Clinton's dream (and a Clinton supporter challenge)
For the second day in a row, the WaPo frontpages a Clinton friendly article, this one reporting that superdelegates are staying on the fence after the Mar. 4 result.
Frankly, superdelegates saying they're waiting to commit is not really that surprising. The real surprise is in the quotes. Each quote is from a different super. All on the record.
So, here's your challenge, Clinton supporters. Make a convincing general election electability argument for Hillary Clinton assuming the superdelegates overturn an Obama pledged delegate lead at a contentious convention on August 26, just two months and a week before the election.
Can she win Ohio or Missouri or Michigan in the general if, for example, 10% of the Dems who voted for Obama are still so angry they don't show up? (10% is an uneducated guess. Feel free to move that number.)
Just imagine what that acceptance speech would be like.....
Frankly, superdelegates saying they're waiting to commit is not really that surprising. The real surprise is in the quotes. Each quote is from a different super. All on the record.
"You're going to see a lot of delegates remaining uncommitted," said Rep. Mike Doyle (Pa.), who has not endorsed either candidate. "There's a sense that this is going to Denver not resolved."....
"If the pledged-delegate total is within 100 votes or whatever, I don't think there's a great deal of significance in that," said Bradbury, who also represents other secretaries of state as a superdelegate. "If superdelegates were just intended to automatically vote for the preference someone else expressed, there wouldn't be any purpose," he said....
"I do not feel bound by the popular vote; otherwise there would be no reason to have superdelegates, just to rubber-stamp" the outcomes of primaries and caucuses....
Who would make the best president? "It's a judgment based on my knowledge of the two candidates," he said. "It's an intuitive thing, a feel thing, based on all the things that make Obama who he is and Hillary who she is. It's mysterious."
So, here's your challenge, Clinton supporters. Make a convincing general election electability argument for Hillary Clinton assuming the superdelegates overturn an Obama pledged delegate lead at a contentious convention on August 26, just two months and a week before the election.
Can she win Ohio or Missouri or Michigan in the general if, for example, 10% of the Dems who voted for Obama are still so angry they don't show up? (10% is an uneducated guess. Feel free to move that number.)
Just imagine what that acceptance speech would be like.....
posted by mikevotes at
8:03 AM
9 Comments:
I just don't see the superdelegates ignoring the pledged delegate vote unless Hillary is ahead in the popular vote. If they do, you're right, it's 1968 all over again.
But if she IS ahead in the popular vote, then it's really a tossup, and whichever side loses is going to feel ripped off. Train wreck.
In my opinion, popular vote would trump pledged delegates, but I doubt any Obama supporters will see it that way.
By
Anonymous, at 3:48 PM
But then, in the spirit of this fucked up year, we would then get into a reverse caucus argument.
Caucuses have lower attendance than primaries, so....
But, would Obama have won the same delegates with full attendance.....
....
I certainly agree that popular vote is her only real avenue across, but how the superdelegates vote still doesn't really address my question.
How does Obama nation react to Clinton winning, and how much damage would that do to her chances?
(There's not a pretty solution to any of this. If she wins the popular, you'll have a somewhat similar rejectionist group among the Clinton supporters, although I'd bet it'd be smaller.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think they'd be as angry if the supers went with the pledged as the Obama folks would be if they went against the pledged.
Of course, that's a projection from where we sit now.)
By
mikevotes, at 4:17 PM
Winning by "overturn" would do huge damage to Hillary, no doubt. I feel like the general election is going to be fairly close even without that, so it could well cause her to lose.
Probably a win by "overturn" wouldn't hurt Obama so much. Hillary voters don't seem as passionate.
But one thing to consider... pissed-off Obama voters would probably sit it out. (A 1-vote swing.) Pissed-off Hillary voters would be more likely to vote for McCain (a 2-vote swing.)
This is based on the arguable assumption that the pissed-off Obama voters would be far-left and African-American voters; pissed-off Hillary voters would be Reagan Democrats.
By
Anonymous, at 4:40 PM
I understand your argument, but are the Reagan democrats that passionate for Clinton or are they just voting for her of the two?
They might still break for McCain, but I think they'd be more receptive and accessible than the spurned "cult."
Know what I'm asking?
By
mikevotes, at 5:33 PM
I agree that Hillary's followers would be more receptive to Obama than his followers would be to Hillary. But they'd also be more receptive to McCain, simply on the merits, than Obama's followers would.
It really depends on how McCain and Obama are able to define themselves and each other. Which one can make himself look more like a reasonable, capable person who is looking out for the interests of this group (groups actually--Latinos, blue collar whites, older folks, women)? And which one can make the other guy look more like a wacko in thrall to his party's more extreme elements?
By
Anonymous, at 10:09 PM
Agreed. Because some of Hillary's support is "he isn't ready," and that would definitely be available to McCain.
To factor into this broader discussion, take a look at the two SUSA sample electoral map out a few days ago, Obama makes up some of that rust belt out west. He also gives up the Senior citizen states of Fla and Pa, and still wins. Just interesting to factor into the discussion. (It does have him winning Ohio.)
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/03/06/first_electoral_map_comparisons.html
And, maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't see Latinos voting en masse for a Republican, even if it's the only one who doesn't want to round up their friends and relatives into camps.
And, I don't think McCain will look in the thrall of his wackos, but they're going to come out and he's going to have to disown them again and again.
By
mikevotes, at 10:22 PM
I am going to step in ever so lightly. I think it is a problem no matter what if the superdelegates go against the popular vote. Apparently, they see it a little differently. I also see it as more of a problem depending on how close the vote is. If it is almost tied, then I can see a little more leeway for the superdelegates. However, I would totally understand either side being upset. That is a no-win situation for the party.
I am not sure where you are getting your ideas that Clinton supporters would even think of voting Republican in any significant numbers. (I'm not saying that you are wrong, so please don't take it that way.) I just don't see that in my admittedly small sample of friends. Above all, we are loyal to the Democratic Party and think Obama is still a very good candidate. I would not be the least disappointed to "have" to vote for Obama.
I have no idea of the extent of hatred for Hillary from the Barack supporters although it never ceases to amaze me. Honestly, I appreciate the passion of the Obama supporters but I just don't see the justification for the hatred. I read the complaints and I just don't understand. My sense is that this could be an insurmountable problem and I am really hoping that the victory is decisive so that it doesn't come down to one side feeling cheated. Let me ask you a question, do you think it is in the realm of possibility that there is some way Hillary could win and you would accept it or is it pre-determined that the only way she can win is to cheat and thereby cause him to lose? A part of me thinks that the Obama supporters will never accept her no matter what. Where does that leave us?
By
Ptelea, at 12:30 AM
I agree on the very close. I don't know what the threshhold is, though.
I don't know where I got the assumption that Clinton supporters would vote McCain. I thought there was a poll around Ohio looking at those white male under 50K working class men showing sympathy for McCain among them. (Maybe that was just a Chris MAtthews talking point that wormed its way into my brain.)
Finally, let me draw a line here. There is some Clinton hatred among some of the Obama people (I'm not sure how much was there before Obama ever came around and how much is an artifact of the crazy fundamentalism of the Obama movement.) But, I think broadly at this point, the sentiment is the same as you describe on the other side. Sitting here, now, most Obama supporters would vote for Clinton if he just up and withdrew on his own tomorrow.
However, that feeling of cheated would really resonate if the thing went to the convention with the current delegate gap and came out Clinton.
The Obama campaign has completely convinced its followers (you must have noticed it in me) that the delegate math is the scorecard and that if that is "overturned", it is in effect stolen.
If she won the pledged delegates, there would be no argument. IF she wins the popular vote, it's possible, but it depends where that delegate number is.
You have to understand that we've been sold that we've pretty much already won.
(And you don't have to tread that lightly, although I appreciate the consideration. That's all very genuine discussion.
That's all analysis and opinion, not a shouting of "You're wrong." "No, You're wrong." that we got into last week. That's what gets to me.)
By
mikevotes, at 7:19 AM
If HRC is leading the popular vote after it is all said-and-done and the delegate math is less than 50 or so I have no problem with HRC getting the nomination. She will have proven the ability to close the gap and garner votes. ASSUMING of course she doesn't go insane-negative over the next 2 months and somehow relates that into a popular vote lead. Altho, it is upto OB to counter the negative if in fact it is affecting the vote totals. Overall I think it is best he remains above the fray and let surrogates handle the negative crap 90% of the time. But I won't vote for her. My dislike for the clintons and their mode of government go back to pre-OB days...I have no tolerance to such outwardly and unashamed level of arrogance and sense of entitlement. a 100 years from now I think it will be a common understanding that bill clinton had a chance to make unlimited progressive changes to america and he wasted it on chasing adulation and a failure to control his ego. He had a once in a lifetime opportunity to complete the "camelot" administration but instead of ending on a sunny fall day in dallas it ended along his desk with his pants around his ankles and giggly intern in a cheap dress...
By
Anonymous, at 6:46 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home