Today's talking point, "Clinton can't win"
That "Clinton can't win" seems to be the today's talking point coming out of this Politico article by Vandehei and Allen.
The Clinton camp has been brilliant in their ability to keep this question out of "serious" discussion, but something about this piece coming on the tail of the Michigan and Florida decisions feels like it might break through and become the talking point.
I'm not endorsing this, mainly because I don't want to argue on a beautiful day, but for your own information, give it a read. It may be the basis for alot of talk over the weekend.
(BUT, here's a question. In the remaining calendar, where would Clinton get out? Do you expect her to quit after winning Pa? Indiana's tight, and do you see her quitting over NC or Oregon?
If you're looking at the math argument to see Clinton leave the race, understand that there's not really a decisive calendar spot among the remaining primaries for that to happen without a couple of big surprises or a significant change of the narrative.)
Related: Ben Smith of Politico also has a piece saying Clinton can't win the popular vote, but he seems to make the presumption that Fla and Michigan don't count. (Since "popular vote" is an asserted argument, I'm not sure the rules are that firm.)
The Clinton camp has been brilliant in their ability to keep this question out of "serious" discussion, but something about this piece coming on the tail of the Michigan and Florida decisions feels like it might break through and become the talking point.
I'm not endorsing this, mainly because I don't want to argue on a beautiful day, but for your own information, give it a read. It may be the basis for alot of talk over the weekend.
(BUT, here's a question. In the remaining calendar, where would Clinton get out? Do you expect her to quit after winning Pa? Indiana's tight, and do you see her quitting over NC or Oregon?
If you're looking at the math argument to see Clinton leave the race, understand that there's not really a decisive calendar spot among the remaining primaries for that to happen without a couple of big surprises or a significant change of the narrative.)
Related: Ben Smith of Politico also has a piece saying Clinton can't win the popular vote, but he seems to make the presumption that Fla and Michigan don't count. (Since "popular vote" is an asserted argument, I'm not sure the rules are that firm.)
posted by mikevotes at
2:32 PM
8 Comments:
The calculus of politicians eludes me. Short of hoping for -- and contributing to -- an Obama train wreck, her odds of becoming the nominee are ridiculously bad.
When does she exit? It seems to me the time has passed for her to exit graciously. Because with each passing day her campaign becomes more strident, negative and divisive in their quest. They seem to have shifted from promoting their candidate to lobbing patronizing, embarrassing and negative pot-shots the other candidate.
When's the last time you heard the "experience" claim pushed hard? They've shifted to "Give me the Mi and FL delegates, damnit." and "America won't vote for a black man from a black church with that preacher, Rev. Wright."
If she comes to the conclusion that she has indeed already lost her shot at getting the nomination, I think her "best" hope is for Obama to do better than expected in PA. That would give her a final opportunity to bow out with some dignity.
By
-epm, at 3:37 PM
She can still exit gracefully. When that day comes, she likely get something akin to obituary coverage, where all the press praises her positives and ignores the negatives.
And, Michigan and Florida were really her last best hope, so pressing them to the exclusion of everything else with full effort isn't really a surprise.
And I don't think that will happen in Pa. I could be wrong.
By
mikevotes, at 3:44 PM
dignity does not become her...
By
Anonymous, at 5:21 PM
I thought the Vandehei/Allen piece was pretty shoddy. Just a couple of examples: 10% (even 5%) is not "virtually no chance." It's a longshot chance. It's certainly not "Clinton can't win." Anyone wanting a serious, statistically sound look at the state of the race should check out Jay Cost's Horserace Blog at RCP.
And that closing line: "the bell rang long ago in the minds of too many voters." Um, is that why she won Ohio and Texas and is leading by a huge margin in PA?
I don't mind biased reporting... if it acknowledges its bias. I don't think that article did.
By
Anonymous, at 7:41 PM
Obama won Texas!
Caucuses count.
By
Anonymous, at 8:50 PM
First, I didn't discuss the merits of the article because I didn't want to argue about it.
I highlighted it because I thought it would end up being talked about, and I was right, Hardball, Olberman.
And, my title oversimplified, but you have to understand how this looks to non-Clinton supporters (And I don't just mean Obama people, I include neutrals.)
Sure, she has a 5% or 10% chance of winning (that estimate from inside her campaign, not neutral), but what is the greater cost to the Dem party for her to have that 5% or 10% chance? The perception is that this nasty turn is costing the Dems, and people are asking whether Clinton's 5-10% maybe benefit is worth the party's cost.
I'm not saying that's an absolute or true argument, but that's where the pressure is coming from.
(PS. I know it's not only Clinton being negative, but because of the perception of her state, she takes the blame. It's unfair, but that's the way it is.)
Now, for where I am, I don't generally read RCP. I'm working off the Chuck Todd, CNN, and/or WaPo analysts.
I sympathize with your emotion, but I also assume you know the numbers. She has to win every remaining state by at least 15 points. She's only won NY, Arkansas, and RI by that margin. And that assumes that she wins every state by that margin, not even dropping to close in one of them.
(And I still don't think the superdelegates reverse the pledged delegates unless she wins the popular vote by more than a small margin. That's the way that argument's trending.)
Without Florida and Michigan, I see the window as closed.
That's where I am, that's what I see.
I'm really sorry.
By
mikevotes, at 9:54 PM
Don't be sorry, I'm not personally invested in it... Hillary was never my first choice, and I'm fully cognizant of her flaws as a candidate.
I actually haven't looked at the numbers again since the Florida/Michigan revotes tanked... however I suspect you will find that the Clinton popular vote argument will attempt to include Florida as voted. Since it's just a moral argument I don't think that's far-fetched. (Michigan would be far-fetched.)
Is a 5-10% chance of Hillary winning worth the damage that's being done? It depends on what you think of Obama as a candidate, and it depends on how much damage you think it does to the party to shut down a campaign that is winning major states by double digits. It might be tempting to think that everything will be hunky-dory if we just all rally around Obama... but I'm not so sure.
Still, if she doesn't really trounce him in PA (like 15-20 points), it will probably be time to put an end to this thing. As of now, it just feels like the Obama camp trying to talk their way into a victory when their candidate appears to be stalling out.
(And Chuck Todd is OK, but you should really take a look at Jay Cost on RCP.)
By
Anonymous, at 4:57 AM
Actually, I think Clinton is a pretty good candidate, really, it's just that they ran (and she signed off on) a pretty poorly run campaign and strategy.
On the popular vote, I agree. Since it's an asserted argument with no clear rules binding it, the Clinton camp will definitely try to make as much of Florida and Michigan as they can.
And, as of right now, I think she wins Pa. by 15, although there's alot of time between here and there.
By
mikevotes, at 1:40 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home