Reality check

Josh Marshall:

I think I've said this a hundred times, as have many others.  But this article in Thursday's Times is a good moment to revisit the point. As Patrick Healy explains, it is simply a fallacy to claim that winning a state's Democratic primary means you're more likely to win that state in the general election or that your opponent can't win it. ...

That's not to say there isn't a difference between the two as general election candidates -- at least in their current incarnations. There is. It's just not this big state nonsense.

Indeed.

Comments

[B. Minich]

Is Hilary in the Twilight Zone? Or in Primary Purgatory? Doomed eternally to win primaries with the knowledge that it doesn't help her win the nomination?

http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=13562

I have to say, he makes a good point about her weird situation, in which she can hardly drop out after having just won something . . . but everyone knows she can't win the nomination without destroying things. Not that this makes her arguments any less specious, but at least it explains why it is so hard for her to drop out.

[Idea]

What if Obama just demanded that the superdelegates confer now and name the candidate or he will drop out of the race, effective immediately.

I think he might look good doing it. He could say, look, I care about this party. I want it to win the general election. I want to stop spending money fighting Hillary Clinton, who I respect and who I will seek counsel as President. I am ready to become your nominee, but if you're not ready to name me your nominee, then I am going to find another way to serve America with my time, money, and energy, and the votes of my growing constituent base. The country deserves better than this primary season. It's time to focus on the White House, not on each other. If the candidate is not selected by May 15, I am officially dropping out of the Race.

You want the messianic magnanimous shine back on Obama, here it is.

Brendan. Please give this idea to your leader. And tell him to thank the conservative that came up with it.

[Brendan Loy]

Heh. It's an intriguing idea (that will never happen).

But he'd need to wait until after June 3, I think. Otherwise he'd be seen as "disenfranchising" the voters in the remaining seven primary states (plus Puerto Rico and Guam).

[JO]

If the candidate is not selected by May 15, I am officially dropping out of the Race

In other words, If I can't be the team captain, them I'm taking my ball and going home.

Somehow I don't think that would make him look very magnanimous (except maybe to his base).

[Sandy Underpants]

I don't know why Obama is spending money at this point to advertise. If it's mathematically impossible for Hillary to win the delegates, why even show up for the contests? I'd just be chillaxing in the bahamas, in between Senate votes of course, sipping on tropical drinks, and beers, and getting ready for the general election. But that's just how I roll.

[yea]

if there's a gun to my head right now i think its obama running for president and hillary as vp. i really dont see any solution besides a "dream ticket". hillary isn't dropping out, and she's going to get viable support the rest of the way. even if the supers all announce on july 1st, hillary can still stay under the guise of trying to get supers to change their mind. until she concedes her base isn't going to come aboard. regardless of what we think of hillary, she has a substantial amount of supporters and obama's popular vote margin under any metric is not going to be large. those supporters are important. as skeptical as i was to start, i think the "dream ticket" is what is going to happen.

[Brendan Loy]

I, by contrast, think there's no way the dream ticket happens now. Before bittergate, I thought it was possible, but now, no way. How can Hillary be on a ticket with someone she has called an out-of-touch elitist who is unready to lead from day one? Not that she'd have any shame about it, mind you, but the constant repetition of those charges out of her mouth would provide such a constant drumbeat of "gotcha" moments that it would totally eviscerate any electoral benefits such a ticket would otherwise reap. Imagine the negative ads! "Even Barack Obama's runningmate says..." NO WAY. Will not happen. Crazy.

The reality is, for all the myopic gnashing of teeth right now (can teeth be myopic? nevermind), the bulk of Hillary's supporters will ultimately vote for Obama. We're talking about what happens on the margins here. It's not as if he's only going to get 51% of the Democratic base to vote for him. The issue here is whether he'll get 85% or 90% ... or something like that. Having Hillary on the ticket would be one way to make up that 5% (or whatever) -- while simultaneously shedding 10% (or whatever) among independents, liberal idealists, etc., and helping McCain shore up his base -- but it's not the only way, and it's by far the most destructive way. There are other running mates Obama can choose who will also help him make inroads into margins of Hillary's base that you're worrying about, without the devastating collateral consequences elsewhere in the electorate. Kathleen Sebelius would help with women. Ted Strickland would help with Rust Belt folks. (If only Jennifer Granholm weren't Canadian, she could do both!) Bill Richardson would help with Hispanics. Jim Webb would help with the working-class "tough guy" vote. There are lots of good options. Hillary is a bad option. Bad, bad, bad.

There are ways he can make this work. Picking Hillary is suicide. It a) gains him a sliver of her base that he'd have otherwise lost, and b) loses him the election.

[Brendan Loy]

Also: at this point they clearly hate each other.

I know, I know, that didn't stop JFK-LBJ, Dole-Kemp, Kerry-Edwards, etc. But when you add the mutual hatred to all the other rational factors militating against it, there is simply no way it will happen.

(Which, given my prediction record this campaign season, means you might as well start printing the Obama-Clinton '08 signs now.)

[Brendan Loy]

P.S. All that said, I think we can fully expect lots of utterly obnoxious "dream ticket" chatter, whether authorized or unauthorized, from Hillary loyalists once she drops out. And the media will lap it up, and it will be SUPER annoying. It may even spur Obama to pick his actual running mate sooner than he'd like, just to shut everyone up.

[Andrew]

Ditto Brendan Loy @ Apr 24, 2008 12:28:12 PM

[JO]

If Obama picks Hillary and they get elected, I'd invest in some serious body-armor if I were him. People seem to die unexpectedly around the Clintons!!! ;-)

[Vince McMahon]

Why not have a royal rumble of tickets. a multi party split

Hillary-Rendell - Spit and Vinegar Party
Obama-Richardson - Yes We Can Party
Gore-Carter - Nobel Party
McKinney-Nader - Green Party
Sheehan-Pete's Dragon - Sensible Liberal Party

[yea]

brendan,

i disagree with your conclusion brendan even though i agree with most of your arguments. one thing i definitely dispute is that hillary as VP would only deliver a "sliver" of her support/base. i think the opposite is true. she had a ton of rabid supporters, especially among single woman, and i think hillary on the ticket as opposed to webb or someone else is +votes for obama.

i also think that although the campaign between obama/hillary has been fierce, and even though clinton has been running an arguably dirty campaign, i think they can and will get past that. i think "hate" is too strong a word to describe their relationship at this point.

i think you overestimate hillary's ability to solidify the republican base. that argument is sooo mid 2007. the republican's are already uniting against obama, take a look at the attack ads in nc. they clearly don't like him much more than hillary. however, democrats outnumber republican, and record number's of people are registering in swing states as democrats to vote for hillary or obama.

solidfying the dem base wins the election. my main worry about the "dream ticket" is something you touched on. hillary looks like a big hypocrite saying obama isn't ready and other stuff like that and then running with him. however, she won't be the first or last hypocrite in politics. for example, see mccain's position on the bush tax cuts or his chasing of endorsements from far right christain minister who he previously repudiated.

[smg]

If the Clinton-Obama battle was determined by the Electoral College, Clinton would be ahead 284 to 202 with 52 left to go, meaning she would already have won.
If you leave out Florida and Michigan, she would be ahead 240 to 202 with 52 to go, needing only 9 more to win a majority of the 48 states + DC. Or, more reasonably, if you give her Florida and Michigan to Obama, she would be up 267 to 219 with 52 left to go, and her needing only 3 EVs. Figure that IN, KY and WV go to Clinton; NC, OR, MT and SD to Obama for a final tally of 289 to 249.

[smg]

It isn't the fact that Clinton has won big states that is the issue; it is the fact that she has won the states most likely to be in play during the general election. The fact that these states have preferred Clinton doesn't mean Obama can't win them, but it does suggest she might be a better bet in those states than he will.

The 142 EVs represented by the 12 states (WI, IA, NM, NH, OH, PA, NV, MI, MN, OR, CO, FL) decided by 5 percent or less of the vote in 2004 have gone for Clinton 99-36 in 2008 (Oregon hasn't voted yet).
Even if you give Oregon and Michigan to Obama, they have gone 82 to 60 for Clinton.

[yea]

luckily, obama won't have to face hillary clinton in those states during the general election.

[yea]

really nice (full of spin as usual of course) post by kos today comparing obama and hillary's general election chances.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/113851/565/912/502497

the main thing i agree with here is that hillary's strategy is hold the kerry states and win either florida or ohio. i think obama can run something really close to a true 50 state campaign and that'll be good for the party in the long run.

[smg]

for all the talk of obama's appeal to independent voters and how he invigorates the democratic process, his entire delegate lead comes from caucus states.

his pledged delegate lead is 155 or so
his total delegate lead (inc. supers) is 130 or so

The 14 caucus states, plus the results from the TX partial caucus, plus the American Samoa, Dems Abroad and Virgin Island caucuses, have given him 340 delegates to 180 for Clinton. Without the caucuses, she is ahead!

[huskers]

If Obama selects Billary or is told to choose her by the powers that be I would not vote for him as I would have lost respect for him. Hillary has all but said he is an elitist know it all who could not lead his family out of a paper bag much less be trusted with the complex machine that is the U.S

Also, he had better hire a food tester around Bill and Hilldog.

[Braylon]

Obama can't, and won't, win the general election. He's an ultra-left candidate with ultra-left views. It makes no difference how dissatisfied the country is with Bush, the centrist voters are not going to swing totally to the ultra-left simply to "get back" at the GOP.

You can point to the last two congressional elections as proof of a revolt against the GOP, but if you look closely, very few of the candidates were ultra-left candidates. Most were centrist Democrats which is where this country wants to be.

While I don't agree with many of McCain's stances, he is more to the center than Obama. This is a plus which I think many voters will see as a big difference come November.

[Herb]

^ stuck on stupid

[Sandy Underpants]

This election is all about Iraq and the Economy and McCain is on the wrong side, election over. Kucinich would beat McCain in '08. By the time the election rolls around a Republican President backed by Republican congress and senate will have driven this country into food lines, $5 a gallon gas, a US dollar that is worth 55 Euro cents, and a 9 trillion dollar deficit. I know the Clinton years are long gone, but 99 cents a gallon gas, a strong dollar that was worth 150% more than it is worth now, and a balanced budget is a nice goal to have that a Republican just isn't competent enough to produce.

I smell dead elephants.

[Alasdair]

Herb - your cute little pointy is pointy the wrong way ...

"By the time the election rolls around a Republican President backed by Republican congress and senate will have driven this country into food lines, $5 a gallon gas, a US dollar that is worth 55 Euro cents, and a 9 trillion dollar deficit." - as is customary for his comments, Sandy Underpants shows his incredible grasp of delusion - unless Pelosi and Reid happen to be closet Republicans, that is ? Another example of the D-list echo-chamber at work ...

Since the start of 2007, House and Senate have been Democrat-controlled - and are possibly the only part of the US Governmental system which is liked by even *less* people than President Bush ... he at least manages to be in the 30s for his approval rating ... Congress seems to be consistently below 25 - it's about 22% positive approval rating just now, isn't it ? Doing a heckuva job, is our Congress, ain't it ?

[Youngblai]

Um, seriously, who wants their heartbeat between a Clinton Restoration to the White House? Can you even _buy_ life insurance with those odds?

I'm hardly a Clinton conspiracist, but I reckonize Beria-like ruthlessness when I see it. Quicker than you can say "Pakistani President" there'd be a suspicious plane explosion on Air Force One.

Not to mention, why take on the 18-wheeler packed with Sampsonite suitcases that is the Clinton's baggage? Obama might as well go to Reverend Wright's Fourth of July Sermon with special guest Fred Phelps if he's going to go that route.

Dream ticket my a**--that's called Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue folks and it's so scary it's got Freddy Krueger p*ssing his pants.

Only a liberal could witness liberal policies driving American into economic instability and inferiority and blame it on conservative policies.

[Alasdair]

Youngblai

It takes a Hillary to make Margaret Thatcher look like a douce, compassionate, innocent, demure, soft-spoken, self-effacing young lady ...

And it's not for nothing that Our Maggie was aka Attila the Hen, and The Iron Maiden, amongst other gentle comparisons ...

[Alasdair]

anonymous @ 09:40:46 AM - they are not blaming it on conservative policies, they are blaming it on them - those covert-yet-evil conservatives ... after all, how else could we possibly be in this state ? It couldn't have *anything* to do with the change in Congress back at the start of 2007, now, could it ?

[Unnamed One]

Only a liberal could witness liberal policies driving American into economic instability and inferiority and blame it on conservative policies

Only a right wing nut job could still be blaming liberals for the economic instabilities despite Bush having been in office for the past seven years, most of that with a rubber stamp republican controlled congress.

[Alasdair]

Actually, I don't blame *liberals* for our current economic woes ... then again, I think of liberals as people who value liberty and freedom of choice in most areas of Life for most people ... and that doesn't describe the current leadership of the Democratic Party ...

I do, however, blame the current leadership of the Democratic Party for all they have done to impede efforts to keep us out of a recession, and I blame 'em for all that they *should* have been doing that they didn't do, when they chose instead to hold hearings on professional athletes using steroids and other such truly important opportunities to grandstand ... it is no surprise to me that this Democratic-controlled Congress's Approval Rating manages to continue to be significantly lower than that of the President ... he is at least seen to be trying to get stuff done, often in spite of this Democratic-controlled Congress ...