Obama’s Numbers or Clinton’s Electability?
[Guest post by DRJ]
Democratic superdelegates have a difficult decision to make: Do they choose their nominee based on Obama’s numbers – his lead in pledged delegates and raw votes, excluding Michigan and Florida – or do they accept Clinton’s argument that she is more electable in November?
Both arguments have appeal and neither candidate is giving ground, suggesting the competition may continue for a few months.
Nevertheless, the Obama campaign has done the math and the Clinton campaign acknowledges her nomination is a numerical long-shot. Still, Hillary isn’t giving up and her advisers even claim her chances are improving. Clinton strategists say her path to the nomination requires a strong showing in Indiana and the remaining primary states, a DNC decision to seat Michigan and Florida delegates, and an intangible:
“One of Clinton’s chief strategists, Geoff Garin, said the campaign hoped to end the primary season on June 3 lifted by a series of victories, and by coming close in the pledged delegate totals and the popular vote — though he declined to say what close would be.
“We’ll know it when we see it,” Garin said.”
Sounds like a formula that would keep Hillary in until July or even the convention in August, and that could be good news for the GOP.
— DRJ
don’t quit now Hillary!
/pass the popcorn %-)
redc1c4 (292479) — 5/2/2008 @ 1:43 pmSounds like a formula that would keep Hillary in until July or even the convention in August, and that could be good news for the GOP.
From the Department of Wishful Thinking.
Only if the losing side can show they were cheated will the late start fatally harm Democratic prospects.
If they leave Denver in full-throated turmoil, it’s likely game over.
steve (706798) — 5/2/2008 @ 1:49 pmWouldn’t it be fun if Jeremiah Wright formed a 3rd party (e.g. the Moonbat Rapture Party, or some such thing) and ran for pres?
ras (fc54bb) — 5/2/2008 @ 1:50 pmThe formula used in 1980 & 1976 goes like this: the side that’s behind points out that:
1) it is only party rules that make “pledged electors” vote for their pledgee;
2) that the delegates can change the rules;
3) that pledged delegates have made NO pledge about a rules vote;
Then, amid signs that invariably say “No Robots”, there is a floor fight over amennding the rules about pledged delegates.
And, the delegates usually vote their candidate’s way, and the rules change fails. But that’s how you get past this “pledged” thing. Especially if the leader is looking unelectable come convention time, as Carter and Ford both did.
Then again, since 1980 some states have passed laws requiring delegates to vote the way they’re supposed to. Not sure how they enforce that. Throw them in jail for voting wrong?
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 5/2/2008 @ 1:51 pmThe REALITY of the situation is that the “superdelegates” do not “vote” until the convention — regardless of what public stand they take now.
Clinton’s sole effort at this point is to remain competitive enough in the remaining contests to keep campaign funds flowing in which allow her to go on through the summer. Winning the aggregate vote total — a distinct possibility when Florida is counted — gives her all the justification she needs to go on to the convention without concedeing even if Obama gets enough superdelegate support to put him over the number needed to nominate.
The finish line is in Colorado — not in June when superdelegates are being asked to decide. They could always change their minds based on events in July and August. If Clinton can simply pay the expense of keeping her campaign going for 90 days after the last primary, she will simply wait for one or more future Obama miscues, and continue to ratchet-up the pressure on pledged superdelegates to change their minds before they actually vote.
She’s not going anywhere regardless of the number of pledged and superdelegates who line up behind Obama.
WLS (68fd1f) — 5/2/2008 @ 1:57 pmI think Clinton is not really “electable;” her current poll numbers just reflect the temporary cheering for her to beat Obama. Come the full election, she’d revert to her former self, complete with her usual sub-50% ceiling.
Gotta be tough on the
weak-kneed poserssuperdels, tho. Either nominate a loser who will also be a millstone around the necks of the down-ticket candidates (many of whom are also superdels), or risk forever losing the near-unanimous black vote they so desperately rely on.I’m expecting they go w/Obama after all, knowingly accepting 4 years of McCain in consequence, and try to campaign for themselves after that as if their presidential nominee doesn’t even exist. It’s the path of least resistance.
ras (fc54bb) — 5/2/2008 @ 2:02 pmenjoy the spectacle and the popcorn you’re eating with it. registered democrat here to tell you, better watch out. i am hoping for precise equipoise between obama and clinton, which means the convention will be free to select a third, compromise candidate.
assistant devil's advocate (33552f) — 5/2/2008 @ 2:08 pmThis is getting so tasty, it might be time to switch from popcorn to something more substantial –
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 5/2/2008 @ 2:23 pmPass the ribs!
Some random thoughts:
Sen. Obama is limping to the finish line, not the type of thing he needs going into the general.
Sen. Clinton is not going to “win” anything. She is hoping to hang on, finish a close second and then ask for a brokered convention.
There is not going to be any “third candidate” to serve as a deux ex machina (sorry ada).
Sen. Clinton will have a strong finish, Sen. Obama will have a weak finish, neither candidate will have enough to “win” outright, and Sen. Obama will be chosen by a wide margin as the choice of the “people” by the superdelegates.
It can have NO other conclusion without serious disruption to the party, which has already impaled itself during this campaign.
Her “swing” or independent voters will indeed drift toward Sen. McCain. His “core” voters would have stayed away in droves, but not switched parties. Hers is a double loss, but it does not matter…they will not take away this nomination from Sen. Obama. They simply do not have that kind of courage, conviction, or intestinal fortitude.
Michigan and Florida will not be counted in her favor…nor much at all in the primary. This will have a negligible impact on the general…it will be a sore spot internally…but, it simply won’t gain traction as a crossover vote issue.
Sen. McCain will faceoff with Sen. Obama and the one who makes the biggest blunders loses. Policy issue deciders are already in the bank on both sides. Blunders and character will make the day for one and destroy the other.
The deadwood media will pull out all the stops to get Sen. Obama elected. Rathergate will look like a Girl Scout pillowfight when they are done.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 5/2/2008 @ 2:44 pmWell, as I’ve said before, this would be a lot more fun if I could actually support the Republican candidate.
Skip (ba6438) — 5/2/2008 @ 2:44 pmHaving considered that scenario and likely outcomes, I am going to laugh myself straight to death if the historic race which is certain to produce either the first female or the first black presidential nominee ends up putting fat, rich, white Al Gore at the top of the ticket.
I’ll die happy, though.
Pablo (99243e) — 5/2/2008 @ 2:46 pmI’m a registered Republican who would vote for Hillary should she win the nomination. And, I think there are a lot more like me. John McCain is a metroconservative and as far as I’m concerned, he will become more so in the future. I’m sick of Iraq, I believe we need national health care, and I think it’s time NAFTA is revisted, plus McCain is pro-amnesty. So, just why would I vote for him? Obama. And, that’s the only reason.
dianne (10b6c9) — 5/2/2008 @ 2:57 pmdine: if you’d ever had government health care, you wouldn’t be a fan of “national health care”.
redc1c4 (292479) — 5/2/2008 @ 3:05 pmI am voting for the Democrat. It’s a sure thing that there Democrat Jimmy Carter II will wreck the economy and have no one to blame. If McCain wins he gets the blame.
Just look to Europe to see how the Marxists/Socialists are falling. England went tits up for the Labour party today…
bill-tb (26027c) — 5/2/2008 @ 3:07 pm#13 – Tell that to my friend across the street who literally had the chemo IV jerked out of his arm because he had reached the max on his credit card and he didn’t have health insurance and he had a small business. Well, he ended up giving up his small business and some few personal assets and was able to get insurance from the state. So, once he was dutifully below the poverty limit, he had a chance to save his life.
I’m sorry. I cannot agree with you.
dianne (10b6c9) — 5/2/2008 @ 3:23 pm#11 I’m with you. I could see the Goracle as nominee. Obviously the international community (euroweenies) adores him. Put Obamatard in the 2nd spot to mollify the Blacks. Many moonbats were I live still cry foul about the 2000 election and he did win the popular vote. Of course losing his home state was enough to keep him out of electoral college plurality.
madmax333 (af23d4) — 5/2/2008 @ 3:30 pmHow about algore gets in and fat pig that he is, he has a massive myocardial infarction and croaks. Obambi takes over. Or maybe terrorists manage a really big outrage and much of our government is vaporized.
Not me. I’m no McCain voter but I’ll be damned if I’d vote for a Democrat either. Electing either Hillary or Obama isn’t going to teach the metrocons the lesson you want them to learn. Instead they’ll argue it proves the GOP needs to lurch even farther to the Left.
If more than a handful of my fellow McCain skeptics really do vote Democrat in November, as far as I’m concerned they can stay with the D’s until doomsday.
McGehee (25adee) — 5/2/2008 @ 3:33 pmExcept the people that voted for him. Count me out.
McGehee (25adee) — 5/2/2008 @ 3:35 pm#15 want free health care? Just get fake id showing that you are an undocumented worker (illegal) and watch some bleeding hearts jump to provide health care. You probably heard the story of illegals going to head of line for free organ transplants….and complaining when an organ fails several times that they are going to finally let him die. Taxpayers should be as generous to actual citizens.
The people I know who bitch the loudest about American health services and America being awful in general have no trouble coming here from places like “free health care” Ireland and Canada and getting TIMELY and comprehensive American medical services. Beats dying while you await your turn.
madmax333 (af23d4) — 5/2/2008 @ 3:35 pmHey, Kevin Murphy! (#4)
“since 1980 some states have passed laws requiring delegates to vote the way they’re supposed to. Not sure how they enforce that.”
Don’t worry about it, because those states (or maybe I should say ‘those laws’) DON’T EXIST. The rules of the parties are determined by the parties themselves; state governments have no say in the matter. Don’t confuse party delegates with presidential electors.
Missed It By THAT Much (1dff62) — 5/2/2008 @ 3:42 pmWorst-case for the GOP, this continuing intra-party warfare diminishes the eventual Democratic candidate’s mandate if he or she wins in November. But I think there are several plausible and even more favorable scenarios out there, most of which involve diminished Dem enthusiasm and turnout (but not fund-raising) as compared to what we’d have seen had Hillary been knocked out in February.
Beldar (61d423) — 5/2/2008 @ 3:42 pmdianne,
I’m Canadian. We have free health care. I have buried friends who died on the waiting lists for routine procedures, and they were not all that old (last one was 40-something, with a wife and young kids).
I have yet to see govt-run health care work well, but perhaps you have the plan that will change that.
And perhaps not. If it’s so straightforward tho, a serious q: why do you need to implement one plan, one time, everywhere? Why not start with a successful pilot project in a state of the peoples’ choice and use that to quell all doubts? Some are trying, I understand, tho all are failing. So … is there one single model you can point to as the one you would follow?
Cuz, if you’re just making this up as you go along, the odds of success are almost nil, and you will hurt far more people than you will help. First, do no harm.
BTW, the big debate here in Canada is usually over private care: should the govt outright ban it? Mostly they do, too, tho not always, cuz the people are getting restless.
Anyway, it’s a strange q, n’est-ce pas? Strange, cuz if the system were so wonderful, then why would private alternatives be desired by anyone at all? Why would anyone even consider paying a penny if they already had quality care for free?
If govt care were so great, wouldn’t banning private care be a moot point?
ras (fc54bb) — 5/2/2008 @ 3:51 pmTell that to my friend across the street who literally had the chemo IV jerked out of his arm because he had reached the max on his credit card and he didn’t have health insurance and he had a small business.
Just think, with socialized medicine he would be blissfully unaware of the cancer for the 6-7 months it took to get tests to find it in the first place.
Taltos (4dc0e8) — 5/2/2008 @ 3:52 pmNow get female Moby’s?
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/2/2008 @ 3:59 pmdiane’s ‘friend” had a business and enough income to have a credit card, but didn’t bother to get himself health insurance through his business, so now we all have to get government health insurance, which ultimately means we all get little or no care.
if you think HMO’s are heartless, try getting care at a government hospital.
plus she’s “sick of Iraq”, so we should announce our defeat, pull out and watch the genocide that follows, plus deal with the explosion of attacks against our interests throughout the world since everyone will know we have no heart to win. that’s a brilliant plan.
no thanks and you may be registered Republican, but you’re no Republican.
redc1c4 (292479) — 5/2/2008 @ 4:20 pmJust a seminar troll.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 5/2/2008 @ 4:27 pmYeah, the Moby’s are getting less talented. Guess the Clinton / Obama campaign has burned through all the first, and second tier talent. We are getting third-raters.
SPQR (26be8b) — 5/2/2008 @ 5:04 pmHillary lies, misspeaks and scares me, Obama has Wright and Mccain is old and fumbles over going to war “bacause” of the oil, and later corrects himself. I think I need a drink….
love2008 (d2a57f) — 5/2/2008 @ 5:04 pmTHE POPULAR VOTE IS MEANINGLESS
Levi (76ef55) — 5/2/2008 @ 5:38 pmDrink or no drink! There is no think!
yoda the bartender (fc54bb) — 5/2/2008 @ 5:44 pmIf diane is a Republican, Levi is even tempered, logical, intelligent, and plays well with others.
JD (5f0e11) — 5/2/2008 @ 6:43 pmJD – He also changes his own diapers.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/2/2008 @ 6:50 pmOnce every couple of weeks.
daleyrocks (906622) — 5/2/2008 @ 6:51 pm#33: in dog years…….
/cause that dog don’t hunt. %-)
redc1c4 (292479) — 5/3/2008 @ 12:19 am#20 — mibTm:
There’s a good discussion of a pledged delegate’s options on Slate. The pledge, in the form of a signed affirmation, is apparently legally enforceable in Pennsylvania.
No doubt other things would come up with Google.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 5/3/2008 @ 1:31 amTHE POPULAR VOTE IS MEANINGLESS
What do you think swings the Electoral votes one way or the other inside each state?
Retard.
Paul (266a05) — 5/3/2008 @ 3:33 am#35 – Kevin Murphy
The pledge, in the form of a signed affirmation, is apparently legally enforceable
Which means that it counts as a binding contract between private parties; correct? As reflected by this quote from the Slate article: “According to Pennsylvania Law, any unsworn statement that is provided to authorities is subject to the laws of perjury.”
That doesn’t reflect any state law specifically directed at this issue. Again, from the Slate article: “pledged delegates are not legally bound to their expressed preference”.
No doubt other things would come up with Google.
No doubt you’ll let us know when you find them.
Missed It By THAT Much (d60554) — 5/3/2008 @ 8:37 pmAnd another thing:
Here in Arizona we have statute 16-243, which reads (in part): Each delegate to the national convention shall use his best efforts at the convention for the party’s presidential nominee candidate who received the greatest number of votes in the presidential preference election until the candidate is nominated for the office of president of the United States by the convention, until the candidate releases the delegate from his obligation, until a candidate withdraws from the race or until one convention nominating ballot has been taken.
Well, the result of our presidential preference election was Clinton 50.4% Obama 42.3%
Missed It By THAT Much (d60554) — 5/3/2008 @ 11:22 pmDemocratic Party portioning gave Clinton 31 delegates and Obama 25 delegates.
However, it could be argued that the statute makes Arizona a winner-take-all state in spite of Democratic Party rules. The use of the word “shall”, as any constitutional scholar will tell you, makes this a state government directive; albeit, one with no penalty for non-compliance. So, all it amounts to is a ‘strong suggestion’ that delegates support the winner of the popular vote at the convention. The rules in Pennsylvania are similarly vague, basically insisting that pledged delegates honor their pledge — but threatening no legal action against delegates that go against their pledge.
Why should Hillary quit when she still can show more electibility than Obama. Do you think, by any stretch of the imagination all the youngsters that lifted him up along with the black people will have as much enthusiasm in November? They will move on to other interests by then and he will be old news. Kids are fickle and their interest jump all over the place. As for Michigan and Florida, no matter what, they are part of our 50 state union. You want to be a uniter? Then, you count them, unite the union, don’t exclude part of it just to influence Obama.
Bess Cannon (382f73) — 5/8/2008 @ 12:01 pmOkay! In November, I’ll lay a wager Obama will be old news to the young people that fawned over him and, many used their first time vote on him because he fasinated them come November. Then, he will only basically have the black community which won’t be enough and McCain will win. Clinton’s followers are more steady voters that make it their business to never miss a chance to vote and make their voice heard. So far, there are more of them and Hillary would prevail were she there. She won’t be if all this ‘silliness’ prevails over Obama, The Golden
Bess Cannon (382f73) — 5/8/2008 @ 12:19 pmBoy.