Clinton in til the Convention: a good thing?

Teacherken's recc'ed diary has me thinking...

This primary dogfight has been an unqualified good from beginning to end.  All Democrat (and some Republican & Indie) votes cast, to date, have been very significant.

And the contests go on... just as meaningful as ever.

I made this comment in teacherken's diary:

Well said (3+ / 0-)

I agree with every point you made, Ken.  I have not wavered from my opinion that Clinton should be allowed to bow out on her own terms.  Meaningful elections, primaries, or caucuses are all good.

by rustydude on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:09:55 AM PDT

However, to date, I have not made up my mind which is better... a battle all the way to the Convention or a candidate bowing out in June.

The conventional wisdom, no pun intended, is that this race must be decided before the Convention or it's going to be ugly and damaging to the Democratic nominee's chances in November.

But I'm asking now... will it be such a bad thing to have this go to the convention?  Is the CW wrong?

First, let's make some assumptions.  Let's assume Obama has a pledged delegate lead over 100.

Second, let's assume the FL and MI delegates are seated either through re-vote or by some agreement or by a June credentials committee meeting.

Third, let's assume that for the most part the Supers are split fairly evenly, give or take 20 or 30 or 40.

Given this, the Wednesday 1st Ballot Roll Call will be suspenseful.  There will be plenty of angst on both sides to see that all of the pledged delegates really do vote for their pledged candidate, and that all the endorsed Supers really do vote for the candidate they previously endorsed.  But over all, assuming Obama has a 100 delegate lead, this will very likely be a done deal.

So... how could Hillary fighting to the finish be a good thing?  After all, I'm sure Dean Broder would be predicting the imminent demise of the Democratic Party if it should come to this.  He is the King of Conventional Wisdom.

Since we already know that Broder is often wrong, we also know that the CW is also often wrong.

Let me propose some reasons why a battle right down to the Convention might be a good thing.

1. The television ratings are going to be through the roof.  Two or three times as many people will be watching two or three times as much coverage of the Dem Convention than the old Geezer McCain Convention.

2. Hillary fighting to the end will signal the end of an era.  More than anything else, she and Bill will be singing their swan song.  It will be a signal to America that the Democratic Party has turned the page on the entire DLC era.  Just like Kennedy in 1980, there will be no 2nd try for Hillary... 4, 8 or 12 years from now.  Obama says it's time for change, and Hillary fighting to the end, and losing, will be an exclamation point on Obama's fundamental message.

3. It will be Obama's finest hour.  I'm not sure the remaining Hillary fans here (those not on strike) will buy this but I truly believe we have not had such a gracious candidate as Barack Obama, in many years.  When it comes time to say "The Speech", he will be as gracious to Hillary as anyone ever could be.  Think of Gore's concession speech in December, 2000.  This one will be even better than Gore's great speech.  And people will think highly of Obama for the way he treats Hillary at this Convention.

4. An electoral fight to the finish will put a new glean on the Party.  We will have put "Democracy" back into the Democratic Party.

These reasons will surely be balanced against some negatives.  I won't go into all these because the Lords & Ladies of Conventional Wisdom have already spelled all of these out.  But for those who think Hillary will scorch the earth at the convention, I don't buy it.  Once she loses, she'll give her own great speech.  Will it be a repeat of Kennedy/Carter in 1980?  I don't know for sure, but my gut says "no".

And, no, no, no, no, no!  We're not going to have a brokered convention.  The Supers and Pledged and At Large delegates will vote on the first ballot and since there are very very very few 3rd candidate delegates pledged, there will be a majority victor on 1st ballot.  I'm presuming that will be Obama, especially if he wins the Pledged count by 100 or more.

I know many Democrats have a doom & gloom view.  If the battle goes to the Convention, then the sky will be falling.  McCain will surely win 49 states in that scenario.  Another 4 years of Republican rule!  Yikes!

I'm gonna chill.  I think we'll be just fine.

•  Tips

  Or present more reasons why a race all of the way until the Convention might be a good thing.

  by rustydude on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:41:34 PM PDT

  •  Discord.

    "Just like the Democrats -- can't even figure out who their candidate is going to be."

    /snarkish

    Actually the best thing I can see coming out of this is the permanent end of Senator Clinton's future in national politics.

    And a successful primary challenge for her senate seat in '12.

    by polecat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:19:44 PM PDT

    •  This is not a good thing.

      You shouldn't ignore someone who has won nearly 13 milion votes, less than 3% difference from Obama's total.  It is talk like this that will cause Clinton supporters to sit at home in the fall, and Obama will lose.

      by khyber900 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:10:56 PM PDT

•  Good thing? No.

  A battle to the convention is inviting disaster.

  by NewDealer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:49:03 PM PDT

•  Good for the media and fans of

  drama - no one else. It wastes resources, sucks the air out of down ticket races, allows Clinton to keep attacking Obama, and give McCain a few months head start. Also it allows only 2 months to heal the inevitable wounds resulting from the convention.

  by mr crabby on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:49:56 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    if it ended with Hillary conceding without trying hard to convince superdelegates and steal "elected" delegates, giving a great speech, and fully endorsing Obama, it would be good.

    But I don't think that will happen.  So it will probably be bad, as you say.

    by psycho liberal on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:54:54 PM PDT

  •  Good for the GOP

    and the Clintons know it, but have put their own personal agenda over the good of the party and the nation.

    Sad, really.

    by wild salmon on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:20:13 PM PDT

    •  It's not her fault that Obama couldn't close the

      deal on March 4th.  Voters like Hillary Clinton. She has real strength in battleground states, big states, and among swing voters.  She has every right to run and she should continue to stay in the race until the end.  If Obama can't close the deal, that's not her fault.  Maybe he isn't good enough to win in the general election.

      by khyber900 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:12:37 PM PDT

      •  Right to Run vs. Obligation to Party Unity

        Nobody says she doesn't have any right to run.

        What is being questioned is the wisdom of she continuing to do so.

        She cannot acquire the winning number of delegates, at least by any fair means which the party is likely to follow.  As for 'closing the deal', it's Hillary's team that's doing all they can to undo it, to change the rules, change the terms, and even to defy personally signed pledges made with Barack Obama to not campaign in Florida or Michigan.  Obama having trouble closing the deal has everything to do with the Clintons and little to do with his achievements in winning convention delegates to date, following the rules and honoring the pledges the party asked them to all make.

        As soon as it was clear Obama's campaign was going to blow Hillary's out of the water, she decided that Michigan and Florida's delegates should all be hers, instead of not counting towards determining the nominee, and her pledge was 'a mistake'.  If honoring the rules and signed pledges, and following party directives is a mistake, one can easily conclude that it would be a mistake to let such a person near high office.  

        by antirove on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:57:49 PM PDT

•  I think you're dreaming

  Rev. Wright has destroyed Obama's ability to get elected.

  by markcaldicott on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:50:28 PM PDT

  •  Oh please-McCain has Bush for

    Pete's sakes...

    by LauraC on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:55:19 PM PDT

  •  You Hillary people

    are just grasping at straws, aren't you?  I guess its fine that Hillary campaigner Gerry Ferraro says Barack Obama would be nowhere if he wasn't black or when Hillary's girl Gloria Steinham said that being held war prisoner doesn't make him Presidential material, right?

    by UpstateDem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:56:54 PM PDT

    •  Mark...

      ...is a particularly one-dimensional Clinton advocate.

      by Jonathan on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:08:51 PM PDT

  •  The Wright issue will be old news

    come Wednesday.

    by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:04:33 PM PDT

    •  I don't think so.

      Fox News and right wing radio are not letting the Wright thing go.  Obama's going to have to deal with it all the way through November.  His error in not denouncing Wright earlier and cutting ties to him might cost him dearly in the general election unless he has Hillary Clinton on the ticket.  Swing voters trust her as a hardworking, tough minded, competent problem solver.  

      by khyber900 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:14:25 PM PDT

      •  Hope is a good thing

        Obama is right. Nothing is possible without hope.

        To think, people here used to mock and deride it, and there you are, hoping even beyond hope.

        by BobzCat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:47:51 PM PDT

  •  I'm not even for Clinton and

    even I can think of ten better reasons than that why someone should back her. Work up a new one, please.

    by global citizen on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:05:23 PM PDT

  •  Ah, mark

    You're always good for a laugh.  These hit-and-run, unsupported one-liners add nothing but comedy.

    Thanks again.

    by Jonathan on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:05:27 PM PDT

  •  The GOP is pushing the Wright issue

    because those wingnut Xtians can't abide with a Christian that actually preaches like Jesus did.

    Clinton is just being Clinton -exploiting, attacking, and sending her surrogates to start the whisper campaigns.

    Wright may have an impact on wingnut Xtian fundies, but they weren't going to vote Dem anyways.

    by wild salmon on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:22:08 PM PDT

    •  EXACTLY

      There may be a few who'll be swayed by the GOP's Presentation of "ANGRY BLACK MAN WRIGHT", who aren't necessarily fundies but just slightly ignorant rural folk but most of the people who are buying into it ARE going to vote republican now matter what. See, these new conservative-religious right republicans aren't like the ones back in the 30s. They wouldn't vote democratic if it saved America from the brink.

      And the people for Obama. I hate to say it, I mean making us look like a cult and all but, once an Obamabot, always an Obamabot. Its not because we're deluded and misled. Its because Obama's the real deal, and thats why Obama is still leading.

      by DemocraticCitizenSoul on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:06:06 PM PDT

  •  Scab

    by clonecone on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:25:39 PM PDT

•  You paint an intriguing scenario

  but I think it wouldn't  be quite so cinematic and gracious.  I do agree that she should decide when to cease her campaign,  but I fear a fight to the convention will mean lawsuits, racial tension within our own party and just plain ugliness.

  by LauraC on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:54:15 PM PDT

•  Just a thought on why the race going to the

  Convention might not be a good thing. I was in Lincoln Park in '68. I could be in Denver in '08. It's not me you'd have to worry about, but think of the multitudes who might be in the streets promoting a "we wuz robbed" theme. Then understand why Pelosi et al. know that this must be settled before the Convention.

  by DaNang65 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:54:31 PM PDT

  •  So many differences btwn 1968 and 2008

    I think the better comparison is 1980, but in this case you don't have the divisive event of a challenger gunning for an incumbent President.

    by rustydude on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:42:21 PM PDT

    •  For a long time this campaign season

      I've refrained from the '68/'08 comparison, although it's closer than you might think - unpopular war, no-believer-in-the-war-but unwilling-to-denounce-it heir apparent; insurgent, youth powered anti war candidacy - exactly because I remember getting "my fair share of abuse." Only because I've seen quite public mention of it by, e.g., the ubiquitous Rev. Sharpton, do I even bring up the notion of the streets in Denver. To paraphrase Santyana, even if you don't remember that Convention, you won't likely forget this one.

      by DaNang65 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:58:58 PM PDT

•  depends

  You make lots of good points, I think it depends on how much more animosity develops between the Clinton and Obama factions.  a month and a half until Pa is plenty of time to patch up things--but conversely if thigs keep going down hill then the rift may be too big.

  by shoshaku jushaku on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:57:25 PM PDT

  •  I think Hillary is in it until the last primary

    That's what teacherken believes and I think Markos also believes this.  And neither thinks that it will be horrible to have it end so.

    But as you say... the tone and animosity will be important.  If it's simply a delegate gab and grab from June 7th until Denver, without a lot of direct negative campaigning, then I think the stage is set for a potentially peaceful resolution in Denver.

    by rustydude on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:40:53 PM PDT

•  If there is a Dem fight at the convention

  and it turns out UGLY than we Dems are going to lose PERIOD.

  I think we have to solve this by the convention in order to be united.

  The only way that I see us being united is if they are on the same ticket.

  It is really getting that ugly folks.

  by Drdemocrat on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:59:05 PM PDT

•  It Seems That Negative Campaigning...

  goes hand in hand with driving down the approval ratings of the participants. Any value of vetting the candidates now and making issues brought up less newsworthy in the autumn has to be balanced off against that. Maybe not to the Convention but until one candidate is within striking distance of a majority that only a discovered participation in a prostitution ring will delay the inevitable. I'm guessing that point will come before the Convention as more and more Super Delagates declare.

  by HL Mungo on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 06:59:33 PM PDT

  •  There is consensus among political scientists

    Negative campaigning depresses turnout for your opponent. If Barack Obama is our nominee, then guess what HRC's negative campaigning now does for us in November?

    by dawnt on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:08:06 PM PDT

•  Could be

  Makes for a short general election campaign.  A lot can happen in short order once people start focusing on McCain, and he won't have much time to recover.

  by Jonathan on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:04:43 PM PDT

•  it shouldn't go to the convention

  it should go to the end of the primary season. The convention should be used to bring people together and get on the same page for the general.

  by adamchaz on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:07:45 PM PDT

  •  Those unifying conventions...

    They're watched by about 10% of the public and really only about 1% watch anything much but the final speech.

    Seriously, this is one of the biggest myths in American Politics, i.e. "The Positive Glow of the Convention".

    I'd rather have higher ratings even if it involved some risk of some chaos.

    by rustydude on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:37:38 PM PDT

•  Also, according to Pelosi

  It's not going to happen.  She said that very unequivocally today.

  by open sky on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:08:37 PM PDT

  •  and Pelosi is a fool for saying so.

    If she gets her way, you can kiss Obama's chances goodbye in the general election.  Clinton voters are not going to get excited about an Obama + anyone else ticket.  They certainly will not have good feelings to the party if the leaders forcibly try to kick HRC out of this process.  

    by khyber900 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:16:05 PM PDT

•  It won't go to the convention

  It will end in early May probably after North Carolina and it will end graciously, at least in public. Trust your supers and your party leadership.

  by global citizen on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:14:09 PM PDT

  •  that's a good one

    "trust my party leadership" .... ha ha ha ha.  

    It would be nice if it ended in early May, and maybe it will, but maybe it won't. If Clinton and "the party leadership" would be willing to cut it off in early May, why won't they end it now? What changes by then?

    If Obama gets 325 supers to declare, that should end it. Will that happen by early May? Beats me.

    by mightymouse on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:32:33 PM PDT

•  It depends on the tone and tactics used

  in the meantime.

  What has been particularly distasteful to me, as an Indy voter, is Clinton's willingness to jump into the gutter and then attempt to drag Obama in after her.

  If that is what a long slog to the convention is going to be like, then I would say the continuation of this nomination race will be very detrimental to the prospects of the Dem Party to attract and keep indy voters, disillusioned GOP, and new voters through til the general.

  I am already suffering from Clinton Fatigue, big time, and I know I am not alone. Everyone I know is sick of her, Bill and all the poisoned partisan politics of the past that they seem to thrive on.

  My own mom told me yesterday that she had started out supporting HRC but after the past two months has been reminded of how much she disliked them back when Bill was prez.

  Obama is the only candidate with a prayer of winning the general. HRC will be dead in the water before October if she is allowed to lie, cheat and steal her way to the nomination.

  by wild salmon on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:19:24 PM PDT

•  no, it's not good. She's driving up his negatives

  by slinkerwink on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:29:54 PM PDT

  •  Negatives go up no matter what

    His negatives are low because not everyone knows him yet and he hasn't survived the sheer onslaught of negative campaigning from the opposition, i.e. Republicans.

    No matter when this race is wrapped up, Obama will go into November with negatives at 45%.

    by rustydude on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:34:22 PM PDT

•  No, not a good thing

  I expect Obama to end the primaries with most delegates and popular vote;  the  superdelegates who have not committed will then support him. Then we can spend the summer and fall pulverizing McCain.

  by chicago minx on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:31:38 PM PDT

•  interesting diary but you ignore "issues"

  You make some good arguments here and you make them well. I have not believed this is a good thing to go to the convention - or even until June - but I will consider it now.

  But what you ignore is discussion of the nature of the race from Now (or really from March 1) until the convention. Will it continue as it has which is more about bringing down the opponent by questioning their ability to lead (whether on transparency or CiC or whatever issue) or will it be substantive and focused on McCain.

  You do need to add that into the calculus. A fight where each side is trying to drive the negatives of the other up does damage whichever is the nominee (Well, it is Obama of course...).

  by MMW on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:35:17 PM PDT

•  Superdelegate Caucus

  Doris Kearns Goodwin mentioned on MSNBC the possibility that superdelegates might caucus after the primary season is over (ie. in late June or July).  Have no idea if this reflects the opinions of others, but it won't surprise me if this, indeed, happens.  The Dems would get a presumptive nominee and could use the convention to unite the party.

  The only danger would come if the presumptive nominee gained that status through a process which supporters of the other considered illegitimate.  If that occurs, the convention, pretty clearly, will become the venue where they make their protest (and, well, that could be it for the Dems this year).

  Far more likely, though, is that the party will prevail upon the also ran to accept the result and rally his or her followers.  As divisive as this primary process has been, neither Clinton nor Obama show any interest in splintering off.

  by ClaudiusTheGod on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:45:46 PM PDT

•  DOESN'T MATTER

  It doesn't matter if it's good or bad. Hillary is in through the convention and no one can stop her. The only way she stops is if Obama has 2,025 delegates, then it's over.

  by VClib on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:57:38 PM PDT

  •  She aint stopping him

    either until she gets 2,025.  

    by UpstateDem on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:59:47 PM PDT

    •  FOR SURE!

      by VClib on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:09:10 PM PDT

•  It is a good thing.

  Our party needs to field the best possible ticket for the fall campaign.  I believe that ticket is either Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton.  I think this has been the most remarkable primary since 1968 (but much better than that sad chapter in US history) and unlike 1968, the Democratic Party has to think big and avoid breaking apart.  The simple solution is for party elders to bring both camps together, recommend a joint ticket and suggest how that can be accomplished.  The first rule ought to be that no one should prejudge the result now, but wait until after the early June contests are complete.  Since neither candidate will have enough delegates to reach the 2000+ threshold, each candidate has a chance to win, even if Obama is currently the front runner and has a higher probability of winning at this juncture.

  What is needed in our party is maturity, intellectual honesty and respect to and from all sides, and this is especially true among the party leadership.  Nancy Pelosi has made this task harder over the past week with her ill-advised public comments that make her seem like she is in the Obama camp and in an anti-Clinton mode of thought.

  Her comments offended many of those who support Clinton, and should she get her way and force Clinton out of the equation, this party will repeat the mistake of 1968, and McCain will get into the White House with a narrow victory over a split party.

  by khyber900 on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:09:17 PM PDT

  •  A Clinton parallel with 1968

    where you are comparing Obama to Humphery?

    Maybe it is time to part ways with some of these "mature" and "intellectually honest" Democrats.

    What a bizarre long-winded pile of horse pucky.

    Clinton is a corporate quisling democrat plain and simple.

    Keep up the good work though. Remember talking points: "McBush", The Supremes, rearranging those deck chairs on the Titanic.

    Perhaps you will call our bluff in Denver.

    by Getwiththepogrom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:40:00 PM PDT