What Senator Clinton May Do After March 4

I posted this diary as a comment in dmsilev's "Clinton Superdelegates 'Wavering'" diary, and with the encouragement of one kind soul I'm making a whole stinking diary out of it.  I too felt the keen absence of candidate diaries tonight.

If you care, keep reading!

The question arose whether any March 4 results might lead Senator Clinton to abandon her quest for the nomination.  Here's what I think.

There's obviously a huge amount of open space between March 4 and April 22, and I think we can all guess how a fighter like Senator Clinton would react immediately to anything less than strong victories in Ohio and Texas.  If she loses or draws in both, she'll say at first that of course she's continuing.  If she ekes out any kind of small win in one or the other, her campaign will try to declare that the momentum is hers.  But at that point people will be looking at pledged delegate counts (and perhaps at the increasing numbers of superdelegates endorsing Obama).  Currently, people are rightly declaring that OH and TX could turn her recent fortunes around and stop Obama's momentum cold, but if Clinton doesn't get a significant delegate boost out of March 4, I don't think any spin from the Clinton campaign will stem the dual perception of Obama's momentum and eventual lock on a majority of pledged delegates.

There will be the March 8 caucus in Wyoming and the March 11 primary in Mississippi, two more contests where Obama ought to win by big margins, to remind people immediately of how well he wins.  And then, nothing until April 22 in PA.  If polls there are showing him close or in the lead, if superdelegates begin defecting from her and/or finally turning to him, if the media are offering daily reports of women, Latinos, and working-class voters turning to Obama, if national polls are showing him pulling away from her and outperforming her in head-to-heads with McCain, then the writing will be on the wall.  

Some have said that John Edwards' endorsement wouldn't count for much, but if he endorses Obama, then if I understand these things correctly, Edwards' 26 delegates might presumptively move into Obama's column, and his 14% in the FL beauty contest, coupled with Obama's 33%, would effectively blunt any argument that the seating of FL's delegates would boost Clinton's cause.  

How long would Clinton hold out in the face of all or most of these possibilities?  Who knows?  I think we all know her to be a fighter -- she wasn't kidding when she declared she was "in it to win it."  But I also believe her to be pragmatic; some have called her March 4 firewall a rebooting of the Guiliani strategy, but she surely shares none of his delusions of grandeur.  If all the possibilities I outline above come to pass, I think she would withdraw from the race before PA.  If Obama wins TX and OH outright, I think she would withdraw pretty quickly--perhaps within a few days.  And that's all the more reason to work our tails off for those victories.  

Some posters have opined that Clinton feels entitled to the nomination, possibly to the extent that she would "go nuclear" (nukular?) and force a bloody convention fight.  I don't believe it.  She may or may not believe that she deserves the nomination; it has often been said that, every morning, every senator looks in the mirror and says, "Good morning, Mr. (or Madam) President!"  But I believe Clinton's run for the Senate and subsequent performance seriously belie any claims of Guilianiesque entitlement.  She worked for her Senate victory, just as she has worked hard all her life.  I greatly admire her work ethic, her broad and deep expertise, and her accomplishments.

At the same time, I do believe that she and Bill believe that politics ain't beanbag--and that they are and would be prepared to try just about any rational avenue that would deliver her the nomination.  But I return to what I perceive to be her practical nature: She knows she isn't a gifted natural politician like her husband and others and therefore worked to make herself a formidable candidate.  She knows what it takes to win, to build a formidable political machine, and to wield political power.  But she also knows how to read the writing on the wall, and I expect that even now she is reading everything--from votes to polls to demographics to graffiti--very carefully.

Years ago I read a telling profile of Senator Clinton.  One person interviewed was the owner of a woman's clothing store in Little Rock who said that Hillary Clinton was the only customer she ever had who never looked in the mirror and complained about what she saw.  She didn't regret "having her mother's thighs" or lamented the fact that she wasn't statuesque or slender.  She worked to make herself look presentable and professional, but she was what she was, and she chose clothes that helped her package that reality as effectively as possible.  I believe that absence of vanity is palpable, and I admire it.  I think it says a lot about how Senator Clinton views herself and her possibilities.  If she wins neither Ohio or Texas, or if she earns no better than an effective stalemate on March 4, I believe she will look in the mirror, read the writing on the wall next to the mirror, consider a few other awkwardly juxtaposed metaphors, and withdraw from the nomination battle.

What do you think?

•  Interesting

  I'm not sure....but I think there's a 50/50 chance she will make it to convention. I am going to do some phone banking for Obama tomorrow, in any case.

  by young montana voter on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:54:48 PM PDT

•  Watch the money

  She'll last as long as the money lasts. And the money won't run out until she's toast. And she won't be toast even after March 4. They'll both be a long, long way from 2,025.

  by lawprofessor on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:56:42 PM PDT

•  If this trend continues

  I think she will drop out after a loss in Pennsylvania.

  But I would not underestimate the Clintons, although Obama has given them a shock that they never ever imagined.

  by IhateBush on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:57:41 PM PDT

•  Before Hillary ends her bid

  She will fly to MI and FL to demand the delegates be counted.  She will claim they have been disenfranchised and renege on her agreement to abide by the rules.

  by Fools on the Hill on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:01:26 PM PDT

•  what's sad is i can see the clintons

  destroying the democratic party in a fight for power. these people do not care about anyone except themselves - just look at the events of the 90's and tell me who do the clintons really love

  by lamonth on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:05:29 PM PDT

  •  Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson... (n/t)

    by banjolele on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:09:18 PM PDT

•  Unenviable position

  Now she is faced with having to win both by at least 9+ percentage points to stake the claim to big state dominance. Being that New York, New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts are fairly reliable Democratic strongholds, and Texas is clearly a red state, it seems that all the chips are on the table in Ohio. But Obama has cash and if he wins 10 states in a row, he certainly has momentum. He has also shown that he has game, as in ground game. Senator Clinton is looking for debates to show her strong suit, but here again a draw favors him. If he looks nonplussed and stays on message he gains in stature. She risks looking overly aggressive and desperate if she goes on offense. That having been said, he needs to show that he can perform well in one of the keys to the electoral contest that was the undoing of John Kerry. If he does, game over.

  by markus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:07:39 PM PDT

•  It wont matter what she does

  If she loses Texas and Ohio it will be over.
  The threats of NH ending her bid earlier were not real  since at that point she still had the bulk of Northeast states and California to save her.
  Texas and Ohio are campaign ending events in terms of delegates.

  Its checkmate on Hillary campaign.  

  by zezefe on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:11:06 PM PDT

•  I feel bad for her...

  I really do.  I have always liked Hillary, and until a few months ago I couldn't imagine supporting anyone else.

  I voted Obama, and I desperately believe he is the best for the job.  I'll be proud to call Hillary my Senator until the end of days, but I'll always remember (with a bit of melancholy) she had what it takes, but she waited four years too long, all to keep a promise she made me.

  by bogbud on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:14:01 PM PDT

•  She'll never drop out.

  The party owes her the nomination.  How dare we not hand it to her.

  by clonecone on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:14:21 PM PDT

•  I think everybody knew

  that Obama was a strong candidate.  Probably most of us suspected it would come down to Clinton/Obama/Edwards.  But if you had said that Clinton would be cash strapped and desperate at this stage in the game, nobody would have believed you.  They would have assumed, hearing her candidacy is still intact, that she had wrapped up the nomination.

  Wonders never cease.

  by Arculi on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:14:39 PM PDT

•  Boxed into a no-win corner ...

  I think she can still win the nomination, but only at the cost of probably alienating the youth and black vote.  Which will hurt her tremendously in the general election. So the process of winning the nomination almost assures she loses in November.  The Clinton's are great at political strategy - but this is a very bad position they find themselves in.

  The calculation they have to make is, do we win the nomination at any cost and worry about the general election later, or do we keep our general election possibilities in play - but possibly lose the nomination?

  by kto9 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:15:42 PM PDT

•  Just one thing...

  (an excellent diary, btw)

  There was this article from the NYT in 1988:

  "Dukakis Pins Hope on Hispanic Texas"

  Read it here:
  http://query.nytimes.com/...

  I'm not saying that 2008 is the same as it was 20 years ago, but one thing that happened is that Dukakis WON the popular vote by more than 8 pct pts.--but he only garned 1 more delegate after the primary than Jesse Jackson did:

  After the primary:
  Dukakis: 43 delegates (33% popular vote)
  Jackson: 42 delegates (25% of vote)
  Gore: 25 delegates (20% of vote)
  Gephardt: 9 delegates (14% of vote)

  Texas voting is complex (there's a caucus component equalling about 19% of the total eventual delegates).  Dukakis eventually won the overall delegate by about 7 delegates.

  The point here is that to really, really clean up in Texas you need to have 1) a tremendous ground game that will sweep the caucus part; 2) a huge lead in the overal primary totals; 3) a machine at the convention to give you the final megawin.

  I don't see how Clinton (or Obama for that matter) can have a huge delegate win in Texas.  The apportionment of delegates to the primary senatorial districts is based on turnout in the 2004 and 2006 elections--Obama has some advantage here because in heavily AA districts turnout was HUGE in the '04 and '06 districts--these senatorial districts therefore get more delegates alloted to them (ceteris paribus).

  But, mitigating all of the Obama advantage is the fact that Clinton will garner more hispanic voters, but will there be enough delegates alloted to these districts based on their previous turnouts in '04 and '06--will it be enough to win huge?  Will women make up any shortfall?  

  If there's a blowout in Texas, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.

  by lalo456987 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:16:37 PM PDT

•  the end will come sooner than you think

  because I think that the money situation is still more dire than they will admit and with some media finally starting to talk more about pledged delegates and once Obama has more total delegates despite her supposed lead in supers. the end is before mar 4

  by virginia cynic on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:26:56 PM PDT

  •  I suspect

    you could be right about the money situation.  On the evening news here in Maryland - the night before our primary - folks saw Barack at the University of Maryland speaking to 20,000 and at the Civic Center with another 10,000. I doubt that the use of either venue was donated. OTOH, they showed Hillary at the local GM plant speaking to a few dozen workers.  I got a robo call invite to come to the local senior center to see Bill Clinton! Unreal. Barack's bought TV ads here, but I've yet to see one for Hillary.  If she's not strapped for cash, it certainly has that appearance.

    by dharmafarmer on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:00:35 PM PDT

•  She won't drop out...

  she'll go into a slow burn mode to preserve cash and hang out until Pennsylvania. Against the pressure to quit, she'll say "we've won some big states, we're only 10% (or whatever) behind in pledged delegates, and I think we should hear ALL the voices of the Democratic party."

  by Meursault on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:30:28 PM PDT

•  Oooh - let the flames begin....

  Oh wait, this is an Obama leaning site. Maybe you won't need your asbestos longjohns after all.

  I caucused "Uncommitted" because:

  Neither HRC nor BHO had much of a health plan until Edwards had one.

  The war was a topic but it wasn't a front of the platform, in your face topic until Kucinich made it one by rightfully touting his anti war votes... Not just one vote against the start of the war, but voting against the funding again and again and again.... unlike either of the front runners.

  My belief is that as soon as the "2nd tier" candidates along with their platform and stump speech points were gone, those topics' appearance in the political conversation disappeared too.

  I did hear an echo of an Edwards talking point in Obama's speech on Friday in Seattle, but it wasn't more than a token mention of something that used to be a part of the debates because the points were brought up by the Edwards and the others were forced to respond.

  Examples of coverage like Kucinich and his "I guess I'll ask myself a question" during one of the debates just so he could make a point and Edwards' "I think I represent the grown up wing of the Democratic party" shows that the media aren't interested in the REASONS we should elect someone to lead the free world [or what we can cajole into following us again], they are only interested in THEIR story... Black man vs white Woman - historic choices to be made....yadda yadda.

  We must not lose sight of each candidate's stand on real life and death ISSUES that concern us intimately.
  Things like:
  Exactly WHAT is each one proposing to do to stem the recession and the housing bust & what do economists think about their plans? [anyone listening at MSNBC - Keith?? - chirp chirp]

  - or -

  Does anyone think that it would be a good thing to maybe drop some of the tax breaks that the oil companies enjoy along with their record quarterly profits? Maybe use the revenue to fund a replacement technology for petroleum? How do you propose to get that idea through the Congress Senator?

  [Little, meaningless things like that]

  Then there's Katrina reconstruction, Health care, oh and that thing that we used to hear about more often... something to do with sand and blood and - Oh yeah IRAQ[n].

  When the current candidates had to come up with answers to other points of view, it was much more obvious about whether they had a clue or not about the topic [much less a plan of their own]. They were forced to address actual ISSUES that mattered. Now they can just "be themselves" and not do anything except repeat their stock talking points at various venues. What is NOT being talked about is at least as important as what is getting talked about.

  [FISA anyone?] How's that filibuster going? If that got a few mentions in a few stump speeches and covered in the news, do you think it might cause some phone calls to be made to let the Senators who are on the fence or leaning towards immunity think twice about their vote? anyone hear any of that in the speeches lately?
  < / rant >

  by daddybunny on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:34:23 PM PDT

•  If her $ dry up

  she may drop out before TexHio. The burn rate for those two states is seriously daunting even for the Clintons. Bill and Hill are millionaires not Billionaires and if their car runs out of gas it's over.

  by citydem on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:57:00 PM PDT