That headline from the New York Times caught my attention, but it turns out that Hillary Clinton will not be going after Barack Obama with the 5-point palm exploding heart technique.
So I think she remains in trouble. However, being in trouble is not the same as being out of the race.
At RCP, Jay Cost observes:
If she loses either Texas or Ohio next week – the race will end. Nevertheless, let’s assume that she wins both, though not by the large margins (Jonathan) Alter says she needs. What happens next?
Neither Clinton nor Obama can expect to win the nomination by virtue of the pledged delegates alone. Obama would have to win more than 75% of the remaining delegates. Clinton needs more than are available. Thus, the nominee will have to fill the gap via the super delegates.
Cost then examines the various calculations superdelegates may make, so RTWT. Yet the key statistic Cost gives is the high percentage of delegates Obama must win to win on “pledged” delegates alone. That type of victory is exceedingly unlikely, which is why Cost’s analysis shifts to a discussion of popular vote totals and Clinton’s argument about primary wins being more representative than caucus wins:
Obama has won most of the caucus states overwhelmingly. Clinton could assert that the caucus favors Obama by unfairly excluding voters who happen to favor her – namely, “downscale” Democrats who cannot take off work to attend and elderly voters who are unable to. Clinton will have some evidence to buttress this claim. The Washington state caucus allocated 68% of the state’s delegates to Obama on February 9th. Ten days later, on February 19th, the state held a non-binding primary in which Obama won 51% of the vote. Texas might yield a similar result. If Obama beats Clinton in the caucus, and she beats him in the primary – Clinton can argue that the caucus system unfairly skews toward him.
Chris Bowers also notes that in the Clinton campaign seems to be laying the groundwork to declare victory in Texas solely on the basis of the primary vote, not the caucus or delegate count.
Bowers also notes that, given the current polling trends, the Texas primary, the caucus, and the delegates all seem to favor Obama at the moment (hence Hillary’s multi-pronged attack). He nevertheless concludes:
Will Ohio and Rhode Island be enough for Clinton to keep going? There actually is no precedent for a candidate with over 1,000 delegates dropping out before the convention, so I would not be so sure. As long as she leads in Pennsylvania polls and any delegate count, if I was on her campaign staff I would advise her to keep going. However, financial realities and a desire to maintain a strong, post-election position within the Democratic Party might dictate otherwise.
That assumes the Clintons care about their position in the Democratic Party if they are not running it. He may be right, but he may be crazy. Or maybe they are.
Karl – Do Silky, Biden, KuKucachoo, and the rest have to wait until the convention to release their delegates?
Comment spam below – Tea bagging Muslims.
This nonsense about which delegates matter and which really matter ignores the reality that Obama will be seen as the most likely to win, no matter how much Clinton may argue otherwise. Plus, Obama has a slight, by which I mean “insanely huge”, edge in the money category over HRC. The superdelegates will not rally to the Clinton camp unless they are really, really stupid.
I’m betting their greed will overpower that.
I do not understand the Clinton campaign. she gets accused of attacking Obama for pointing out facts, which is beautiful when their playbook gets turned on them. So, if she is going to be accused of attacking, and perceived as attacking, why does she continue this kid glove treatment? Why not take the gloves off and really go after the sparkly shiny empty suit?
Why not take the gloves off and really go after the sparkly shiny empty suit?
———————————————————————————-
It’s probably a glass house thing; plus, she knows the playbook of our times in that she would be accused of racism if she hits too hard because she goes by that same playbook and plays the “attacking-the-strong-woman” when faced with tough questions and being hit hard.
…having written most of it.
But she is already being accused of that. Why not earn it?
Karl, I am tingly with excitement by your combining of primary politics and the obscure “Kill Bill” reference.
JD, Clinton is in a bind. Any massive attack at this point is unlikely to sway enough voters for her to win and runs two big risks: 1) She alienates even more Democrats and gets buried in her own identity politics. 2) She makes headway, still doesn’t get the nomination and her attacks become the John McCain playbook for the general.
I’ve got to believe that there are some savvy political strategizers (not named Dean) who are terrified of a spitting contest breaking out with all of the potential negatives for the general election.
Does anyone see her pulling a Samson option? Is she actually patient enought to wait for another shot in four years or eight?
And I keep saying, if she can’t win, she won’t let anybody win.
Well, McGehee, if that’s the case then you’ve answered Mikey’s question. If she goes scorched earth and still doesn’t get the nomination her chances in four or eight years are diminished by long memories.
Here’s a little tidbit to ponder, strictly hypothetical: Livia Rodham loses the nomination, and is chosen by McCain (the Dim boot-kisser) as his running mate.
Paul:
(sticks fingers in ears): LALALALALALALALA!!!!
Will Hillary actually raise the REAL issue of concern about Obama? His close ties to Mation of Islam?
(sticks fingers in ears): LALALALALALALALA!!!!
—————————
Hey, I said it was hypothetical. ;-)
Well. Paul, there’s hypothetical and then there’s hysterical, ‘now whut ah mean?
[…] need not worry — they probably figured that out already. Posted by Karl @ 6:34 pm | Trackback Share […]