When will Hillary drop out?

With New Hampshire's most respected poll showing Hillary Clinton trailing Barack Obama by 10 points on the eve of the primary, and other polls also universally showing Obama in the lead, Drudge is now running a siren with the headline: "TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGN." He writes:

Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?!

"She can't take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," laments one top campaign insider. "If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats."

Key players in Clinton's inner circle are said to be split. James Carville is urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday, where she has a shot at thwarting Barack Obama in a big state. But others close to the former first lady now see no possible road to victory, sources claim.

I agree with those "others close to the former first lady." I don't think there is any way she can beat Obama. In fact, I believe that she will not win a single primary. Obama's momentum is already unstoppable, at least by her.

Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that Hillary, with all her resources, will bow out before Super Duper Tuesday (February 5), or, at the very earliest, Florida (January 29). Who cares about the "Clinton brand"? Bill is termed out, and it's not like Hillary is going to get another shot at the presidency. (If you think those wrinkles are bad now, just imagine how they'll look in four or eight years.) Whose future political fortunes are they worried about, Chelsea's? This is Hillary's chance, this is her moment, and although it's now almost certainly a lost cause, I don't see the Clintons as the gracious, bow-out-early types. I expect them to follow Carville's suggested course of action, quixotic though it may be.

Still, what's really interesting to me is the possibility of Clinton exiting the race before Edwards does. I actually think Edwards has a better chance (albeit still a slim one) to catch Obama than Clinton does, because whereas the central rationale for her candidacy -- experience -- is one that the voters are clearly not interested in right now (pseudo-incumbents don't win "change elections"), and therefore she has no ammunition with which to fight Obama, the central rationale of Edwards's candidacy is change; his is simply a more angry, confrontational message of "change" than Obama's, and there are definitely a lot of liberals who will be receptive to that message (fraudulent and histrionic though it may be) if they hear it directly contrasted with Obama's feel-good take on things. A head-to-head Obama-vs.-Edwards battle could be very interesting, and while Obama's inherent charisma and political/rhetorical skill are such that I think he would still win fairly easily, I can imagine Edwards potentially catching him, whereas I just can't see Hillary making a comeback unless Obama makes some sort of huge unforced error.

P.S. An earlier incarnation of this post said that I don't see the Clintons as "bow out early for the good of the party" types. I modified that phraseology because, actually, in light of my last paragraph, I think an early Hillary exit would not be good for the party, since it would increase the possibility of an Edwards comeback, which would unquestionably be bad for the party, in light of his angry, polarizing rhetoric, which appeals to the very worst impulses of the Left. (In George F. Will's words, "Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its toxicity. Each overflows with and wallows in the pugnacity of the self-righteous who discern contemptible motives behind all disagreements with them and who therefore think that opponents are enemies and differences are unsplittable.") Edwards is the one Democrat in the race who -- meaningless current general-election polls notwithstanding -- might actually lose to a cardboard-cutout Republican like Romney or Thompson (or even perhaps, heaven help us, Huckabee). So, oddly enough, it's in the Democrats' best interests for Hillary to maintain her quixotic struggle until Obama's coronation becomes inevitable, rather than allowing the election's dynamic and narrative to shift to a head-to-head battle between kinder-and-gentler "change" and mad-as-hell "change," which the latter might just win.

Comments

[Condor]

This is a typical case of Matt Drudge just making up a story: a) anonymous quotes, b) even if the quotes were from real sources within the Clinton campaign, the quotes do not warrant the headline. "She can't take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," laments one top campaign insider. "If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats." This doesn't say anything about her leaving the race.

Now according to one Rasmussen poll, Hillary's national lead is only at four points. But all of the other polls (pre-Iowa) had her at around a 20 point lead. This will likely slip, but no one knows how far. So does this sound like someone who should be leaving?

[Marty West]

Condor - Drudge making up a story?!?! You are CRAZY!!!

[Brendan Loy]

Condor, when Hillary doesn't win a single primary and drops out of the race on February 5, will you come back and eat crow with regard to your reliance on national polls to contradict my belief that Obama's momentum is unstoppable?

I ask in part because I myself am looking forward (not) to the crow-eating I expect to soon be doing with regard to my earlier post about Giuliani's chances of winning the nomination. :)

[4-7]

yeah right. If she does bow out, here's how it may play out.
Hillary bows out and gives homage to Obama.
Hillary then poisons Obama's soup.
Hillary blames right wing extremists.
Returns to the campaign a hero's welcome to carry forth the Obama legacy and momentum and destroy the machine of hate that took down Obama.

If something happens to Obama, blame Hillary first.

[Condor]

If Hillary doesn't win a single primary and drops out of the race on February 5, I will not only eat crow, I will eat A crow.

[Brian Foster]

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!!!!!!!!!

STRIDER ENDORSES KUCINICH!!!!

Brendan, how can you possibly back the Obama juggernaught when King Aragorn himself has named Kucinich the anointed one?

[Joe Mama]

Hillary may indeed stay in the race until Feb 5, but even if that's good for the party as Brendan theorizes, that won't be why she stays in. When have the Clintons ever put the good of the party above themselves?

[yea]

so much for iowa not meaning anything. hillary's best chance now is similar to rudy's. win florida and then win big states. we've seen huge turnarounds in this primaries before, lets not count out hillary yet.

[Collector]

For posterity's sake:

The Recent Prediction

and

The Dinner Bet.

[Brendan Loy]

The reason I'm counting Hillary out isn't because turnarounds can't happen, but because I don't see what the rationale for her candidacy is anymore, unless voters suddenly do a 180 and decide they're not in the mood for "change," but would in fact prefer "experience." I think it might be possible for someone to make a comeback (hence my musings about Edwards), I just don't see how Hillary can do it. She has no compelling message that would inspire voters to lift her back into contention. Meanwhile people are getting totally swept up in Obama's momentum. Everything I read and hear suggests to me that this will very quickly get out of hand for Hillary.

[Brendan Loy]

Heh. Yes, Collector. As I just mentioned, I fully plan on eating crow about those posts once Giuliani drops out of the race, which I now expect to be sooner rather than later.

Just because I was wrong then about Rudy doesn't mean I'm wrong now about Hillary, however. :)

[Collector]

I saw that reference -- I just noted the odd lack of hyperlinks, and acted to correct the problem.

[Brendan Loy]

Fair enough. :)

[I R A Darth Aggie]

Obama's momentum is already unstoppable, at least by her.

Isn't that what everyone said about Howard Dean 4 year ago at this point?

[Joe Mama]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone seen any candidate's supporters act like Ron Paul's?

Just askin'.

[Sandy Underpants]

Except Dean didn't win any primaries.

Apparently Iowa means a lot more than it actually means, as Obama winning ONE caucus, in a worthless state, has apparently got him the nomination outright. Amazing.

"Acting" like Ron Paul supporters? What's that mean-- Being enthused about their candidate?

[Joe Mama]

"Acting" like Ron Paul supporters? What's that mean-- Being enthused about their candidate?

Um, yeah . . . "enthused about their candidate" is certainly one way of putting it. Another way of putting it is "hostile and repugnant."

[Becky]

Hillary has no chance of winning on her personality and her campaign messages have been bung. Even if she takes opinion polls and adopts the position of the majority of Democrats on all the issues, I don't think she has the charisma to build enough momentum to win a close primary. Did you see the bored, bland people behind her when she was giving her post-Iowa speech? They looked half-dead, much like her campaign.

[Becky]

Hucklebee may be doing some populist ranting, but he's the only one of the Republican candidates who seems to feel the pain of voters who have seen their basic expenses--food, gas, heating etc--cutting more and more deeply into the bottom line. With the country trotting toward a recession, the appeal of a candidate talking about those depressing fiscal realities is likely to grow.

[Sandy Underpants]

I don't have audio on this computer, but I saw that RP supporters were chasing Scum Hannity down. I got the impression last night that they were sorta upset that Ron Paul was left off the Fox Forum while Guiliani, who Ron Paul more than tripled in support at the last primary, was there. "Fair and Balanced"-- If you're gonna have the 6th place finisher pretend to be a candidate, why not have the 5th place finisher there as well? The only reason Ron Paul was not allowed at the debate is because Fox does not agree with his opinions and does not want him to get the nomination. That's fine, but a "news channel" should not let that bias prevent a fair debate from taking place.

[JD]

because whereas the central rationale for her candidacy -- experience -- is one that the voters are clearly not interested in right now (pseudo-incumbents don't win "change elections")

I want to draw special attention to this part. Brendan has pretty much nailed it. I saw on another blog the note that "Change beats experience every time."

(Even if that change is backed by a list of platitudes.)

Brendan, how can you possibly back the Obama juggernaught when King Aragorn himself has named Kucinich the anointed one?

We must consider the possibility that Aragorn has been seduced by Wormtongue.

Isn't that what everyone said about Howard Dean 4 year ago at this point?

If by "at this point" you mean "January 7", yes, because the Iowa caucuses hadn't happened yet.

But if by "at this point" you mean "between Iowa and New Hampshire," then no. Finishing third in a race that he was predicted to win months earlier...sounds familiar.

[Joe Mama]

I seriously doubt Hannity had any say in who was chosen for the Fox Forum, nor was he the moderator, so Sandy's excuse for Paul supporters' behavior falls flat. Rather, in chasing down and harassing "Scum" Hannity (cute -- Sandy would fit right in with these goons), Paul supporters were more likely simply venting their emotions (e.g., their hatred of Fox News in general, and Hannity in particular). My impression from last night is that emotion appears to be Paul supporters' guiding light.

[B. Minich]

I don't have the time at the moment to contribute a full analysis of what I think of Obama vs. Hilary, but I DO think the following - Drudge's headline "TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGN" could be more accurately stated "TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS DRUDGE REPORT, CLOUDS JUDGEMENT OF PROPRIETOR" Which is true these days whenever a Drudge rumor involves the Clintons.

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

To any Billary supporter out there please explain what exactly does her 35 years of experience and change actually mean.

- Has she ever sat in on National Security meetings? NO
- Has she ever sat in on peace talks with Sharon and Arafat? NO
- Has she ever sat in on the Presidents morning security briefing? NO
Has she ever actually run anything where she was accountable to the public MINUS her husbands Gubernatorial and Presidential elections? NO
- Did she get on the phone with Alan Greenspan during the bond market route of 1994? the russian default? the asian contagion in the currency market? NO. NO. NO.

I have covered National, Foreign and Fiscal issues and have NO's to all three so I dont see why she is getting credit over either Obama or Edwards for all of this 'experience'

[Aaron]

I'll second Joe Mama on the spectacle of Ron Paul's internet support. I read mostly liberal blogs. (about 80-20, I'd say) I assume JM reads mostly conservative blogs. The phenomenon is exactly the same. Post something critical of Ron Paul, and within hours (minutes, sometimes) you'll get a swarm of semi-literate Paul supporters with half-baked notions of the Greatness of Dr. Paul. (and don't forget the "Dr." part.)

Of course, there are also plenty of smart Paul supporters. But even at a libertarian blog like Hit & Run, which is chock-full of smart libertarian posters and commenters, you'll still see The Swarm in response to even mild criticism of Paul. It's really quite extraordinary and bizarre.

-----------------------------------------

On the subject of Clinton. Another part of the presumed power of her candidacy (more important, I'd argue, than even the "experience" angle) was the aura of inevitability that surrounded it. People want to back the winner, and as long as Clinton seemed sure to win she could use that sense of inevitability as a selling point. That's all gone now. So while Brendan's prediction is indeed bold, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

-----------------------------------------

On a less serious note: the Favorite TV Shows Primary.

For my money, Obama wins with his endorsement of The Wire, but several other candidates give good answers too. The only really bad answer was Clinton's:

HGTV makeover shows, Grey's Anatomy, Antiques Roadshow, American Idol and Dancing with the Stars.

Ug. ;)

[Alasdair]

So - how about this ...

Senator Clinton agrees to drop out of the primaries in return for throwing her support behind Senator Obama - as long as Senator Obama agrees to put her up as his VP ?

Were such an event to transpire, President Obama and VP Clinton, what would President Obama's chances of surviving his Inauguration week be ?

[Brendan Loy]

Sandy Underpants at 12:31 PM: Iowa is just "ONE caucus, in a worthless state."

Sandy Underpants at 1:00 PM: Ron Paul's supporters were rightly miffed because he was left out of a debate while "Guiliani, who Ron Paul more than tripled in support at the last primary [i.e., the Iowa caucuses], was there."

The national polls, of course, show Giuliani with 19% to Paul's 3%. But according to you, Sandy, that doesn't matter, because Paul got 10% in "worthless" Iowa to Giuliani's 4%. "If you're gonna have the 6th place finisher [in Iowa] pretend to be a candidate, why not have the 5th place finisher [in Iowa] there as well?"

So, to review, in just 29 minutes, the Iowa caucuses went from being "worthless" to being so important that they should conclusively determine who gets invited to a New Hampshire debate. That's quite a flip-flop, Sandy! You put Mitt Romney to shame! Color me impressed.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. Lest *I* be accused of similar inconsistency/hypocrisy, let me be clear that I don't regard the national polls showing Giuliani at 19% as being terribly important or indicative of much of anything other than name recognition. As I've said in the context of the Democratic race, national polls are virtually meaningless at this point; momentum (and the individual state results that create or deflate it) matters much more. I cite the national poll numbers not to suggest that they indicate Giuliani is a front-runner, but merely to suggest that there might be some alternative explanation for Fox's decision other than anti-Paul bias -- i.e., the fact that "Fox does not agree with his opinions and does not want him to get the nomination" is not necessarily the "only reason" he was excluded.

More generally, I would simply point out that it's intuitively obvious to anyone with any political sense whatsoever that Ron Paul doesn't have a chance in hell of winning any major party's nomination, no matter how fervent or spendthrifty his supporters are, whereas Giuliani is actually, on the face of things, a potentially viable national contender. That doesn't mean he'll win the nomination (I no longer believe he will; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he bows out without winning a single state), but he's certainly a more fundamentally serious contender -- is, was and always will be -- than a glorified gadfly like Paul. Paul is the sort of candidate for whom percentages in the low double-digits at relatively small-turnout events like primaries and caucuses are the absolute "ceiling" for his potential support. It's actually possible to envision a President Giuliani; not so with a President Paul. All of this, again, is manifestly obvious and should go without saying.

[Brian Foster]

"Obama wins with his endorsement of The Wire"

I don't know if I'd say he "wins," but I think it's telling. A friend recently described for me the basic theme of The Wire, as I am only now starting to watch the show and catch up on previous seasons:

"our public institutions (the police, city hall, schools, the media) are fundamentally and almost irretrievably broken. Meaningful progress is brushed aside in favor of ingrained interests who wish to perpetuate the current system and consolidate their power than bring about change."

What I have seen so far suggests that my friend has absolutely nailed the show. So it's more than a little disconcerting to learn that the candidate who's uniting the country and rising above the special interests and bringing change and fixing problems and doing what they said couldn't be done, is so transfixed by this program.

Does he think that he has what it takes to avoid and defeat the ingrained interests who profit from the current system? Or does he see himself all too clearly in the show, knowing that it's BS even as he shovels it?

Hillary should stay in, if only to ensure that the Dems aren't making a colossal mistake in this rush to crown Obama their savior.

[Brendan Loy]

Aaron, good point about the sense of inevitability. I guess I haven't been mentioning it because, frankly, I don't really understand it: how is "inevitability" an argument? But I guess it's sort of like "momentum," which is an equally empty concept. Inevitability could perhaps be described as "pre-momentum." Another candidate's actual momentum can erase it, and that's precisely what's happened here.

My predictions about Obama and Hillary are, more than anything else, based upon what happened in 2004. As I said on caucus night, if John Kerry could parlay the momentum of an Iowa victory into a nationwide sweep, surely someone as politically and rhetorically gifted as Barack Obama can do the same.

Granted, Hillary Clinton hasn't (yet) done anything equivalent to the Dean Scream. But Obama is way, way, way better than Kerry as a candidate, and the rationale for Hillary's candidacy is less compelling than Dean's (who at least had the "consistently antiwar" thing going for him). So I don't think Obama will need a Hillary Scream to wrap up the momentum... I think he's already golden, barring something apocalyptic (i.e., a massive Obama stumble, an unexpectedly early Hillary departure and concomitant Edwards gain, a terror attack or other security-related event that totally shifts the paradigm, etc.)

And I don't think Hillary will even win Vermont. :)

[Sandy Underpants]

What is manifestly obvious is that Santa Claus has a better chance of winning the whole thing than Fred Thompson or John McCain, but they were on the Fox forum and Ron Paul wasn't.

I'm not going to pretend that Iowa is an important primary because within the big picture (like America) it isn't. But those results are all we have to go on right now (other than even more meaningless polls), and Ron Paul finished ahead of Rudy Guiliani. You and Fox and Joe Mama might not like it, but those are the facts as they stand.

[Brendan Loy]

Well, for what it's worth, if I were making the decision, I would have invited Paul. But Fox's decision is most certainly not indefensible, as you are dishonestly pretending. That's all I'm saying. You and I may regard the national polls as meaningless, but Fox is entitled to feel otherwise, and that does not make them Ron Paul-hating bastards.

Oh, and if you think Fred Thompson and John McCain have no chance of winning the nomination, you are completely nuts, or your judgment is entirely clouded in precisely the way you're saying Joe Mama's and my judgment is clouded. Nobody can effectively handicap the GOP race at this point; there are way too many variables. I can easily concoct a plausible scenario in which either of those guys would win. Hell, it could be argued that McCain is effectively the front-runner at the moment. In any event, they certainly have a much better chance than Santa Claus -- or Ron Paul -- of winning the nomination. "You might not like it, but those are the facts as they stand."

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. It should also be noted that Giuliani did not really compete in Iowa; he essentially wrote the state off months ago, focusing his efforts on New Hampshire and later states. So it's rather silly to treat his 4% there as indicative of his appeal as a whole. It would be sort of like saying USC sucks because they didn't win the Sugar Bowl. They didn't play in the Sugar Bowl, so of course they didn't win it. Giuliani didn't compete in Iowa, so of course he did poorly there. When he does poorly in a state that he's devoted significant campaign effort to, then we can start writing his political obituary.

[Brian Foster]

What is manifestly obvious is that Santa Claus has a better chance of winning the whole thing than Fred Thompson or John McCain, but they were on the Fox forum and Ron Paul wasn't.

Santa Claus was on the Fox forum??? There's a faux Republican if ever I've heard of one. Free toys for the kids just prepares them for a life of government dependency. And notice how despite the threat of consequences for personal behavior, he never actually carries through and gives anybody coal. A Claus administration would be a complete fiscal disaster. Granted, he may have unprecedented goodwill in the foreign policy arena, but that's no reason to abandon any pretense of domestic sanity at home.

[Brian Foster]

P.S. Is he even a natural born citizen? Somehow I doubt it.

[Brian Foster]

I thought not:

"Santa Claus has a variety of different names in different languages, but they all refer to the person of St. Nicholas who was born many centuries ago in the 4th century (born c 245 AD, and died c350 AD, various sources list various dates) in Lycia, Anatolia, a province on the southwest coast of Asia Minor (present day Turkey)." (emphasis added)

No way Santa Claus gets the GOP nomination. He's not constitutionally qualified, and he's far too old. And dead.

[Shocked Child of Impressionable Disposition]

And dead.

Spoiler tags, please.

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

was Billary a part of the political scene in 1973?

that would be 35 years of work

[Sandy Underpants]

I actually did get coal from him one year.

I disagree with the "he did not compete in Iowa" excuse. I'm sure Iowaoanians know who Rudy is and have seen him in the debates and know his opinion. Just because Rudy is smart enough not to waste his money on a bunch of bumpkins who barely drag their asses out to vote, does not make Ron Paul's Iowa ass-beating of Rudy any more insignificant than it already is.

And to keep this USC related, the analogy doesn't hold water. Rudy actually could have won Iowa if anyone there liked him, just like USC could win the national championship without playing in the BCS championship game.

[yea]

i was unaware obama loved the wire. as i think its maybe the best show on television, i somehow feel better that ive supported him so hard. maybe not rational but no point in me lying on internet comments.

the reason a hillary turnaround is still possible (not sure how likely) is that while iowa/new hampshire and other voters might be wanting change, enthenusiam can damper and it might be harder to bring out a huge turnout when 20 or so primaries are happening in one day. its easier to get enthusiam in smaller states when you have a bigger oppurtunity to see more people. obama needs to win nh, sc and nv to be able to win this. despite drudge wetting his pants today in excitment the democratic nomination is about 50/50 imo at this point, maybe 60/40 in favor of obama. intrade.com, which in my opinion is more accurate than polls has obama at about 63% to win, so they give hillary less of a chance than me but still give her a real shot.

[Marty West]

Brendan -

Do you really think Thompson still has a shot? The guy is at 1% in NH! I've been unimpressed with what I have seen of him in all the debates so far. The guy is a snooze fest.

[Marty West]

Regarding the Wire -

What a GREAT show. Last nights episode was awesome. For anyone that is interested there are 8 episodes from the 5th season online already. I am trying to not watch them but it's easier said then done.

[Did Someone Say "Theft"?]

For anyone that is interested there are 8 episodes from the 5th season online already. I am trying to not watch them but it's easier said then done.

Hopefully part of your hesitation stems from the fact that these copies are almost certainly being distributed illegally, yes?

[4-7]

Alasdair,

Interesting gloss on my concern expressed above. If Hillary is an Irish Trojan reader, you may have just saved O's life, at least until her soup-de-etat in 2009.

Hillary, if you're reading this - please don't do it. I know his momentum is making you crazy and you maybe think you have a right or a duty to do it. You don't. Don't do it. You're young. Get made VP by Obama and succeed him in 2016. He's a good man and he doesn't serve the dioxin soup you're preparing. Please.

[Joe Mama]

Wasn't it P.J. O'Rourke who said that God was a Republican and Santa Clause was a Democrat?

[Joe Mama]

I'll answer my own question: Yes, it was P.J. O'Rourke.

From Parliament of Whores:

I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.

God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God's heavenly country club.

Santa Claus is another matter. He's cute. He's nonthreatening. He's always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who's been naughty and who's been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he's famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.

[B. Minich]

Guys, Santa's an illegal immigrant! FROM TURKEY!!! I mean, that's pratically inviting the Islamist Jihad onto our very doorsteps!

We must stop this Santa, before it is too late, and our chimineys have all been blown to bricks by his dastardly remote control car bombs!

[B. Minich]

Interesting discussion, by the way - we went from Hilary to Santa. Weird.

[Condor]

Anyone who cares about our democracy should be troubled by Fox News' exclusion of Ron Paul. I think we can all agree that elections should not be decided by the arbitrary choices of media outlets. They should be decided by the people. Now Fox News need not invite everyone to their forum. There could be a good argument to exclude Duncan Hunter, for example. But Ron Paul is no Duncan Hunter. He was the leading fundraiser in the fourth quarter. He scored in double digits in Iowa, and is in double digits in New Hampshire. Agree or disagree with his views (and I disagree with many of them myself) he is a serious candidate. And in a democracy, his views should be taken seriously, solely on the ground of his popular support. Or, at least, whether his views are taken seriously or not should not be decided by media outlets.
Now Fox News gave the explanation that he was excluded for not being in double digits in the national polls. I'm not saying that Fox News is lying, just that this isn't a very good reason in the big picture. In addition to the points I raised above, Ron Paul quadrupled his third quarter fundraising in the fourth quarter, so it's pretty clear that his support is growing. In any case, what is NOT clear that the criteria of being in double digits nationally is the best criterion for judging his legitimacy.

[Brian Foster]

I think we can all agree that elections should not be decided by the arbitrary choices of media outlets

Yes, we probably can, but I'm afraid you're about 60 years too late for that argument. If not 220 years too late.

whether his views are taken seriously or not should not be decided by media outlets

And it hasn't been. As you yourself note, Paul's support is surging. People are deciding to take his views seriously independent of what Fox News does. Oh, sure, Fox News excluding him from the forum makes it harder for people to become informed about his views and decide whether to take them seriously, but it does not completely prevent them from doing so. Given your concession that "Fox News need not invite everyone to their forum," I don't think you can expect anything more.

Anyone who cares about our democracy should be troubled by Fox News' exclusion of Ron Paul.

Hmm. Setting aside the fact that we do not live in a democracy, I fail to see what is so troubling about Fox News' decision. They set their criteria. They were objective criteria. Paul didn't meet them. Paul has not been muzzled nor has he been denied the right to speak his views and deliver his message. He has simply been excluded from one forum, and a private one at that. And yet he seems to be doing just fine regardless.

The republic is fine -- or at least, Fox News' decision in this instance has caused it no harm.

[4-7]

Anyone who cares about our republic should be scared mindless by the Democrats joint refusal to submit to the questions of Fox News reporters such as Brit Hume or Wallace under the pretense of bias fears. Regardless of the truth of the matter, their fear of such questions shows their lack of spine and intellectual rigor.

[4-7]

by "submit to questions" I meant to engage in a debate on the fox news channel.

[Condor]

"Yes, we probably can, but I'm afraid you're about 60 years too late for that argument. If not 220 years too late."

So you're saying that my argument against x is flawed because, although x is bad, x has been going on for 220 years. I'll let you decide whether or not that's a good argument.

"And it hasn't been. As you yourself note, Paul's support is surging. People are deciding to take his views seriously independent of what Fox News does. Oh, sure, Fox News excluding him from the forum makes it harder for people to become informed about his views and decide whether to take them seriously, but it does not completely prevent them from doing so. Given your concession that "Fox News need not invite everyone to their forum," I don't think you can expect anything more."

One consequence of your reasoning here is that it permits a media outlet to disallow anyone that they want from a debate, regardless of ground, since people would always be able to find out about the candidate through other means. That's an absurd consequence, which indicates that the reasoning leading to it is faulty.

"I fail to see what is so troubling about Fox News' decision. They set their criteria. They were objective criteria. Paul didn't meet them."

You're assuming something here that is under debate, and that is that Fox News created their criteria first, and then picked the candidates accordingly. You may well be right, but the other side would argue that you have the causal process backwards. In any case, you shouldn't assume it without argument.

"Paul has not been muzzled nor has he been denied the right to speak his views and deliver his message. He has simply been excluded from one forum, and a private one at that. And yet he seems to be doing just fine regardless."

The fact that Ron Paul is doing fine after not being permitted into the forum is no argument that it was acceptable to exclude him. Someone can wrong me, and I could be fine afterwards. But this doesn't change the fact that they have wronged me.

I see someone likes the word 'quixotic' :)

[Joe Mama]

I didn't watch ABC's debate Saturday night -- was Ron Paul invited to that one?

[yea]

wow 4-7 might have the worst comment on the entire thread. somehow he thinks democracy is in trouble because the democrats don't want to support a network that's entire existence is based on tearing them apart and supporting their oppenents. yea, the democrats should really show up to a foxnews debate and give foxnews monster numbers. that really makes sense.

[Brian Foster]

So you're saying that my argument against x is flawed because, although x is bad, x has been going on for 220 years.

Wrong. I identified no flaw in your argument, in fact I agreed with your argument. The only problem is your timing. I am pointing out the obvious truth that the "arbitrary choices of media outlets" have been influencing elections in this country since the inception of the media, and in particular television. More generally, there would appear to be no way to remove the pernicious influence of the "arbitrary choices of media outlets" short of infringing the media outlets' ability to make those choices, which (obviously, I should hope) is a cure worse than the disease. To borrow a line, "That's an absurd consequence, which indicates that the reasoning leading to it is faulty."

One consequence of your reasoning here is that it permits a media outlet to disallow anyone that they want from a debate, regardless of ground, since people would always be able to find out about the candidate through other means.

Yes. With the caveats provided below, of course.

That's an absurd consequence

No. There's nothing absurd about it at all. Our private media outlets are under no particular obligation to invite every candidate to every debate. They are entirely free to have, for example, "minor party only" debates or "major party only" debates, or "lower tier candidate" debates or whatever -- not to mention the obvious "Republican only" and "Democrat only" debates that frequently occur and no one questions. Of course, we as voters / citizens / consumers of media product might make certain demands on the media, and the media might well find it in their best interest to respond to those demands in order to provide the product we want, but that doesn't make it "absurd" if, in doing so, a media outlet excludes any given candidate at any given time.

You appear to be operating from an unstated premise that open, unrestricted, televised primary debates are an integral part of the electoral process. I see no reason to believe that this is so.

You're assuming something here that is under debate, and that is that Fox News created their criteria first, and then picked the candidates accordingly. . . . [Y]ou shouldn't assume it without argument.

My apologies; I took your statement that "I'm not saying that Fox News is lying" at face value, and therefore I did not think I needed to provide an argument to cover the possibility that Fox News is lying.

If, however, I hold you to that statement, then your argument is over whether Fox News chose the best criterion to decide whom to include and exclude (or, at the least, whether they could have thosen a better one). To that, my argument is that so long as the criteria they chose were objective, and rationally applied, there is no need to fear for the impending doom of the republic.

The fact that Ron Paul is doing fine after not being permitted into the forum is no argument that it was acceptable to exclude him.

Correct. But it is an argument that there is no need for "[a]nyone who cares about our democracy [to] be troubled by Fox News' exclusion of Ron Paul," because the dissemination of information about and growth of support for his campaign seems to be proceeding apace notwithstanding.

Again, I took your argument to be that Fox News' exclusion decision portended calamity for the republic, rather than simply being an affront to Mr., excuse me, Dr. Paul. I apologize if I misconstrued your post.

I assume we can agree that the personal preferences of Dr. Paul and his supporters are not necessarily identical to the fundamental best interests of the American electoral process. That is to say, whether Fox News wronged Dr. Paul is an entirely separate question from whether Fox News has perpetrated an injustice on the voters and the republic.

I am sure Dr. Paul can deploy many fine arguments as to why he should not have been excluded from the forum; but his upward trend in the polls and fabulous success in fundraising are all the proof I need to conclude that, whatever injuries Dr. Paul may have suffered at the hands of that dastardly network, the system itself is thriving.

[4-7]

yea,

I have gotten PLENTY of worst comment on the thread accusations hurled at me over the years, but your was probably the first that didn't offend me at all.

Whatever you think about Fox News, the fact remains that A LOT of Americans watch it. Heck, maybe the majority of news watching Americans, but regardless.

I am not surprised that some or all of the democrats do not WANT to go on a Fox News debate. But what is surprising is that they hold a united front against it like some kind of political labor union. These are the people who are supposed to lead the greatest country in the world, and they have to boycott a debate on one of the most popular news channels in America ? If you don't find that just a BIT cowardicial, well, . . . . you are the greatest, really.

I just thought at least one of them would have the spine and the gusto to say "I don't care if Chris Wallace is biased and an unethical, smearmongering, cutthroat voicebox of the administration, I'm not afraid of Bush or his cronies. I'll go on and debate anywhere. In a car and in a chair . . . ." I know they're not afraid of Bush. So I chalk it up to they are afraid of hard questions. Do you have a defense to this ? Good luck sweetie pie.

[Condor]

So you're saying that my argument against x is flawed because, although x is bad, x has been going on for 220 years.

Wrong. I identified no flaw in your argument, in fact I agreed with your argument. The only problem is your timing. I am pointing out the obvious truth that the "arbitrary choices of media outlets" have been influencing elections in this country since the inception of the media, and in particular television. More generally, there would appear to be no way to remove the pernicious influence of the "arbitrary choices of media outlets" short of infringing the media outlets' ability to make those choices, which (obviously, I should hope) is a cure worse than the disease. To borrow a line, "That's an absurd consequence, which indicates that the reasoning leading to it is faulty."

--Either your argument implies that my argument is unsound, or else my argument is sound and your argument is unsound. What does it mean for you to say "The only problem is your timing" if not that my argument is unsound?
Please get straight on what you're actually arguing here.

One consequence of your reasoning here is that it permits a media outlet to disallow anyone that they want from a debate, regardless of ground, since people would always be able to find out about the candidate through other means.

Yes. With the caveats provided below, of course.
--This is called "biting the bullet."

That's an absurd consequence

No. There's nothing absurd about it at all. Our private media outlets are under no particular obligation to invite every candidate to every debate. They are entirely free to have, for example, "minor party only" debates or "major party only" debates, or "lower tier candidate" debates or whatever -- not to mention the obvious "Republican only" and "Democrat only" debates that frequently occur and no one questions. Of course, we as voters / citizens / consumers of media product might make certain demands on the media, and the media might well find it in their best interest to respond to those demands in order to provide the product we want, but that doesn't make it "absurd" if, in doing so, a media outlet excludes any given candidate at any given time.

--The question is not what the media can do, but what the media ought to do. I take your point that the media can do what you've proposed. It's not logically absurd, like a square circle or something. It is morally absurd, though. It's civically absurd. So all of the major news networks could decide that they will only hold debates between Clinton and Giuliani, and in doing so, they would basically name the winners. Sure that can happen. But should it? Of course not.

You appear to be operating from an unstated premise that open, unrestricted, televised primary debates are an integral part of the electoral process. I see no reason to believe that this is so.

You're assuming something here that is under debate, and that is that Fox News created their criteria first, and then picked the candidates accordingly. . . . [Y]ou shouldn't assume it without argument.

My apologies; I took your statement that "I'm not saying that Fox News is lying" at face value, and therefore I did not think I needed to provide an argument to cover the possibility that Fox News is lying.

If, however, I hold you to that statement, then your argument is over whether Fox News chose the best criterion to decide whom to include and exclude (or, at the least, whether they could have thosen a better one). To that, my argument is that so long as the criteria they chose were objective, and rationally applied, there is no need to fear for the impending doom of the republic.
--Here's an objective and rationally applied criterion: "People with two first names will be excluded from this debate." Objective and rationalilly applied may be necessary conditions for a criterion, but they aren't sufficient ones.

The fact that Ron Paul is doing fine after not being permitted into the forum is no argument that it was acceptable to exclude him.

Correct. But it is an argument that there is no need for "[a]nyone who cares about our democracy [to] be troubled by Fox News' exclusion of Ron Paul," because the dissemination of information about and growth of support for his campaign seems to be proceeding apace notwithstanding.
--A parallel argument: Our democracy is doing fine despite the fact that there are thousands of murders every year. Therefore we ought not to crack down on the number of murders.

Again, I took your argument to be that Fox News' exclusion decision portended calamity for the republic, rather than simply being an affront to Mr., excuse me, Dr. Paul. I apologize if I misconstrued your post.

I assume we can agree that the personal preferences of Dr. Paul and his supporters are not necessarily identical to the fundamental best interests of the American electoral process. That is to say, whether Fox News wronged Dr. Paul is an entirely separate question from whether Fox News has perpetrated an injustice on the voters and the republic.

I am sure Dr. Paul can deploy many fine arguments as to why he should not have been excluded from the forum; but his upward trend in the polls and fabulous success in fundraising are all the proof I need to conclude that, whatever injuries Dr. Paul may have suffered at the hands of that dastardly network, the system itself is thriving.
--This is just a bad argument, plain and simple. Apparently you would agree with the following argument. Millions of Americans don't vote, but America is doing fine. Therefore democracy is working.

[yea]

4-7,

a lot of stuff in your reply is correct and i agree with some of it, but it contradicts your earlier comment that i took issue with. maybe you can disagree with the move for them to avoid foxnews, but you can surely see that its defensible and calling it a threat to democracy is ridiculous. the questions on abc's debate already showed how out of touch the corporate media is, showing up on foxnews wouldve been totally counterproductive imo.

[4-7]

I called it a "threat to the republic" as a turn on other people using "threat to democracy" in their posts earlier - i.e., I'LL TELL YOU what a threat to democracy is. . . .

I mean, I think liberals are a threat to the republic whether they go on fox news or not. :). Then again, harm done - NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin.

[Brian Foster]

Either your argument implies that my argument is unsound, or else my argument is sound and your argument is unsound. What does it mean for you to say "The only problem is your timing" if not that my argument is unsound?

It's not difficult. You are making a good argument that the media ought not have disproportionate influence over elections, but you are decades if not centuries too late in making it. I was trying to be charitable in saying I identified no flaw in your argument, because the argument itself is fine -- it is the timing that is problematic. After so many successive elections where our free media has had an unimpeded ability to have such influence, there is no practical way to substantially reduce or eliminate that influence without fundamentally altering our understanding of a free press and the First Amendment generally -- which involves changing a hell of a lot of minds, not to mention Supreme Court precedent. So, again, the argument is solid and defensible and well-taken, but too late to be of any practical use.

This is called "biting the bullet."

Um. Okay. Not sure what that has to do with anything. I was simply pointing out, as you apparently agree, that the media is quite capable of making whatever inclusion/exclusion/coverage decisions that it wants, but out of self-interest, it will attempt to make decisions that are in line with what the media-consuming public wants to see and hear about.

The question is not what the media can do, but what the media ought to do

Right. And your original argument, to which I was responding, was that "whether [Paul's] views are taken seriously or not should not be decided by media outlets." You and I agree that the media ought not to be deciding whether Paul's views "are taken seriously" -- and by your use of the passive voice, you clearly are referring to the media deciding whether his views "are taken seriously" by others, i.e. by the voters.

Where we disagree is in whether or not the media is actually doing this. You apparently contend that Fox News' exclusion of Paul from its forum is tantamount to preventing voters from taking Paul's views seriously. I contend that it is not, and that the evidence showing Paul's growing support in polls and fundraising supports my view.

It is morally absurd, though. It's civically absurd.

Powerful rhetoric. Vapid substance. (Kind of like Obama, incidentally.) What is "morally" or "civically absurd" about limiting participation in a candidate forum to those candidates who have demonstrated a certain baseline of national appeal? You already agreed that Fox News can invite whomever it wants, and that it wasn't lying when it gave its criteria for excluding Paul (and others, it must be noted). So you are left with no choice but to come up with ridiculous analogies and stretches, to which we now turn.

all of the major news networks could decide that they will only hold debates between Clinton and Giuliani, and in doing so, they would basically name the winners

They would do no such thing, as Paul's growing support readily indicates. More to the point, sooner or later a network will figure out that instead of showing the same Clinton-Giuliani debate that the other guys are showing, it could put on a McCain-Obama debate or a Romney-Edwards debate, and get higher ratings, or kudos from editorial boards, or whatever floats that particular network's boat. And, don't forget my "bullet-biting" above -- the public is in all likelihood not going to accept a debate between a single Dem and a single Republican candidate seven months before the conventions officially choose a nominee. So it's quite likely that your scenario, which I fully agree is technically possible, will never occur. The mere fact that it could possibly occur does not mean that the system under which such possibility could occur is fatally flawed, precisely because of the safeguards that exist to prevent it from actually happening.

And of course, we're not talking about excluding all but one candidate from each party. We're talking about excluding those candidates from a single party that do not have a minimum level of national support. Quite the difference, that.

Here's an objective and rationally applied criterion: "People with two first names will be excluded from this debate." Objective and rationalilly applied may be necessary conditions for a criterion, but they aren't sufficient ones.

Correct -- they also need to "pass the smell test" with the public. Your proposed criterion would not, in all likelihood. Fox News' does.

Alternatively, I perhaps had my terms flipped. "Rational criteria objectively applied" would not cover your two-first-names gambit. Whether that incorporates the common-sense acceptability notion that is of course the ultimate touchstone of such things, I cannot say, but it probably comes closer than "objective critera rationally applied."

A parallel argument: Our democracy is doing fine despite the fact that there are thousands of murders every year. Therefore we ought not to crack down on the number of murders.

This is barely an argument, and it is certainly not parallel. Your argument was that the sky is falling on our democracy because Ron Paul was excluded. My response to that argument is, Ron Paul's campaign is not suffering from his exclusion, and the overall campaign proceeds onward robustly, so your argument that the exclusion is harmful lacks merit.

You have not demonstrated a harm to democracy (or anyone else for that matter, given Paul's rising support) that results from Fox News' exclusion of Paul from its forum.

On the other hand, a very clear and demonstrable harm arises from "thousands of murders every year," and even though those harms have little if any direct impact on the functioning of our democracy, a plethora of independent reasons exists for cracking down on them.

Until you show an actual harm to democracy resulting from Fox News' decision, there is nothing to "crack down" on in the name of democracy. And until you demonstrate some other harm resulting from Fox News's decision, there is nothing to "crack down" on in the name of Paul's or any other cause.

Further, to apply your "parallel" "argument" to your own argument, it would be: "Anyone who cares about democracy should be troubled by the thousands of murders that occur each year." I trust you realize how silly this is on its face. It is, though, the very same argument you made about Paul. The only difference is that unlike the murders, Paul's exclusion from the forum is actually related, in terms of subject matter, to the functioning of our democracy. But that topical connection alone does not cure your argument of its utter inability to show any harm resulting.

Apparently you would agree with the following argument. Millions of Americans don't vote, but America is doing fine. Therefore democracy is working.

Yes, absolutely, I would agree with it. Nothing about a "working democracy" requires 100% participation, and in all likelihood we are better off as a nation if at least some people who indisputably have the right to vote fail to exercise it. Moreover, if "America is doing fine," then by definition there is no harm, and democracy is working, regardless of whether millions of Americans vote or not.

Millions of Americans don't vote; millions of Americans do vote; the system works, and -- according to this argument -- America is "fine." So what's the problem?

Again, yes, sure, ideally we would have those millions of non-voters actually voting, but in the absence of any suggestion that voter turnout is anemic, such that several thousand extremists are hijacking the nation or whatever, there simply isn't a problem to be all that concerned about.

[Sandy Underpants]

I understand why people would be disillusioned by Democrats boycotting a news channel, but Fox News isn't one. Democrats are boycotting the channel because of how irresponsible they are in misreporting news, distorting news, misrepresenting facts, reporting false stories provided by dubious sources and pretending as if they are credible, and how slanted everything they put forth is. This all in an effort to make Republicans look better and make democrats look worse. Why in the world would any democrat want to appear on that network?

Fox News is a news channel, and Sandy is a tard.