I'm amazed by the hubris of those who are calling on Hillary to drop out of the race. Such calls are based on faulty presumptions and will only serve to further divide the democratic party and weaken the the chances of victory for the democratic nominee.
Faulty Presumption #1: Obama has the overwhelming support of the democratic electorate.
It is true that Obama is currently leading in popular vote and pledged delegates. But it is also true that his leads are very small. His supporters who are calling on Hillary to concede are simply overstating his support. Yes, Obama is the frontrunner in this race but he remains a weak frontrunner. If he truly had the mandate of the people, he would not be losing swing states like Ohio and (likely) Pennsylvania this late in the game.
The electorate is still very divided between these two candidates and those who have yet to voice their opinion about who should be the nominee should be given the chance to do so.
Faulty Presumption #2: Ending this contest prematurely will unite the democratic party behind Obama.
I don't think there is a better way to alienate nearly half of the democratic electorate that support Hillary than to push her out of this race when she still has a chance of winning and there are still voters who have yet to cast their vote.
Calling Hillary to quit will only cause bitterness among her supporters, compelling them to sit out the general election or even vote for John McCain.
If the democratic party really wants to unite the party behind a nominee, democratic leaders, rather than calling on Hillary to step aside, should unify and call for a re-vote in Michigan and Florida. The party will remain divided and there will be bitterness on both sides if there are any ifs or buts surrounding the eventual nominee (e.g. If Michigan and Florida counted, Hillary would have won the most popular votes; Obama has a lead in pledged delegates and popular votes but only because Michigan and Florida are excluded from the count).
A re-vote in Florida and Michigan will legitimize whoever becomes the nominee. As a Hillary supporter, I would happily support Obama, if after all votes have been counted, he still leads in popular vote and pledged delegates. If, on the other hand, Hillary wins the popular vote and Obama the pledged delegates, then perhaps a solution would be to put both on the ticket with superdelegates deciding who gets to be at the top of the ticket.
The point is, for their to be a unified party, there can't be any doubt as to who the rightful winner of the nomination is, there can't be an asterisk next to his or her name and that means every vote from every state has to be counted.
Some will say that the rules are the rules are the rules. But I'd like to think that this is the party of FDR who said "rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are." I don't think there is a more sacred principle in a democracy than allowing every vote to count.
Call me an optimist, but I think Hillary still has a very good chance of winning the nomination, the opinions of Politico et. al. notwithstanding.
Let's look at the facts.
Fact: In order to become the nominee, a candidate must attain 2025 delegates.
There's no question that at the end of the last primary, Obama will have a lead in pledged delegates. That's a given. But there is also no question that he won't reach 2025 delegates without superdelegate help.
Fact: Superdelegates are not bound to support either the pledged delegate winner or the popular vote winner. They are free to exercise their own judgment as to who the nominee should be. Some will vote based on the pledged delegate winner, some will vote based on the popular vote winner, some will vote based on who they think is more electable, and some will vote based on who they think will make the better President. All are valid.
So the question now is what is Hillary's strongest argument?
Hillary is likely to argue that she is more electable and can better withstand a Republican assault. However, superdelegates also need something more tangible to justify a vote for Hillary, rather than Obama (the pledged delegate winner). Winning the popular vote will go a long way to strengthening Hillary's moral claim to the nomination.
In a Politico article published today, Ben Smith writes that it's virtually impossible for Hillary to win the popular vote because there just isn't enough votes to be had that will allow her to overcome Obama's 700,000 vote lead. I disagree. The Politico article does not take into account Puerto Rico and its long history of high voter turnout. In 2004, 2 million people voted in the democratic primary accounting for a voter turnout of 51%; that number can only go up given the intense interest in the primary this year.
In the upcoming contests, therefore, what people need to pay attention to is not only margins of victory but also voter turnout. Here's how Hillary can win the popular vote, in order of importance:
1. Decisive victories in PA and Puerto Rico
Wins with margins of 15 percent or more will go a long way to helping Hillary cut into Obama's delegate lead.
2. Large turnout in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico
Hillary needs a voter turnout of at least 2 million people in PA and PR to allow her to cut into Obama's lead. Fifteen percent wins in both with a voter turnout of 2 million will give Hillary a net gain of roughly 600,000 votes.
3. A win, even by the smallest of margins, in both Indiana or North Carolina (or a win in Indiana and a close second in NC).
The goal here is to prevent Obama from eating into Hillary net gains in Pennsyvania and pickup a couple thousand more votes. A win in both is the best-case scenario. What's more plausible is a Hillary win in Indiana and a loss in NC, which in effect would cancel each other out in terms of net gains in popular vote (unless Obama wins NC by blowout margins, which though possible is probably unlikely at this point).
4. Decisive wins in Kentucky and West Virginia (at least 15 percent).
5.Keep Obama's margins of victory in Oregon (within 5 percent), SD (within 10 percent), MT (within 10) close.
If all of the above happen, Hillary is well-positioned to take the lead in the popular vote even if Florida and Michigan are excluded.
Now some of you may go the Nancy Pelosi route and argue that this is a delegate race, who cares about the popular vote.
Fact is the popular vote does matter. It matters because it speaks to legitimacy. Ask the average voter and they're likely to say that the person who has the most votes should be the nominee. (And indeed, if it turns out that Hillary wins the popular vote and Obama the pledged delegate count, poll after poll will come out in June asking people this very question). I'm confident that the people will side with the popular vote winner because quite simply, it's more intuitive to think of the person with the most votes as the person who should be the winner.
Senator Obama,
I understand the political reasons behind your wariness of a re-vote in Florida and Michigan.
The re-votes, if they were to happen, would be on June 10. The last day of primary season. We all know that the media will hype it up as the final round in this epic primary season battle. And we all know that whoever wins those two contests will have tremendous momentum going into the convention. You're probably worried that if Senator Clinton were to win those two contests, the superdelegates would hand her the nomination. You don't want the success or failure of your nomination bid to fall on your success or failure in a Florida or Michigan re-vote.
I understand your reluctance, I really do.
From your perspective, you can win without Michigan and Florida. You don't need Michigan and Florida to legitimize your claim to the nomination. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, needs those two states. Without Michigan and Florida, she'll have a hard time catching up in popular votes and legitimizing her argument that she's won every swing state that matters in the general election. In short, you really have nothing to gain from a re-vote and everything to lose.
I understand the political calculations at work. I really do.
What I don't understand is your claim of wanting to put an end to politics as usual.
Isn't it politics as usual when a politician puts his own self-interest above the interest of fairness and democracy?
Isn't it politics as usual when a politician claims that he wants only the fairest and most equitable solution to the Florida and Michigan debacle, but at the same time offers a solution that is neither fair nor equitable. How exactly is splitting the delegates 50-50 fair? Not only would such a resolution be completely unfair to Senator Clinton, but more importantly it deprives Florida and Michigan a voice in this process. It's akin to telling all the states, "you all can have a say; but you, Florida and Michigan, have to remain neutral."
All this hubris aside, I know what you're going to say. Michigan and Florida broke the rules. They should be punished for it. The rules are the rules are the rules. I get it.
But isn't a little flexibility warranted here? This primary season has been unprecedented. Every vote has mattered. Every delegate has mattered. Every state has mattered. Sometimes rules don't make sense in light of unforeseen circumstances. In such a closely contested race, every state should have a say. Sometimes rules have to be changed. This is the most important election in my lifetime, why risk alienating 2.6 million voters because of such strict adherence to rules that no longer make sense?
Finally, Senator Obama, I'll be the first to admit that I'm a Hillary supporter. But I will support you, and I will work hard for you if you can prove that you can knock-out Hillary.
You've had three times to do so. In New Hampshire, you could have knocked her out, you failed. On Super Tuesday, after your rousing victory in South Carolina and 10 days of unbelievably stellar press, you failed. All you needed to do on Super Tuesday was win California, New Jersey, or Massachusetts and it would have been game, set, match, Obama. You failed. On Super Tuesday II, on the heels of your 12 state winning streak and exorbitant cash flow, you failed.
C'mon Senator Obama, prove to me, prove to the electorate, that this nomination is rightfully yours. Beat Hillary in Pennsylvania. Beat Hillary in Florida. Beat Hillary in Michigan. And if you do, you have my support. Why do you need to dance around the Florida and Michigan issue? You've run a stellar campaign so far and as a Hillary supporter, I say that with some envy. So why are you afraid of holding contests in these states?
Am I asking a lot of you? Of course I am. As we all should. No one deserves to be their party's nominee. It is a privilege that has to be earned. Let Florida vote. Let Michigan vote. And work your hardest to earn their vote. And if you win, then you've earned the nomination. And this Hillary supporter to boot.
Numerous articles have been written about Hillary's math problem. We're all familiar with it: Hillary needs to win 60 percent of the delegates of all remaining states to just catch up to Obama's pledged delegate count. And because such an outcome is highly improbable, the question is not if Obama can win the nomination, but when will he do so. In support of this argument is the line of reasoning that goes "superdelegates will side with the pledged delegate winner" or my personal favorite "superdelegates will not overturn the will of the people."
What all this math talk fails to consider are the other numbers relevant to this nomination: the popular vote count. The ABC News vote count has Hillary up by around 5,000 votes; other news outlets have Obama up, but basically the two are very close in terms of popular vote and it is entirely possible that Hillary will surpass Obama in the popular vote tally.
I've always believed that if Hillary won Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and the overall popular vote she would win the nomination regardless of the pledged delegate count. Some of you may argue "BUT superdelegates won't overturn the will of the people" and therefore will side with the pledged delegate winner.
Well a new Rasmussen survey has come out that seems to suggest that the will of the people lies in the winner of the popular vote:
57% of voters nationwide believe the nomination should go to the candidate with the most votes overall. A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that just 26% disagree and say the nomination should go to the candidate with the most pledged delegates...Among Democratic voters, 59% believe the candidate with the most popular votes deserves the nomination while 25% take the opposite view.
What's even more interesting about the survey is that only 1/3 Obama supporters think that the pledged delegate winner should win the nomination.
45% of Obama voters believe that the nomination should go to the candidate with the most popular votes rather than the candidate with the most pledged delegates. Just 32% of Obama supporters believe the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win.
What does this all mean? In the next few months, what will matter is not only who the pledged delegate leader is, but perhaps more importantly, who is leading in the popular vote. If there's a split, with Obama leading in pledged delegates and Clinton in popular votes, there's no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton will become the nominee. Mark my word.
Has anyone else seen this?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/03/obama-foreign-p.html
<Obama Foreign Policy Adviser Calls Clinton a 'Monster'</p>
March 06, 2008 9:49 PM Sen. Barack Obaman, D-Ill., may be reluctant to throw a punch at Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. -- but at least one adviser doesn't appear to be, at least when she thinks she's off the record. Samantha Power, the executive director and founder of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard, is touring Europe to promote a book, and she gave an interview with The Scotsman, which quotes her saying of Clinton, "We f*** up in Ohio. In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win. She is a monster, too -- that is off the record -- she is stooping to anything." Power said, "you just look at her and think: ergh. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive." The newspaper notes that "If a conversation is to be off the record, that agreement is usually thrashed out before the interview begins. Sometimes, public figures say something and then attempt to retract it by insisting it was 'off the record' after the event. But by then it is too late, particularly if it is in the public interest that the story be published... "In this instance, Samantha Power was promoting her book and it was established in advance that the interview was on the record." In December, Obama said he had "been very clear to my campaign. I do not want to see research that is involved in trying to tear people down personally. If I find out that somebody is doing that, they will be fired. And I have been absolutely crystal clear about this, and I have been clear about this for a very long time." Would this count? Should Power be fired by the Obama standard?>
Another day, another Obama adviser gaffe. First, the economic adviser, then the national security adviser, and now the foreign policy adviser. Seriously, where does he get these people?
For all you Hillary supporters, this is a good read...
<>In Politics, If You Have to Ask, It Isn't Over
By Susan Estrich
LOS ANGELES -- How do you know?
People ask that all the time. How do you know when you're in love? How do you know when you're not in love? How do you know when it's over?
The answer is always the same. You know when you know. If you have to ask, the answer is, not yet.
That's the answer to the question of whether the Democratic race is over.
Not yet.
Races end when a candidate puts down his hand, or her hand, or when the people who would never endorse while there was still a contest endorse, when all the money is flowing in one direction, and the only question is when and not if.
That is, plainly, what is happening on the Republican side. The first President Bush is endorsing. All the former candidates have endorsed. The arithmetic works only one way. The fat lady is singing, whether former Governor Huckabee chooses to listen or not.
The Democratic side is another story. Has Obama got momentum? Yes. But this is a race that has been curiously immune to moment, and downright perverse when it comes to predictions.
Could Hillary still win? She could. The delegate count as of the weekend stood at 1280 for Obama and 1218 for Clinton. By most people's logic, that looks like a tie. Add in Florida and Michigan, and one way or another, there will be delegates from those states at the National Convention, and Hillary is actually ahead. So how can it be over?
Once you declare a firewall, it needs to hold. Hillary has named the Big Three. She has to win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania - and win them in a commanding enough way to give her credibility with the still-unpledged superdelegates and spread some doubt among opinionmakers and media types who are itching to crown Obama.
IF she does that, and, of course, that's an "if," the rest is doable. The battle for superdelegates is the kind of fight the Clintons excel at -- not only because Bill Clinton may be the hardest man in the world to say no to (politically, I mean), but also because this is where 35 years of favors and chicken dinners and contributions get paid off.
Sure, loyalty won't lead many people to back a loser. If Hillary loses Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, all the rubber chicken in the world won't bring her the votes of the people who have to run with her in the fall. But so long as the contest is as even as it is now, there will be plenty of Clinton people arguing that the lesser-known candidate is a bigger risk than the better-known one, that experience is what it takes to take on John McCain, and yes, that debts must be paid.
The fact that Harold Ickes, Hillary's chief delegate counter and one of the Democratic Party's long-time rules junkies (he got me hooked back in 1980), has now changed his tune on seating delegations from Florida and Michigan should tell you how the Clinton people see this playing out. One way or another, every state ends up with delegates on the floor, no matter what the party threatens in advance.
The question is how they get there, or in this case, according to what vote they get apportioned. The Clinton people will argue that the only fair thing is to apportion them based on the votes that were actually cast in the admittedly verboten primaries. The Obama people, who are specialists in caucuses, will argue that they should be picked by the state parties, or by caucuses, or by some other procedure that Hillary hasn't already won.
Who wins? Believe me, this isn't a question of principle. It's all politics, and it will depend both on how well Hillary does between now and then, and on how much support she has on the Democratic National Committee.
Technically, the decision could be made in the first instance by the DNC, and then challenged (or affirmed) by the Credentials Committee to the Convention, and the Convention itself.
The composition of the Credentials committee is based on the division of pledged delegates to the convention, which doesn't tell you anything yet, and if it's left to the convention reviewing the Credential Report, then it's pledged delegates plus superdelegates minus the Michigan and Florida delegations, who don't get to vote on their own challenges. Which is to say, again, who knows?
Whoever wins, wins. That's how politics works. But no one has won yet.
Stay tuned. Believe me, this kind of race is much more fun to watch than to wage. More sleep, too.<>
Below is an exchange between Howard Wolfson (Team Hillary) and David Axelrod (Team Obama) during Newshour. The gist of the exchang is basically this: Wolfson alleges that Obama doesn't want to debate Clinton in Wisconsin because he's leading in Wisconsi and is fine with debates in Ohio and Texas because he's behind in both those states. Axelrod's argument is that there's been so many debates already, why do another one and also that Obama prefers to campaign directly to the people. Wolfson then trips up Axelrod, here:
<JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me bring up debates. Your camp is criticizing the Obama camp for not agreeing to a debate in Wisconsin. There have already been 18 debates; there are two more that are scheduled. Why are debates so important at this point?</p>
HOWARD WOLFSON: Well, we've only had one one-on-one debate, and it had enormous ratings. It proved to be enormously helpful to the people of California and everyone who voted on Super Tuesday in making a good judgment about who to vote for. Senator Obama is happy to debate in states where he is behind, Texas and Ohio. He does not want to debate in a state where he is ahead, Wisconsin. There's nothing more old about politics than that. We think that the people of Wisconsin deserve to have a debate in their state. Senator Obama refuses. He does not want to discuss the issues where he differs with Senator Hillary Clinton face-to-face in a state where he's behind. I'm sorry, a state where he's ahead. JUDY WOODRUFF: David Axelrod? DAVID AXELROD: I think it's a curious thing, because Howard just said we had one one-on-one debate in California where we were well behind. HOWARD WOLFSON: That was my point. DAVID AXELROD: And we ended up basically surging in that state and tying on Election Day based on that debate. It doesn't matter where we debate, Howard. Those eight million people who watched that debate were watching all over the country.>
So basically, Axelrod agrees that when Obama is behind, he has no problems with debates and he also agrees that debates help the candidate who is trailing.
So Wolfson was right, Obama's not debating in Wisconsin because he's leading in that race...which, admittedly, I think is a fair political strategy but it reeks of politics as usual. And therein lies my problem with Obama -- I call it Obama-hubris. He presents himself as this figure who is above politics, an anti-politician if you will, who will bring an end to politics as usual, but when you get past the soaring rhetoric, what you get is, well...politics as usual.
Perhaps because I'm in law school, I'm inclined to think about the remainder of this race as a contest of persuasion: which candidate can put forth the best argument to the jury; in this case, made up of superdelegates.
Barring landslide victories by one of the candidates in the next couple of weeks, the superdelegates will decide this contest. Neither Obama nor Hillary will reach the magic number of 2024 by winning the remaining primaries alone. They both need the superdelegates to push them over the threshold. This means that the candidate who can best persuade the superdelegates to support him or her will win the nomination.
The question now is what arguments will the candidates make?
Hillary's Case
Hillary can make a compelling argument that the superdelegates should vote for her if she wins Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, in addition to the popular vote. She need not win these states by large margins, she just needs to win them. The reason why winning these states is so important to the Clinton campaign is that it would be difficult for Obama to argue that he is the more electable candidate if he isn't able to win any of the big states, other than Illinois. Ask yourself this, has there ever been a candidate who lost all of California, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan? I don't think so (but please correct me if I'm wrong). This is likely the pitch that the Clinton campaign hopes to make to the superdelegates.
I think the goal now for the Clinton campaign is not so much to win the pledged delegate race, but to deny Obama from winning Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. If she wins all three states, Hillary, I believe, wins the nomination. If Hillary loses one, she may still be able to persuade the superdelegates to support her but her argument becomes less compelling.
Now, I'm not trying to diminish Obama's wins this past week nor am I saying that only the big states count. The consequence of Hillary losing all these states in February is that she now has to win ALL the big states remaining because that is the only compelling argument she has left. In fact, I think its impressive that Obama won yesterday and on the weekend by such large margins. However, if we're talking about who can make the more persuasive argument to the superdelegates, I still think that the candidate who can say I won California, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, and Michigan will triumph over the candidate who says he won Washington, Nebraska, Idaho, Alaska, Minnesota, etc.
Obama's Case:
If Obama goes into the convention with more pledged delegates than Hillary, he can make a compelling argument to the superdelegates to support him. However, this argument is only compelling if he wins at least one more big state and if he also has a plurality of the popular vote.
· Big Obama Bounce In Gallup Tracking (Josh Orton)
· Obama names WVa battleground state (WVaBlue)
· Interview at 11:00 AM Eastern/8:00 AP Pacific (Jonathan Singer)
· FL-21: Democrat Raul Martinez Leads Lincoln Diaz-Balart by 2 (HellofaSandwich)
· Richardson to speak at Invesco Field (fbihop)
· West Virginian rebuttal to Sen. Rockefeller DNC08 speech (WVaBlue)
· PUMAs are like the tooth fairy (fbihop)
· Start Preparing Now: Hurricane Gustav Aiming At New Orleans (NickD)
· NRCC Reserves $8.8M in Ad Time in 14 Districts (HellofaSandwich)
· DNC Turns Away Bloggers from Seating Area When Jack Danforth is Sitting There (NickD)
· MN-03: Madia hits the airwaves 'Running' (MN Campaign Report)
· A view from the convention floor (fbihop)
