Hillary's hope

RealClearPolitics's Jay Cost has an excellent analysis of what it will take for Hillary Clinton to make a "moral claim" on the Democratic nomination.

On the flip side, the best argument for the superdelegates to coalesce around Obama, and end this thing sooner rather than later, is simply this: Clinton can only win the nomination in a bloodbath. She cannot win it cleanly. Obama can.

Comments

[Andrew]

Obama will have to clean HRC's clock in the next few primaries to end this bloodbath, but the odds are against that. Insteand, I think HRC will make somewhat of a comeback. Obama jumped out to his lead mainly because he had a huge advantage in caucus states and HRC never built a ground game, since HRC miscalculated and thought she could ride her "inevitability" through Iowa and New Hampshire and then crush her opponents on Super Tuesday (February Edition) with a barrage of ads. That gamble backfired miserably and put her seriously behind the eight ball in the rest of the February primaries. Now that HRC has time to improve and fund a new strategy, I expect the remaining contests to be tighter regardless of who eventually wins a particular state.

There are a lot of ways this battle can end, but I just don't see either candidate walking away until they really feel they're out of it.

[Ed]

With respect, what is it with all this "clean" stuff? The rules of the game were clearly laid out, including the suppression of the MI and FL delegations.

The number X became the standard and neither will hit it with apportioned delegates. Now the rules say that party independents (superdelegates) get their say. How is this not "clean?" If neither candidate attains X, there is a second ballot and all delegates are freed to vote their conscience. How is this not "clean?"

Why is it ever fair for a team to have four or more Outs in an offensive inning in the game of baseball? How unfair! Yet the rules allow for this.

If the catcher fails to secure the third strike, as a first baseman fails to secure a throw from an infielder, the batter/runner can be awarded first base. If the voters across the country fail to secure the nomination for an individual, we go to the fourth Out.

If HRC manages to be a quicker runner, and/or has a defense that can stop Obama from beating the throw, she is safe and continues. It matters not that Obama had a 3-0 count as a batter and she started with a count of 0-2. If she manages her opportunity better than he does, she rightfully survives.

For purposes of this post, I reject "clean" as meaning cut and dry or clear. I am writing to dispel the notion of "dirt" or unfairness. This process ain't close to the traditional meaning of "clean" involving Pilate and the washing of hands.

[USC 2L]

Not clean= seating delegates from states where all candidates agreed not to campaign.

[Alasdair]

"While Clinton has to win something like 75% of the remaining pledged delegates to overtake him in that count - she only has to win about 53% of the vote to overtake him in the count that includes Florida. " - is that Florida before or after the recount ? Before or after the Florida Supreme Court tries to change the decision by making something up out of whole cloth ?

[ted]

To a sadly realistic baby boomer, the anti-black Democratic and Republican powers have united to support Clinton and quash Obama. Rove editorial in the WSJ makes it clear that the GOP prefers the weaker Clinton opponent. The Dems plan to exploit Obama to artificially maintain interest in a "tight race", and then adjust the delegates to favor Clinton. If you could peruse the people in control of the media and who they have donated campaign money to, it would be obvious that the staged Clinton appearances on TV, the anti-race card that the press was too hard on her and too soft on Obama, etc. was all part of a plan to maintain white supremacy. Why should a candidate in the primaries have anybody discussing free trade with a Canadian ? Anybody with a minimum of logic would recognize such ploys as typical amoral Clinton tactics. Sadly, if Obama was a white man, he would be unbeatable. Because of his race, the white powers will be sure to keep him in his place, and probably attempt to exploit him as VP, where he will be given important duties, such as shining Hiliary's shoes and procuring for Bill so the white house can be truly "White". The reason Clinton runs so well with older people and white men is the ingrained prejudice in that generation.

[Brendan Loy]

Ted, I see a couple of flaws in your theory.

First of all, it's self-contradictory: if racial prejudice is "the reason" Obama is losing to Clinton among "older people and white men," then presumably those folks would vote for McCain over Obama in November -- in which case it's hard to figure why Karl Rove, or anyone else, would regard Clinton as "the weaker opponent." If Obama can't win votes from older people or white men, he obviously would be an incredibly weak November opponent, and the Republicans would be salivating to run against him. You can't have it both ways: either the country is too prejudiced to vote for a black man, in which case Obama is a weak candidate, or else Obama is a strong candidate, in which case you're necessarily implying that most people are willing to vote for a black man. (I think it's the latter.)

Secondly, if there's really a Vast White Wing Conspiracy to "support Clinton and quash Obama," what on earth took it so long to get rolling? It's been clear from the moment he declared victory in Iowa, two long months ago, that Obama was a serious threat to win the nomination. If "the anti-black Democratic and Republican powers" and "the people in control of the media" were so committed to stopping a black man from gaining power, why didn't they pull out all the stops in January and February? It doesn't make any sense for them to wait until Obama has already racked up an insurmountable pledged-delegate lead before finally "uniting" around a strategy to bring him down through back-room shenanigans.

There's a far simpler explanation for all this. There's no vast media/political conspiracy, nor are there vast swaths of voters who flat-out refuse to vote for a black man. Rather, there are pockets of people who feel that way, and there are elements in both the Republican and Democratic parties who are trying to exploit those pockets -- but these elements can hardly be described as "united," as their motivations are entirely different. (The Clintons and their allies want Obama out so they can win. The Republicans want Obama out so they can beat Hillary. And a handful on both sides are probably just racists. So there are really three distinct agendas at work.) And most Democrats and Republicans are genuinely trying to fight this campaign on non-racial grounds. Unfortunately, it only takes a few bad actors to pray on people's prejudices and screw everything up. But a few bad actors doing a few bad things does not a "plan to maintain white supremacy" make.

Another potentially interesting factor if Michigan and Florida are allowed to hold new caucuses or primaries...While the DNC punished those states because they held early primaries...the rules provide for certain bonuses in total delegates if primaries are held late. (Both Penn and North Carolina for example are getting bonuses in their delegate totals.) States which previously held caucuses or primaries before May 1 but moved them to after May 1 would get 30% bonuses in total delegates. http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/87b58105c024e2d151_bum6be6vb.pdf

I have not checked to see when Florida and Mich held their primaries previously...but if they held them before May 1 in 2004 they could get substanially more delegates this year if they are allowed to have new elections after May 1.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. I agree, of course, that "typical amoral Clinton tactics" are very much at work here. But most of them have nothing to do with race. Nor are any of the tactics, even the racially charged ones, motivated by a desire to "maintain white supremacy" -- rather, they are motivated by a desire to win. Clinton just wants to win. She doesn't care about white supremacy, she only cares about Hillary Clinton supremacy. Hell, her campaign would probably be dirtier if she were running aganist a white man, because she could get away with more (because there'd be no racial backlash).

The Canadian thing you cite is a great example of this. I haven't followed that controversy closely, but supposing for the sake of argument that it is indeed a cynical Clinton tactic. Fine. But what does it have to do with race? They aren't saying Obama's people talked to the Canadians and therefore Obama is a dumb Negro. They're saying Obama's people talked to the Canadians and this proves he's dishonest and/or inexperienced. That's an argument Hillary would be using against any opponent with Obama's resume, black or white. There's no reason to resort to race as an explanation for it. Regular old politics explains it just fine.

Now, when Bill Clinton compares Obama to Jesse Jackson, that's racially charged. When staffers for Hillary's campaign put out a photo of Obama in "Muslim garb," that's racially (and/or ethnically and/or religiously) charged. But the Canadian/NAFTA thing? That's got nothing whatsoever to do with race. It's just an example of Hillary Clinton trying to win.

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

Ted

Obama has more problems with the Black Liberal "elites" in this country than the Archie Bunker's in Ohio.

There are some Black Americans who want to appear to be so sophisticated and informed that they are unwilling to back Obama because they fear they would be accused of just backing "the black candidate".

this is Obama's real problem and also there other blacks that do not want to appear to be voting black but they do not attack woman for voting for the "woman candidate".

I knew that Obama would lose the Hispanic vote in California, NYC and Texas because there has always been racial tensions between us ever since I could remember. Less so in NY because we are so close but Texas and California are hot beds for racial tension.

I have a weird feeling that if Obama does not win the nomination it will not be because of white people but blacks who are caught in a conundrum of supporting the "1st black family" vs supporting what could be the real 1st black family.

it's stupid all the way round IMHO just support the best candidate that has your views.

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

This reminds me of my job in some ways, not in importance I grant you, but I am a 35yr old black manager at an investment bank and have 11 direct reports yet the older white people do not give me a hard time but the younger black people are always looking for me to bend in some ways and it annoys the hell out of me because before I took on the role of manager I was supervisor and they never treated the white manager the way they treat me.

why do you think that is Ted?

[Joe Mama]

You really can't make this sh*t up:

"When Senator Obama was confronted with questions over whether he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief and steward of the economy, he chose not to address those questions, but to attack Senator Clinton," Wolfson said. "I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."

Might the Clinton's have gone to the well a few too many times with that one?