have to wait until November to win. The party is well aware of this. It ends either by Obama winning Indiana or else we head to the end of voting in June then a stampede of the party hierachy will end it.

---

by: conspiracy @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:26:56 PM CDT

Democrats divided (0.00 / 0)

I think that this is as crucial as the Clintons' unwillingness to let go.  The media loves the Democrats divided (i.e., weak) and Republicans united (i.e., strong) narrative, never mind whether or not what the Republicans are united around is actually any good for the country.  As a matter of fact, given that the Republicans have done nothing good for this country, the narrative isn't about substance at all.  If it were, the media would be acknowledging that Obama will be the nominee.

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:39:48 PM CDT

primitive subtext (0.00 / 0)

While we lefties tend to get off on intellectualizing things, and thus would like to project that division/unity on its face doesn't matter, i would like to suggest that there is an important primitive aspect to the division/unity difference that the Democratic party is of course typically ignoring to its own detriment. That is, in times of crisis people look for unity in purpose from leadership. Its not different from children expecting parents to be unified in purpose. When the leadership is divided it makes the people uncertain and nervous. So the Dems are projecting uncertainly. Further, I would like to speculate that the primitive mind perceives danger and uncertainty in protracted leadership battles. Fights to the death do not server the pack well. Leadership battles should be short, even a marginal winner is still the winner because a war of attrition that wears opponents down does not serve the pack well - a deeply wounded victor is ripe for another challenge. So the people rightly perceive irrational egoism in a protracted leadership battle, and thus begin to question the capability of either to lead. The GOP gets this so much better - short leadership battles coupled with intense rallying for the victor to affirm their mandate to power.

The GOP projects decisiveness, unity of purpose, humility (yes I know that sounds crazy, but its true - there is humility in avoiding protracted leadership battles - they put the party first). The Dems on the other hand are projecting disorganization and egotism. Republicans look at how the Democratic Party Leadership has reacted to this battle and shakes their heads. Their is no leadership there. Strong packs protect their leader and avoid costly internal death matches. They rightfully ask, how can the party be entrusted to lead other issues decisively if the party can not select a leader decisively and rally behind it.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 14:26:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

relax (0.00 / 0)

What we've seen repeatedly is that any state that Clinton loses she retroactively declares doesn't matter/count. There's no reason to think anything different will happen in Pennsylvania or Indiana. I see the delegate conclusion being the most likely outcome with enough of the uncommitted superdelegates coming out for Obama that he becomes the presumptive nominee by the end of June if not earlier. If Clinton loses Pennsylvania (which I don't expect) and/or Indiana but stays in the race, then the financial conclusion might occur sometime in May (how much of that $109 million the Clintons made this decade could they still tap though?).

I'm not at all worried about when the nomination is wrapped up. Even if it goes to the convention, 2 months is more than enough time to beat John McCain given the prohibitively favorable trends in the Democrat's favors (economy, Iraq, Bush) and what a bad candidate McCain is. Sure it would be better to decide it earlier but this should still be a fairly easy win if the outcome isn't decided until the actual roll call.

---

by: redwards95 @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 13:06:21 PM CDT

sry (0.00 / 0)

I have no idea where you people are coming from.  73 delegates difference and you're acting like Clinton is a Huckabee?  

I cannot tell you how badly these attempts to crown Obama when things are this close turns me off.

Talk about dividing the Democratic party, this has to be it.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 13:30:42 PM CDT

Proportional allocation (4.00 / 2)

Given the system for allocating delegates, an advantage of 73 is huge.  It's not in Huckabee territory, sure, but it will be EXTREMELY difficult to overcome.  

If at any point Clinton had demonstrated a capacity for racking up a number of big (20+ point) victories, I could more easily be persuaded that she's still in it.  But given that even her largest wins have usually only netted her a few (if any) delegates, it would take a sea-change not just in who is likely to win a number of states but also in terms of the magnitude of victories.

The only reason that number is even this close is because it gives her full credit for Florida and Michigan.  Considering that the rest of the primaries will be states where both campaign, both are on the ballot, and Obama has an enormous cash advantage, I'm not sure that including them is useful as a predictive tool (completely independent of arguments about the "legitimacy" of including those delegates).

Now, if she wins Penn by 15-20 points, that's a sign.  But if she only wins by 6-10, and especially if she then goes on to lose on May 6, I just can't see how there's a reasonable case to be made that she can win by a method that won't ignite an absolute firestorm.

---

by: Baldrick @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 13:49:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, your indignation is noted (4.00 / 1)

but the fact remains that, within the scheme you refer to, there are only 262 delegates remaining.  Clinton would have to win 64% of the remaining 262 delegates to overcome that difference (if my quick and rough math is accurate), and that is simply not going to happen.  But please do feel free to blame us, or the always delightful "you people," for dividing the party.

---

by: expatriatedjerseyan @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 13:59:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

margin of victory is 1 vote (0.00 / 0)

- SCOTUS 2000

read the fine print, that's what Hillary does.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 14:27:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A Cheap and Easy Way to Define McCain (4.00 / 1)

You ask how it's possible to turn the race toward Obama vs. McCain, given that it might be a long nominating process. The key problem in developing campaigns to define McCain and the Republicans now seems to be that almost all the money is going into candidate races, especially the presidential race, and not into the 527s and other groups that have helped define Republicans in past elections. A lot of money is not needed to do this, however.

There is a cheap, grassroots way to define McCain and to encourage the media to focus on the issues, and that is for Democratic-controlled state legislatures to place advisory measures on state ballots on the three top issues as identified by voters: the economy, the war in Iraq, and health care. These measures would present voters with the Democratic positions on these issues, which broadly can be described as restoring economic security, opportunity, and fairness; establishing a universal health care system; and ending the war.

There are fourteen states with a Democratic legislature and governor: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia. In Connecticut, Hawaii, and Rhode Island, Democratic legislatures can override a Republican governor's veto, and in Minnesota and Vermont it would take an additional three or four Republican votes to do so. In eight states with Democratic governors, if Democratic support in the legislature is solid, a switch of two to five Republican votes would put these measures on the ballot: Delaware, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. As a necessary compromise to get measures on the ballots in those states, Republicans could offer voters a choice by putting their positions side by side with those of Democrats.

Regarding the war, there are more than fifty Democratic candidates who have supported the Responsible Plan to end the war. Those campaigns, and others, could encourage their state legislatures to put a summary of the Responsible Plan on the state ballot or they could lobby cities in their congressional districts to put it on the ballot.

A March SurveyUSA poll that compared support for McCain and Obama and McCain and Clinton in all fifty states found twenty-three states in which either Clinton or Obama were within 5 percentage points of McCain. Ten of those states are controlled by Democrats, and six more have Democratic governors and mostly Democratic legislatures. Democratic ballot measures could be the deciding factor in those states--and thus in the presidential election. (It's true that other polls have showed other configurations of states, but the overall point remains valid.) In addition, ballot measures could play a decisive role in half of the most competitive Senate races, which could help achieve the sixty or near-sixty votes in the Senate needed to pass progressive legislation.

For more information about this strategy, particularly as it relates to putting antiwar measures on the ballot this fall, check out information about the Iraq Initiatives Project at www.epicalc.org. If you'd like a post on this strategy, e-mail jraymond@ojai.net.

---

by: johnraymond @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 13:30:47 PM CDT

I am so ready for this to be over (0.00 / 0)

I know it's hard to prove a counterfactual, and maybe I'm just deluding myself, but if the roles were reversed I think I would be just as strident in calling for it to be over.  

I'm an Obama guy, and have been for quite a while, but ultimately I'm a Democrat and a progressive and I want what's best for the country, not for one person I've become invested in.  So if it were opposite, if Obama had a virtually insurmountable deficit and was hanging on past his expiration date in the hopes of some stunning comeback, I really think I would ready to call for him to give up.

The problem is that of course there is a case to be made for Hillary sticking around, and of course it's not fair to ask her to bow out when there's still a non-zero chance of the nomination.  And beyond that, it's difficult to make a case that a candidate should give up when she's still on track to WIN primaries in big states.  But, all that said, there has to be a point when a good person sacrifices for the sake of others.

In order to run for president, you have to have an intense ego and an absolute belief in yourself.  But at some point that has to be tempered by a recognition that elections are about 300 million people (or 6 billion people, really), not just 2 or 3.

---

by: Baldrick @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 13:36:28 PM CDT

Superdelegates (0.00 / 0)

It's questionable to project straight lines for the endorsements by the remaining superdelegates, given that the line hasn't been straight so far. It's leveled off a lot recently, and I imagine we'll go through periods where it's flat and periods where it slopes up much faster, depending on what's going on. I also doubt that the SDs who are still undecided are similar to those who have decided in the past couple of months.

---

by: KCinDC @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 13:41:04 PM CDT

Follow the money (4.00 / 1)

I think Clinton's money lag will have much bigger implications than just cramping her advertising budget. In March Obama raised more than twice as much as Clinton and nearly 3 times as much as McCain. Superdelegates and many plain-ol delegates are politicians -- they are exquisitely attuned to money and where it flows. Whatever their ideology and personal/political allegiances, they will, in the end, go for the best money-raiser, and that's indisputably Obama.

Politics shouldn't work that way, but they do, and Obama will be the beneficiary sooner than later.

---

by: DaveW @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 13:52:13 PM CDT

Supers (4.00 / 1)

Unless she pulls of a 25 point win in PA, I think the supers will step in and end this thing before the end of the month. She's broke, she blew a 20 point lead, and she's gone all-negative 24-7. Time to put a stop to it.

---

by: Tom @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 14:06:23 PM CDT

superdelegates are wimps (0.00 / 0)

I wish I could believe that but the superdelegates who haven't already committed have demonstrated tremendous and consistent cowardice. I'd be surprised if they don't wait until after North Carolina and Indiana at least.

---

by: redwards95 @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 15:29:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is the end and what will it look like? (0.00 / 0)

That may be the real question.

Do we mean an official end, an effective end, or a good-enough-for-government-work end.

The first might not happen under any circumstances prior to the convention. She may decided to force the vote no matter what. It would be internally logical.

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 14:11:49 PM CDT