It seems that the new meme in the traditional media is the question, "Why Can't Obama Close the Deal?"
Interesting question. Or maybe not.
Obama did close the deal, right around the end of February when he destroyed Hillary in the Wisconsin primary by 17% points completing a string of 11 consecutive victories by an average above 20% points. That's when he closed the deal. That's when the math became a prison. Just because Hillary chose not to suspend her campaign doesn't change the numbers. And the numbers are destiny.
Per Chuck Todd at MSNBC:
Turning to the delegate math, if Clinton nets approximately 16 delegates out of Pennsylvania, she'll trail in the pledged battle by 150 delegates. With just 408 pledged delegates remaining, that means she'd need 68% of all pledged delegates left to overtake Obama. Now, if Obama and Clinton simply split the 187 delegates up for grabs on May 6 basically down the middle (which would be a rosy projection in Clinton's favor) and Obama's pledged delegate lead simply stayed at 150 and didn’t grow to 160 (the most likely outcome in two weeks), Clinton would need to win 85% of the then 221 remaining delegates up for grabs. 85%! As we mentioned on air last night, the battle for pledged delegates is over, Obama will win that metric and win it by some 100+ delegates.
Mitt Romney dropped out of the GOP race even though he and Huckabee had both won states considered "important" for the GOP's chances in the fall. And in addition to that Romney had a huge monetary advantage over McCain. But when the math became his prison he still dropped out. If Romney had fought on like the living dead thirsting for brains no doubt he would've beaten McCain in a handful of the remaining states much like even Mike Huckabee managed to do even after Romney dropped out and he was going head to head with McCain. But would that change the math? Did it change the math?
So what's the difference is between Huckabee and Clinton? Obviously the difference between Romney and Clinton is that Romney puts his party above the ferocity of his personal ambition. But Huckabee and Clinton are harder to separate. Or maybe not. Huckabee continued on his jolly quest after the math became insurmountable but at least he was positive and did not attempt to damage the fall prospects of his party's nominee. I don't think the same can said for Clinton. The New York Times endorsed Clinton a few months ago and yesterday they blamed her for the destructive negativity in the race:
It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
Locked in her mathematical prison she's gone nuclear on Obama anyway, siding with and giving legitimacy to GOP attacks regarding Rev. Wright, the "Bitter Comments" and the Weatherman Underground that even John McCain publicly decries as out of bounds distractions.
So at this point Hillary's argument seems to be that Obama is such a terrible candidate that the party would be better off overturning the will of the voters and giving her the nomination because she's the better general election candidate. Fine. Her most vociferous argument in support of this position is that her victories in states like NY, CA, PA, and OH mean that Obama can't win those states in the fall. Let's look at that claim objectively.
As this MSNBC article explains there is absolutely positively no historical evidence that winning or losing a state in a party primary means you can't win that state in the fall. So while some Clinton supporters may "feel" this argument is meaningful deep in their bones, they have no empirical evidence to support this claim.
This isn't my analogy but it makes sense: The choice in the primary is like a choice between cheesecake or chocolate chip cookies. Some people like cheesecake more, others prefer chocolate chip cookies, and some feel very strongly about that preference. But in the general when the choice is between cheesecake or chocolate chip cookies vs. brussel sprouts that doesn't mean people who strongly prefer cheesecake are gonna starting eating brussell sprouts while throwing the chocolate chip cookies in the trash.
The other interesting aspect of Clinton's "path to victory" is that it is solely reliant on the super delegates endorsing her in huge numbers. But, since February 5th, Obama has received a net +70 of super delegate endorsements while during that same time period Hillary has a net loss of -4 super delegates. Of the remaining undeclared super delegates Clinton needs upwards of 80% to go for her. How are those two trends reconcilable? Only if Clinton's scorched earth campaign can deal Obama a fatal wound that somehow makes him unelectable in the fall. Again, something that neither Romney or Huckabee decided to do to McCain.
So lets say that Clinton's negative attacks, decried even by the parties that have endorsed her, manage to deal Obama a lethal blow that makes him unelectable in the fall. What are the repurcussions of that? Do african americans turn out in their normal numbers to vote for Hillary? Do young voters, new voters and independants partial to Obama's message turn out for Hillary? If she strikes the mortal blow doesn't that make her unelectable in the fall? The empirical evidence shows that in every poll her negatives and disapproval rating goes up and up the longer this contest goes. In every poll she has markedly higher negatives than either Obama or McCain. What is her endgame here? If she strikes the fatal blow to Obama's campaign what would happen to these trends? I'm pretty sure I know.
Honestly, wouldn't she have a better chance if she suspended her campaign and if Obama were going to meltdown let it be at the hands of John McCain instead of herself? Then she rides into Denver as the last best hope of the party without any of the negativity that results when she is the attacker. Being as objective as I can that seems to be a better shot for her to be the nominee and win in the fall. Both options rely on Obama being dealt a fatal blow only the second option let's McCain do her dirty work for her so her hands are clean. This would also seem to me the logical extension of her argument that Obama can't beat the republicans in the fall. If she really believed that she could suspend her campaign, allow the GOP to eviscerate Obama as she's predicted they would and rescue the party from its own destruction in Denver.
But I would hazard to guess she isn't following this course because she doesn't think McCain can strike that lethal blow, which in turn blows up her argument that Obama can't beat McCain in the fall - if she has to stay in because only she and not McCain can deal Obama the fatal blow, doesn't that also mean that Obama can't be dealt the fatal blow by McCain in the fall? I mean seriously, her argument is that McCain can destroy Obama but he can't do it over the summer he can only do it in the fall therefore Clinton has to destroy Obama now?
The mind reels.
And lastly, Clinton seems to be arguing that the democrats have to use the same electoral map that Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004 used - Florida and Ohio are the only states that matter. Fine. Let's use that map but let's look at the whole map, according to Real Clear Politics and Pollster poll averages.
Ohio - McCain beats Obama by 2.6% and Clinton beats McCain by 5.0
Florida - McCain beats Obama by 11.7% and Clinton beats McCain by 0.3
So far so good for HRC. But only if she's guaranteed to win all the other Kerry 2004 states and only if Obama can't expand the map into the 2004 swing states. So lets expand the map and look at those states, especially in the midwest, mountain west and the west coast.
Wisconsin - Obama beats McCain by 2.3% and McCain beats Clinton by 5.0
Iowa - Obama beats McCain by 9.3% and McCain beats Clinton by 10.0
Minnesota - Obama beats McCain by 11.0% and McCain beats Clinton by 3.0
Colorado - Obama beats McCain by 3.0% and McCain beats Clinton by 9.0
Nevada - Obama beats McCain by 3.5% and McCain beats Clinton by 6.0
New Mexico - McCain beats Obama by 6.0% and McCain beats Clinton by 2.0
Oregon - Obama beats McCain by 9.0% and Clinton beats McCain by 3.0
Washington - Obama beats McCain by 5.0% and McCain beats Clinton by 1.0
California - Obama beats McCain by 8.0% and Clinton beats McCain by 8.0
So lets give Clinton both Florida and Ohio putting her +47 electoral votes ahead of Obama when they are both matched up with McCain. But when we expand the map and give the states to Obama where he wins and Hillary loses he gets +52 electoral votes ahead of Clinton when both are matched up with McCain. And on top of all that they both run just as strong as the other against McCain in California.
Additionally, because Obama runs stronger against McCain in a wider swath of states his coattails are longer and help all the down ticket races like the close MN Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.
[And I won't even go into the fact that Obama put North Carolina and Virginia in play when you average those state polls - McCain beats Obama by 5% in NC and Hillary by 13% in NC and in VA McCain beats Obama by 9% and beats Hillary by 18%]
In summary - Hillary can't win. Won't drop out. Continues to go nuclear on issues even McCain won't touch. Needs a horde of super delegates to endorse her even while hordes of super delegates continue to endorse Obama. Claims she's only doing all this because she's the stronger nominee in the general election except that every single bit of empirical evidence points to the contrary. And finally, hurts the democratic party down the ticket everywhere west of the Mississippi.
But wait, she just netted 12 delegates in Pennsylvania, and why doesn't Obama wear a flag pin?
Round and round we go and where the nomination stops everybody already knows.