Let's focus on the logical core of Hillary Clinton's argument: "Primary contests used to last a lot longer which would mean that this primary's length is typical, so there's no reason for the party to put pressure on her to drop out. So I collected the lengths of the previous primaries and compared them to this year.
The average length of the contested primaries between 1980 and 2004 is 3.3 months, which we're well past already. More than that, this year's primary has already run longer than any since the disaster in 1980.
Most primaries have been much shorter, including both of Bill Clinton's. So they didn't "run longer" - they were shorter than this primary, which promises to be the longest primary in my political lifetime (or hers). And all of the relatively long primaries (i.e. contested to the convention) were disasters for the Democrats.
This doesn't seem like much of an argument in favor of continuing her run.
Details below.
Let's focus on the logical core of Hillary Clinton's argument: "Primary contests used to last a lot longer" so there's no reason for the party to put pressure on her to declare Obama the de facto nominee. So I collected the lengths of the previous primaries and compared them to this year.
The current (2008) primaries started Jan 3, and the last is June 3, which is 5 months. If Clinton goes to the convention, that's Aug 25, which is 7 and a half months.
Here are the lengths of the previous primaries (thanks, Wikipedia!):
* The 2004 primaries started Jan 14, were decided on March 11, which is just under 2 months.
* The 2000 primaries started Jan 24, were decided on March 9, which is a month and a half.
* The 1996 primaries were essentially over before they started (re-nominating Clinton and Gore with 80% of the vote). Zero months.
* The 1992 primaries effectively started Feb 18th (Iowa was uncontested) and Bill Clinton became the obvious winner on March 20, which is just over a month later. Admittedly he didn't formally reach the delegate count until the CA primary on June 2, which is three and a half months, but that's an artifact of the primary schedule (CA, with the most votes, was last) - everyone but Jerry Brown, CA's former Governer, had dropped out long before.
* The 1988 Iowa caucus was Feb 8, and the convention was July 18, which is 4 and a half months.
* The 1984 Iowa caucus was Feb 20, and the nominee was decided by Super Tuesday on June 8, three and a half months later.
* The 1980 Iowa caucus was Jan 21, and the convention was Aug 12, which is 7 months, and a disaster for the Democrats.
* Going back to 1968, since she mentioned that year, the first primary was March 12, and the convention was Aug 26, which is five and a half months later, and a disaster for the Democrats.
The average length of the contested primaries between 1980 and 2004 is 3.3 months, which we're well past already. More than that, this year's primary has already run longer than any since the disaster in 1980.
Most primaries have been much shorter, including both of Bill Clinton's. So primaries didn't "run longer" - they were shorter than this primary, which promises to be the longest primary in my political lifetime (or hers). And all of the relatively long primaries (i.e. contested to the convention) were disasters for the Democrats, which makes them examples of how bad it is for her to play the "spoiler".
This doesn't seem like much of an argument in favor of continuing her run.