Decision ‘08

Momentum Or Not…

…with the collapse of the Florida and Michigan revotes, it becomes nearly impossible for Hillary Clinton to execute her ‘legitimacy’ campaign. Adam Nagourney notes her options are narrowing:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton needs three breaks to wrest the Democratic presidential nomination from Senator Barack Obama in the view of her advisers.

She has to defeat Mr. Obama soundly in Pennsylvania next month to buttress her argument that she holds an advantage in big general election states.

She needs to lead in the total popular vote after the primaries end in June.

And Mrs. Clinton is looking for some development to shake confidence in Mr. Obama so that superdelegates, Democratic Party leaders and elected officials who are free to decide which candidate to support overturn his lead among the pledged delegates from primaries and caucuses.

For Mrs. Clinton, all this has seemed something of a long shot since her defeats in February. But that shot seems to have grown a little longer.

Despite Mrs. Clinton’s last-minute trip to Michigan on Wednesday, Democrats there signaled that they are unlikely to hold a new primary. That apparently dashed Mrs. Clinton’s hopes of a new showdown in a state she feels she could win, and it left the state’s delegates in limbo.

The inaction in Michigan followed a similar collapse of her effort to seek another matchup with Mr. Obama in Florida, where, as in Michigan, she won an earlier primary held in violation of party rules.

Without new votes in Florida and Michigan, it will be that much more difficult for Mrs. Clinton to achieve a majority in the total popular vote in the primary season, narrow Mr. Obama’s lead among pledged delegates or build a new wave of momentum.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers had hoped that the uproar over inflammatory remarks made by Mr. Obama’s longtime pastor that has rocked his campaign for a week might lead voters and superdelegates to question whether they really know enough about Mr. Obama to back him. Although it is still early to judge his success, the speech Mr. Obama delivered on race in Philadelphia to address the controversy was well received and praised even by some Clinton supporters.

Tad Devine, a Democratic consultant who is not supporting a candidate, said Mrs. Clinton faced a challenge that although hardly insurmountable was growing tougher almost by the day. Mr. Devine said it was critical for her to come out ahead in popular votes, cut into Mr. Obama’s lead and raise questions about Mr. Obama’s electability to win over superdelegates.

“They are going to have to be flawless in executing the strategy, which achieves the goal of taking away the advantage Obama has in pledged delegates and the popular vote,” he added. “Any major setback could undercut that goal. Obama is in the advantageous position.”

Translation? Hillary is getting desperate, and a desperate Clinton is an ugly Clinton. It will not be Republicans trying to prolong the ‘Wright crisis’, but Hillary and her surrogates:

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election.

That argument could be Mrs. Clinton’s last hope for winning this contest.

Our esteemed commenter Jacques Distler asked recently if anyone really wanted to make the case that the presidential election should ride on whether Obama was listening in church. Apparently, Hillary’s advisers do…

12 Responses to “Momentum Or Not…”

1 Ryan Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Hillary is embarrassing to America. During a legislative battle, Jefferson once said to Madison (of Patrick Henry): “What we have to do I think is devoutly to pray for his death.” Now, obviously I’m not going that far, and I suspect Jefferson didn’t really mean it either, but it’s time to wish for something really catastrophic to happen to her campaign. Could Bill please engage in some sodomy with another intern?

Also, on a less impassioned note, can we do away with the argument that Hillary will do better than Barack in large states simply because she does better in the primaries? There is no rule of logic that forces us to believe, simply because Democrats like her better in those states, that they also like John McCain better. It’s an insane argument and deserves a full measure of contempt. I realize I am barking up the wrong tree, but is it really too much to ask that our news media actually, you know, do their jobs and point this stuff out?
2 Chris J. Breisch Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 8:38 am
Strange how different people can look at the same events differently.

I feel that Hillary’s in the best position she’s been in since the day after Super Tuesday. She already has the wave of momentum that he dismisses so casually.

I -guarantee- the the voices in MI and FL will not go unheard at the convention. I think the next proposal you’ll likely hear is something that gives Hillary her delegates from MI and O’Bama getting all of the delegates that are “uncommitted”. Of course, there’s no way that O’Bama is going to support this, but he’s going to have to deal with such a proposal some way. He can’t be seen as trying to “disenfranchise” voters. The Dems may in the end do that and then do what the GOP did, cut the delegate count in half for each state. Even still, Clinton picks up at least 30 delegates that way.

1) O’Bama’s aura of invincibility has been shattered by Reverend Wright and recent victories by Clinton.
2) I still feel that FL’s delegates will be seated at the convention.
3) O’Bama is falling in national polls.
4) O’Bama is plunging in polls in PA.
5) Given the states that are remaining and recent polling, it’s now a decent possibility that Clinton will end the primary season having “won” the popular vote (another item dismissed casually by our esteemed author).
6) If her lead continues to grow in PA, this will only help her in other states as well. It would not be surprising for her to win every remaining state, except for NC, and O’Bama is falling there too.
7) Given 2) and 6) that makes it more likely that the DNC will have to do -something- with MI. Whatever this -something- is, it will almost certainly give more delegates to Clinton than O’Bama. At this point, the best that O’Bama can hope for is some small insignificant lead in delegate count, which Hillary will counter with her popular vote and recent string of wins.

Unless something surprising and dramatic happens, it’s going to come down to the PLEO’s. That’s the end result. Anyone that says different has an agenda.

What will the PLEO’s do? No one knows, despite what you hear on the internet and TV.

Remember also that the delegates are only committed to vote the way their state voted on the first ballot. Unless there’s a withdrawal by one candidate or the other, there’s no way this is going to be decided on the first ballot.

What will the delegates do on the 2nd ballot? No one knows that either.
3 too many steves Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 9:07 am
Also, if you look at the primary/caucus results and list states won by Clinton and Obama and compare that to those that we can presume need to be won in November to win the Electoral vote, Hillary leads in many of the big, key states. The Democrats would be nuts not to take that into consideration.
4 Ryan Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 10:55 am
TMS: That’s the exact argument I find completely silly. There is no logical chain between “Hillary beat Barack here in the primary” and “McCain will beat Barack here in the general”. To argue otherwise is crazy.

Clinton will not win the popular vote. Won’t happen. Mark my words on this: she will not be the nominee. Of the remaining states, conventional wisdom will play out and she will win Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and West Virginia (and I guess Guam and Puerto Rico). Obama will still win North Carolina, Indiana, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. I know it’s fun to pretend that there’s been some kind of sea change and Clinton is “coming back”, but that’s nutty. She is in a worse position than she has ever been because the delegate gap continues to widen on her. She cannot win this unless Obama breaks some kind of law. Let’s quit kidding ourselves.
5 peter Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 11:28 am
Clinton’s incessantly negative campaigning is clearly becoming counter-productive for the Democratic Party. My hope is that the party bigwigs — Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore (just kidding) — get together and endorse Obama en masse. That should clinch it for him and end the bloodshed.
6 Bob from Ohio Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 11:39 am
Ryan is embarrassing to America and this blog.
7 too many steves Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 11:51 am
You may be right Ryan, Hillary’s negatives are very high (some say too high to be elected but, then, GWB’s were pretty high in ‘04). My argument would depend, in part, on whether Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are still big swing states in the general. The larger point is that this is still a very close race and there is no good reason, other than, I guess, party unity, for Hillary to drop out.
8 Ryan Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Bob: While I don’t know what prompted that, I can only assume that earning the ire of a knuckle-dragging moron like you means I’m on the right track.

TMS: I think the party unity reason is exactly the right reason for her to drop out. Obviously you and I disagree on this particular issue, but John McCain is a singularly dangerous Republican candidate and the Democrats are not going to beat him by screwing around and not picking a nominee until August. The media quite simply will not go after McCain for his lack of knowledge of domestic policy and will, in fact, continue to praise him as a foreign policy expert despite his knowing absolutely nothing about the Middle East. Hillary can’t win the nomination at this point, and the only thing she accomplishes by sticking around is kneecapping the eventual nominee (which is Obama, since - I repeat - she can’t win).
9 Bob from Ohio Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Ryan, do you even remember your own comments?

Read your first one over again, real slow. Then maybe you will see what prompted mine.

You dislike Clinton, fine. But to 1. cite with approval a quote asking for death and then 2. wish for something “really catastrophic to happen to her campaign” is pretty bad.

Based on your history here, I don’t think it necessarily “obvious” that you are “not going that far”. Maybe her being hurt in a car accident would satisfy you instead?
10 Ryan Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Dude, cool it. I am clearly not wishing harm to Senator Clinton. I thought the quote was funny because it’s obviously such a weird, insane thing to say. Do you really believe that either Jefferson or I wish death upon our political opponents? Maybe you do, as you reference my “history” here, but I assure that’s not the case. While we’re on the subject, remind me when I have ever wished harm on someone. It seems to me I’m the one usually pointing out that, contrary to the claims of the adolescent boys running our foreign policy machine, war and torture are maybe not the coolest things ever.

Let’s be perfectly clear: when I wish for something catastrophic to happen to her campaign, I don’t wish for something catastrophic to happen to her. Whatever her crimes against her party, she’s still a human being. I want her vanquished from the sphere of politics, never to return - but I also want her to live to a ripe old age among friends and family.
11 Ryan Says:
March 21st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Mark, I assume by now that you’ve seen this piece from the Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html
12 Mark Says:
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Thanks for the heads-up - just blogged it…