Daily Kos

Forget about Hillary quiting. It's SuperD time.

Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:25:40 PM PDT

There have been repeated calls for Hillary to quit. The math is irrefutable. She can only win by kneecapping Obama. Tanya Haring option. You know the drill.

However, as much as I understand the motivation behind this argument, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense strategically. For one thing, it's pretty much pissing in the ocean. If one accepts the proposition that Hillary will do anything to win, then in what sense is it likely that calling on her to quit for the good of the party will fall on ears that are listening? Of course she's not going to quit. She's not going to give up this nomination fight if there is a 1% chance of her winning.

And rhetorically speaking, the Clinton camp is quite certain that they are tied and that the race is wide open. I've seen that narrative emphasized repeatedly by numerous Clinton surrogates. It seems to me though, that even if you ACCEPT the argument, that "the race is tied," then it makes it even more logical that the Supers should vote now.

Right now.

Below the fold my brief analysis of the relevant propositions and how they fit into the argument I think we should all be making.

Let’s accept the following propositions:

  1. The race for the Democratic nomination in it's current form is highly polarizing and is doing damage to the Democratic Party as well as both candidates (and their chances in November).
  1. The race is essentially tied at this point. (I know that people will find this ludicrous but for the moment let's accept the proposition).
  1. Based on current polling data, and estimated delegate counts resulting from that data, there is no reason to think that the current "tie" will be changed by the upcoming contests.

So if one accepts the above propositions, then the question presents itself: what possible reason can there be for superdelegates not to decide now?

Every day that goes on like this McCain gets a pass. Every day that goes on like this both of our nominees bloody each other. Where is the reward for all this risk? What possible benefit is there in allowing this to continue? There is no danger in accepting the "tie" meme, because if the tie meme is embraced, one actually accentuates how unnecessary it is to complete the upcoming contests.

If the current contest is a tie, and will still be a tie in 3 months then superdelegates will be breaking the tie no matter what.

But wait! It's not a tie; Obama is ahead by every measure! Except that this fact doesn't need to be emphasized because it's so bloody obvious. Super delegates are deeply involved in the political process. They know damn well who is ahead at the moment.

From a tactical standpoint the goal of Clinton supporters is to drag this out so that Clinton can claw out some kind of victory (popular vote) to lever the Supers with (and on the way make it so Obama can no longer stand let alone walk). At that point Camp Clinton will surely stop talking about a tie and point to their (they hope) .00001 percent advantage in the popular vote and count that as a "awesome mandate from the people."

But whatever kind of victory they imagine it will be pyrrhic at best, given that both candidates are kneecapping each other (and/or themselves) and the supers will still need to decide anyway. Since the Clinton camp has been pounding the "supers should exercise independent judgment" rule like a drum, why not embrace it?

The race is a "tie" and will remain a "tie."

The supers should recognize that they will have to break this "tie," either now, or in the future.

The supers should exercise their best judgment and evaluate all the relevant facts at hand (and we know what those facts are).

Having reviewed these relevant facts they should make their judgments and decide now for the good of the party.

There is no reason to delay. Get your favorite super to decide today.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Superdelegates, 2008 (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 11 comments

  •  I don't agree with these arguments (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    shunpike

    That it's tearing apart the party, or it's helping McCain. Both seem irrelevant to me. All she's doing is discrediting herself.

    Also, I think she's acting like this out bitterness. Because she didn't plan on not being handed the throne. It was the plan, and Obama tripped her up. So now she's mad.

    In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

    by yet another liberal on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:36:23 PM PDT

  •  Clintonites Have $150 Million+Reasons NOT To Quit (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    yet another liberal, Dougie

    The DC Corporate Democrats have a HUGE investment in Hillary, and they expect a return for that money, IN SPADES...

    You didn't think they were just going to give up those DC mansions and just walk away, did you?

    •  Bingo! (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      LordMike, Dougie

      When I watched the 3AM ad, I thought, My God, she's just an employee of some ElectHillaryCorp run amok.

      In God we trust. All others must pay cash.

      by yet another liberal on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:47:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That Ad Crossed An Unwritten Line (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Dougie

        That has held since the uproar over Johnson's "Daisy" ad in the 60's...

        Now, Repubs can use that type of ad against us with IMPUNITY this fall, and we cannot whine about it...

        AND IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE...

        •  Wow, if that's the history... (0+ / 0-)

          ...then bring on more ads like it.  The "Daisy" ad was completely appropriate, since Goldwater was as close to psychopathic as anyone who's had a major party nomination in this country.  We've lost something in our political discourse if one candidate can't be explicit about what's wrong with the other.

          -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

          by Rich in PA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:58:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Pestering Supers is a waste of time (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA

    First, they are cut out of the Pelosi/Reid/Kerry etc. et al. cloth, such that they do spineless things like authorize the Iraq war and continue to fund it.  They are not going to take a hard-line stand on our intra-party squabble.

    Second, who cares how superdelegates say they will vote?  There is no "early voting" pre DNC-Convention.  Any Clinton super can change his/her mind, same with Obama.  Do you really need to have the MSM tell you that fact 100 times before it sinks in.

    What needs to happen in our (allegedly) democratic Democratic primaries?  Heh heh - democracy.  Voters need to stop [1] sending Clinton money, and [2] voting for her.  If those things happen by the time the Pennsylvania primary rolls around, the primary season will end quick.  But if not - if Clinton wins PA because, in part, she had enough money to compete with Obama - then the voters have had their say.  The supers ain't gonna fight that.

    •  There is indeed early voting. (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Samwoman, Renie, shunpike, Dougie

      It's called "endorsements." Richardson just cast his vote for Obama. Murtha for Clinton. Yes they can change but very very few of them will do so unless they all decide to do so altogether after the nominee is decided in a back room or something.

      In any case I don't think there will be many more endorsments pre PA voting. I'm just saying it makes more sense to call for supers to endorse than it does for Hillary to quit. The former is simply more likely.

      •  I think that what needs to happen is bigger than (0+ / 0-)

        that.  A big chunk of superdelegates are electeds or former electeds.  They CARE what people think of them and they care about polls.  This needs to be thought of just like any other political issue that we care about.  If the polls show that people are sick of the election and want the party leadership to endorse the candidate with the most pledged delegates and the popular vote, they will have the cushion to go ahead and do it.  If we know one thing about the Democratic leadership, it is that they are spineless.  They need to feel like the choice they are making is the one that everyone wants them to make.  When you consider the fact that Carville is running around calling people "Judas" and the moneybags of the party are threatening Pelosi for daring to say that the superdelegates should respect the will of the voters, their trepidation in this case is actually understandable.

        What I think we need to do is to get the media to start talking about how normal Democrats are upset about the election and want the party leadership to endorse the candidate that is winning (Obama).  This is where petitions, phone calls, and letter writing might be able to make a difference.  It needs to come from a group that is independent of the Obama campaign, and the message needs to be that the election is hurting the party and we're pissed that it is dragging on even though there is a clear winner.

    •  I'm glad someone around here is sane! (0+ / 0-)

      If you want Obama to win, then work for Clinton to lose!  (I'm in the opposite camp, but it's the same deal.)  But stop asking her to do something she's obviously not going to do (and would be foolish to do), and stop asking superdelegates to do something that didn't make them supers in the first place, which is giving away their power before they get maximum leverage out of it.

      -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

      by Rich in PA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:57:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The ones to pressure (0+ / 0-)

    are the superdelegates from states with an Obama majority. They can announce their decisions as representing both their own judgement and the will of the people.

    It is the democratic and Democratic thing to do.

    "C'mon -- if THAT were true, you wouldn't be getting the news from some crazy email forwarded by your brother-in-law!"

    by technopolitical on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:05:43 AM PDT

Permalink | 11 comments