Why Should Hillary Go?

MayorBob.

Posted to Politics on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:26:02 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Hillary Clinton says she's in it "until a nominee is selected." The numbers are stark and they weigh against her. In order for her to win she needs to sweep up almost all the remaining delegates (superdelegate and pledged by primary vote). This is an impossibility. Therefore, the only thing she can accomplish by not bowing out is to possibly deny Senator Barack Obama a first ballot win and hope she might be able to win on a subsequent ballot. Despite the dismal prospects, Clinton continues to soldier on.

Some of her staff are even discussing an end to the campaign with Clinton unnominated. Democratic Party elders like former Senator George McGovern are calling for her to bow out soon. It was only a matter of time before the media punditry gathered to either offer their autopsies of the Hillary for President effort or offer a list as to why she really out to go now.

Time magazine weighs in what they see as "her five mistakes": she misjudged the mood of the electorate; she opted for loyalty to her rather than knowledge of the nominating landscape in picking her staff; she neglected caucus states; she put all her eggs in old money (so much so that a lot of that old money came from her); and she thought the game would be over by Super Tuesday. Writing in his Time blog, Mark Halperin proffers his "14 painful things" Hillary should know. Key among these are that, if she continues her quest, she will only piss off more Democrats and the powers that be in the party don't think she can win at this point.

Marc Ambinder, writing in The Atlantic says his list begins with the fact that "it's over." Also, if she cares at all about her and her husband's legacy, she should quit soon. Finally, the sooner she leaves, the sooner the party will figure out a way of seating the Florida and Michigan delegations. Along with what's been mentioned above, another writer declares Hillary is unelectable in the general election.

Blogger Joe Campbell, admittedly an Obama supporter, has a list of why Hillary should go now. In it he focuses on one, as he sees it, fatal flaw of her campaign - the fallback on "identity politics" to make her case. What he's referring to is her insistence on noting her appeal to "hard-working white voters" (a tactic she continues to employ). At least one media type comes up with a list of things Hillary can do from here on out. They involve doing a lot of stuff but, above all else, "pray."

Now it's time for your list.

< Parliament To Give Cannabis The Skunk-eye

This War On Drugs Is For Suckers >

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, primary, caucus (all tags)

Add this story to:

This story: 26 comments (0 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

3	she shouldn't gerrymander. Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:19:48 PM EST 5.00 (brilliant, interesting)

Since no one else seems to have said it so far, I will: Obama should quit the race.

Yeah, yeah, he's the front-runner now, she's low on cash. Ignore all that. Look at the numbers, and you'll see the trouble. Obama can't win a national election.

Support from black voters doesn't matter. They already vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate -- Kerry took 88% of black votes cast in 2004. What margins there are for gain (increased turnout, mostly) are already concentrated in strongly Democratic states. States being all-or-nothing races, this helps Obama not one whit.

As for the total electorate, we have an idea how an Obama v. McCain match would look, thanks to Gallup: almost identical to the Kerry v. Bush match in 2004. Remember how that turned out? But wait: it looks like Kerry v. Bush, 2004 at the end of the race. You know, after both Kerry and Bush had all the negative media campaigns against them already in the past. Obama has yet to run that gantlet by the Republicans, while McCain has already run his by the Democrats continuously since 1982.

Finally, there are the after effects of the race to consider. Even after a lost run, Clinton would be a formidable force. She was just re-elected to her senate seat in 2006, so she has another four years to go before the next election, and still sitting on top of a very respectable power base with a state electorate which loves her. She can cause trouble for years. Obama, on the other hand, is still a freshman senator, has only two years to go until facing another election, and has already been tied to a state governor coming perilously close to being the second in a row under criminal investigation. If he misses the bid for president, he might end up being a one-term senator as well.

For the benefit of the Democratic party and his own political viability, Obama should throw in the towel.

7 3	How about this? MayorBob. Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:36:03 PM EST 5.00 (brilliant, funny)

Why not Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson all announce they're withdrawing. This would leave the nomination to Mike Gravel. Gravel never announced he was withdrawing from the nomination race -- he just stopped campaigning and went back to Alaska to be one with the grizzly bear. Of course, for added political wackiness, we could have Gravel announce he's not interested, leaving the Democrats in Denver open to draft the ultimate wacky Democratic candidate -- Ralph Nader.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

12 7	Au contraire, mon alcalde. pO157. Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:05:27 AM EST 5.00 (informative)

Gravel quit the Democrats a few weeks ago to become a Libertarian and contest that nomination. Which is odd, given that he is more of a socialist on some domestic positions.

Any port in a storm, I suppose.

13 3	Gauntlets Lou. Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:11:41 PM EST 5.00 (astute, interesting)

You know, after both Kerry and Bush had all the negative media campaigns against them already in the past. Obama has yet to run that gantlet by the Republicans,

Unless the reps have videos of Obama and Wright torturing white boys in their gay sex dungeon, what else do they have? Maybe the crap that is going on during the democratic race is a good thing. All the negative shit that could be said has been said and god forbid...maybe O and M can actually fight on the issues?

WWGE: Who Would Gordon Enslave?

11 3	That's Funny uncarved block. Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:37:34 AM EST 4.66 (astute, interesting, astute)

It's a good analysis, and it may well end up being true-- though this hasn't exactly been the best year for pollsters. But it ignores the basic reality, as I see it, that a presidential candidate goes through all the shit they do because they think someone else can do the job better. Kerry at the end of 2004? Ended up being nearly a coin flip, really, and I don't see anyone willing to shoot for "leader of the free world" refusing those odds.
But we won't know anything for at least another month. The entire narrative so far has been "Hillary vs Obama", and with that hanging in the air, I'd guess it's hard for voters to completely leave that out of a response. After the convention, that will be entirely forgotten, and we'll start seeing whether Obama's numbers go up or down.
I'm curious what you mean be McCain having run his candidacy against Democrats since 1982, for a couple reasons: Arizona Democrats aren't the most liberal, so he's gotten a free pass on that front; also, he got tremendously positive coverage from the press in 2000- so much so it unnerved a lot of conservatives- which doesn't mean he's really been hazed at the national level either. (McCain's 2000 campaign also ended rather quickly, so he never got much beyond being the entertaining alternative to the "highly disciplined" Bush.) And Americans have voted for the less experienced/less known candidate a fair amount in the past-- enough to give McCain's staff some sleepless nights, I'd bet.
The more interesting thing to ponder, IMO, is how an Obama loss would go down with the Dems. Would Hillary get all the blame? It certainly doesn't seem like he'd get anywhere near the treatment Kerry and Gore got after losing, mainly because the base would feel like they actually ran the best candidate available this time around. But you never know what partisans will do when they feel the odds are so much in their favor and they lose anyway.
Dunno if Obama loses financially if his political career comes to an end anyway. A charismatic speaker who was nearly president of the US? I'd guess he'd find some rather lucrative position somewhere inside the Beltway.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

11

Re: That's Funny

Shy Elf.

Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:39:43 AM EST

4.33 (astute, interesting, interesting)

McCain's been through a hard election campaign? So what fraction of Americans know that he finished 894th of 899 students at Annapolis or that he was instrumental in causing the Keating S&L crisis?

I think that what Obama needs in a VP a real businessman instead of a promise-them-anything politician. He's got enough empty promises on his own without adding Hillary's. Were he not ineligible, I'd like to see George Soros for VP.

16

Re: That's Funny

PenitenziAgite.

Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:53:41 PM EST

5.00 (funny, astute)

Or that his campaign staff consists mainly of lobbyists...

Or that he is committing campaign finance violations by taking out a loan against federal matching funds that his campaign received and then claims he can exempt himself from the spending limits he agreed to by taking the money.

Or that Mr. "Maverick" only goes votes against his party when his vote won't matter.

There is a gold mine of good stuff for journalists to ask McCain about, but they are all too busy using their mouths as dick warmers for him to ask him anything.

Democrats get the tough questions and the editorial pieces from The Washington Post about how their spouses must release their tax returns... McCain gets fucking donuts.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

17 3	If ifs and buts were candy and nuts 1fastdog. Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:23:39 AM EST 4.66 (interesting, astute)

we'd all have a wonderful Christmas.
I think I'm gonna start calling you Reed Richards since all you seem to do lately is reach and reach and reach. Look what happens when you stretch that much, Reed :-)

Look at the numbers, and you'll see the trouble. Obama can't win a national election.

Patently false. From the NY Posts's conservative John Podhoretz:

BETWEEN them, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have generated more than 30 million primary votes. To say there has never been anything like this is to understate the case.
In 2000, when George W. Bush and John McCain were fighting it out for the GOP nomination, a total of 20 million votes were cast. The Democrats in 2008 have bested that by 50 percent.
What this means is that, even if a third of Hillary's voters absolutely refuse to vote for Obama in November, that will leave him with a probable 30 million votes in the bank. In May. Six months before the November election.
Now, those 30 million votes would've turned out for Obama in November anyway, even if Hillary had dropped out last year. But the significance now is this: Obama won't have to spend a nickel to get their vote. Instead, he'll only have to spend money to get another 30 million or so votes, and he'll have more money than anyone has ever had before to do so.
Republicans have comforted themselves with the thought that no one as far to the Left as Obama can win the presidency. They fail to understand the nature of the challenge he poses.

Even Power Line's conservative Paul Mirengoff says the math's against the GOP:

I consider Obama the favorite. One can usually predict the outcome of the general election, and come pretty close on the margin, by considering just a few variables: how the economy is doing, whether we're at war and how popular the war is, which party holds the White House and how long it has held it, and how popular the president is.
This year, these "fundamentals" point to a Democratic victory of at least 10 percentage points.
Weighing against this outcome is, first, the fact that McCain is a better than average nominee in terms of electability. For one thing, he does not have a close association with the unpopular president. In addition, his appeal to independent and centrist voters is well known. Second, Obama may well prove a worse than average nominee. He lacks anything like the experience voters look for in a president, and he's an extremist as presidential nominees go, a perception that now is reinforced by some of his unusual associations.
At this stage, though, it seems more likely than not that these factors won't overcome the fundamentals.
What about all those Clinton voters who say they will vote for McCain? The short answer is, if they're Democrats I don't believe very many of them. Look for the party and its rank-and-file to rally around Obama.
The fact that many Dems will even say they'll vote for Obama is evidence that Obama has a problem with swing voters. But McCain will too. His problem will be that, though these voters like him as a man, they are skeptical at best about key policies he favors.

Now for some totally unscientific, all anecdotal info from Observations In My Backyard™
I live in a small and very conservative-leaning PA town where registered Repubs outnumber registered Dems about 8 to 1. In an election year the yard signs for democratic presidential candidate can be spotted in a handful of yards, while the republican candidate can count on widespread placement everywhere and then some. This year, however, a new phenomenon has taken place: the Obama signs have already outnumbered the sum total of all signs from both side's candidates from '04. And it's only May. And Obama's only the presumptive nominee. What's it all mean? Well, a lot of those places that are flying the Obama flag are Republican homes, most of 'em in fact, due to the demographics of the area. Tellingly, I've yet to see a single McCain sign and he's been the nominee for some time.
Obviously none of this totally unscientific observational hoohah means that the presidency has already been decided or that McCain can't win, but it does raise some interesting premises; namely that traditional GOP voting blocs are tired of the some ol' same ol' and are willing to look elsewhere for leadership that's been notably absent for the past 8 years.

Somewhere in my soul, there's always Rock -n- Roll... Joe Strummer

17

Careful

uncarved block.

Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:40:25 AM EST

5.00 (informative, interesting)

IIRC, Podhoretz also wrote the book Can She Be Stopped? about Hillary before the election even started, a question that was dubious at the time and has been shown overstated- at the least- by the last couple months. Never forget that someone is a pundit, no matter how much you might agree with their conclusion at the moment. (It's also amusing to see how Hillary has moved from "far left" to "moderate" as a more typical Democrat has gained ground, eh?)
Mirengoff's line about not believing Democrats will vote for Obama reminds of similar doubts about Republicans voting for McCain when that primary was still in the air. Both of them seem to be media driven stories with little basis in electoral history. "Trust" has nothing to do with it, though it sounds better in a column, I guess.
Your observation about signs in yards is even more interesting when you consider that conservatives were wearing shirts about the 2004 election months, even years after the results. Now, this doesn't mean that Republicans won't turn out because of McCain (see last paragraph), but it does make me wonder if he'll get the same kind of grass roots support, the same kind of fervor, that Bush was able to garner in the last election. Will all those advocates find other things to do if beating Hillary isn't the reward? Or does it even matter who the Dems put at the top of the ticket? (The New Right seems to be based on a little bit of "for" and a whole lot of "against", from this keyboard.) We'll find out right around the conventions, I guess, perhaps a little sooner.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

17

Re: If ifs and buts were candy and nuts

ckm.

Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:55:59 AM EST

3.66 (interesting, informative, interesting)

I agree with your un-scientific assessment. With few exceptions, my republican friends have said that Obama is someone they can support. It reminds me of Regan and 'blue dog' democrats.

If Hillary were to be the nominee, McCain would be the next president, no doubt. Plenty of people I know hate the Clintons for a wide variety of reasons.

8 3	Re: she shouldn't Lou. Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:26:38 PM EST 4.50 (astute, astute)

Hmmm, Rush wanted Hilz too.

Go figure.

WWGE: Who Would Gordon Enslave?

5	less legacy and more truth Steve Urkel. Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:15:21 PM EST 5.00 (informative)

Even the X-PPAC has had it with her.

20	Re: Demographics is Destiny Jackkeefe. Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:24:20 AM EST 4.50 (interesting, astute, interesting)

No matter how bleak things look for Clinton right now, it would be pointless for her leave the race. The media is addicted to the race and ceaselessly talks about things like momentum, closing the deal and the alleged effects of some gaffe.
Rarely mentioned is that the results of almost all primaries can be predicted simply by looking at the state's demographics. Wisconsin is really the only outlier and Clinton stupidly conceded that state in advance. Once you ignore the media's talking points and its clear that significant momentum does not exist for either candidate.

The demographics and the polls agree that she will destroy Obama in the next two contests, West Virginia and Kentucky, by 20-25 points. At that point, the media's narrative will shift to something along the lines of "Hilary's big comeback" and a focus on her "her never say die attitude" and Obama's inability to "seal the deal."
The press will react as if these results couldn't have been predicted two months ago.

Bolstered by the positive press, Clinton can soldier on to a convention where she will be narrowly behind in delegates. She can spend the summer yelling about the "disenfranchisement" of voters in Michigan and Florida and pointing out that the Obama coalition resembles the McGovern coalition of black and rich white voters. If the tiniest bit of doubt sets in amongst the super delegates about Obama's ability to win the election, Clinton will be well positioned to take the nomination.

20

Re: Demographics is Destiny

thefadd.

Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST

3.00 (informative)

West Virginia is already being called for her and that's being spun as too little too late, so I wouldn't bet on your analysis, especially now that Obama has the superdelegate lead, too.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

24	Oh, to be a fly on the wall... WMK. Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:21:57 PM EST 4.00 (funny, interesting)

...when Hillary and her supporters finally face the truth.

Some imaginative folks think the scene might go a little something like this!

"...when theft and high crime becomes obscenely obvious to even the blindest beer sucking idiot, it is always the Republicans who are in office." -- Joe Bageant

24

Re: Oh, to be a fly on the wall...

thefadd.

Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:45:12 PM EST

none

If that clip hadn't already been used in the Hitler-as-Cowboys-fan bit, it would have been a lot better...still funny, though!

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

6	What Keeps Hillary In The Race? MayorBob. Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:23:59 PM EST 3.00 (astute)

Even a pie-eyed optimist wearing rose-tinted glasses who would put themselves in her shoes for a bit would have to come away realizing there is not a popsicle's chance in a blast furnace of gaining the nomination. Not going to win it on the first ballot and, due to the strident and bitter tone she has waged this campaign for the nomination, she's not liable to win over any real support on a second, or subsequent, ballots. So, what keeps her in there? I think it's a mix of things. She probably does believe, what with her being the first woman to get this close to the brass ring, that she owes it to history, if not to her supporters, to play this out to the end. Maybe she does believe that, okay she can't beat him on the first ballot, but then it's turn the Clinton charm on and watch the delegates scurry on over to her. I think she completely overrates her charms at this point. Her husband oozed charm back in 1992 and again in 1996. The only thing I see her oozing is bitterness and a rather phony "I'm just an average American" attitude. I've also got to believe, that with her pandering to the "hard-working white American" voter, she's hopelessly poisoned the electoral well for the black vote. Not that blacks are going to come out and vote in droves for McCain, but I find it difficult to believe, with her performance the past couple of weeks, that if it's Hillary versus McCain, it'll be stay at home day in a lot of inner city neighborhoods. Maybe she's going to stick it out because she believes that anything could happen to Obama between now and August. Reverend Wright could show up at Obama's house with a chain saw. Obama's plane might go down. Some classic "I never would have suspected that of him" American nutcase with a gun might assassinate Obama to still the voices in his head. Or, perhaps she is going to be using members of her staff to feel out Obama for whatever deal can be wrought to bring this drama to an end.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

1	She's Already Gone thefadd. Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:39:15 PM EST none

And the longer she sticks around, the less Vice-Presidential she makes herself look.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

2 1	Re: She's Already Gone thefadd. Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM EST none

There is some analysis which suggests that we should interpret Clinton's current behavior as a tacit acknowledgment that she has lost.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

4	Screw her! (not in that way) pO157. Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:21:21 PM EST none

IIRC, at the outset Hillary was all about surrounding herself with an aura of inevitability to try to get the media (and the country) to coronate her as the nominee. So much so that I think a lot of other interesting candidates were quickly forced out to make way for the HillDog. I think this stifled debate.

Now that it is obvious she has (at best) faint hopes of seizing the nomination she announces her intention to remain in, and castigates everybody for referring to Obama as the presumptive nominee?

Fuck that noise.

9	Re: Why Should Hillary Go? Steve Urkel. Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:17:07 PM EST none

I saw a clip of Hillary giving a speech explaining why she was staying in the race and she looked seriously deranged doing it. I'm not joking, she's descended into madness now.

I'm baffled by all the "outrage" about her reaching out to "working class white voters". Politicians reach out to blacks, hispanics, jews, and women, and there's no outrage. Is there something I'm missing?

10 9	Re: Why Should Hillary Go? thefadd. Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:47:47 PM EST none

Just goes to show you how racist people of all stripes really are, Steve. If Obama reached out to "working class white voters" he'd be bridging the divide.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

14	Why should Obama go? postillion. Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:30:19 PM EST none

I changed it to Obama because I am curious why everyone is forever saying that Hillary should go and yet no one says that Obama should go.

Talk about great spin that the Obama campaign has put out there. They haven't won the race completely, he lost his own state, and yet the question is still a negative one about Hillary. And all the Obama supporters tell me what nagging bitches Hillary supporters are.

Yet, I am not a Hillary supporter, just not an Obama supporter (which is enough to have my Obama supporting friends go into a rant against Hillary at me). I know Hillary's flaws, foremost her advisors on foreign affairs. But I am also aware of Obama's flaws, including his lacklustre economic plans, his own mixed bag of advisors on foreign affairs, and his unimpressive senate performance thus far.

The way I see it: let them both stay and fight it out to the finish. At this point, I will vote for either half-heartedly because McCain is such a whackjob that I can't endure the thought of him as President, and because the overall Democrat agenda matters more to me now more than the actual person who will be the Democrat president after 8 years of Bush and Co.

14

"He lost his own state"

adept.

Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:42:28 AM EST

4.00 (informative)

What? That's as wrong as wrong can be. He took Illinois 62% to her 32%. That's almost a 2:1 victory.

Not saying you're wrong about other stuff, but you can't just put out things that are demonstrably false.

15

Re: "He lost his own state"

postillion.

Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:06:11 PM EST

none

Sorry. Damn it. I always get Indiana and Illinois mixed up in my head. Showing off my ignorance once again. I also get Minnesota and Missouri mixed up too.

18

Re: "He lost his own state"

Shy Elf.

Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:55:51 PM EST

none

The Indiana results are pretty much a draw. Obama isn't exactly rolling in the support, but there aren't any significant contests left.

Clinton won about 2-1 (which really is a good result for Obama) in the conservative rural counties, but Obama only carried Lake County (which is in the Chicago media market and blue collar and 25% black) by 12%, which seems really low.

This story: 26 comments (0 from subqueue)

Post a Comment

MayorBob.

Posted to Politics on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:26:02 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

she shouldn't

gerrymander.

Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:19:48 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant, interesting)

3

How about this?

MayorBob.

Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:36:03 PM EST

5.00 (brilliant, funny)

7

Au contraire, mon alcalde.

pO157.

Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:05:27 AM EST

5.00 (informative)

3

Gauntlets

Lou.

Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:11:41 PM EST

5.00 (astute, interesting)

3

That's Funny

uncarved block.

Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:37:34 AM EST

4.66 (astute, interesting, astute)

11

Re: That's Funny

Shy Elf.

Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:39:43 AM EST

4.33 (astute, interesting, interesting)

16

Re: That's Funny

PenitenziAgite.

Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:53:41 PM EST

5.00 (funny, astute)

3

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts

1fastdog.

Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:23:39 AM EST

4.66 (interesting, astute)

17

Careful

uncarved block.

Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:40:25 AM EST

5.00 (informative, interesting)

17

Re: If ifs and buts were candy and nuts

ckm.

Mon May 12, 2008 at 10:55:59 AM EST

3.66 (interesting, informative, interesting)

3

Re: she shouldn't

Lou.

Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:26:38 PM EST

4.50 (astute, astute)

less legacy and more truth

Steve Urkel.

Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:15:21 PM EST

5.00 (informative)

Re: Demographics is Destiny

Jackkeefe.

Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:24:20 AM EST

4.50 (interesting, astute, interesting)

20

Re: Demographics is Destiny

thefadd.

Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST

3.00 (informative)

Oh, to be a fly on the wall...

WMK.

Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:21:57 PM EST

4.00 (funny, interesting)

24

Re: Oh, to be a fly on the wall...

thefadd.

Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:45:12 PM EST

What Keeps Hillary In The Race?

MayorBob.

Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:23:59 PM EST