From the April 26 edition of National Journal, here's Charlie Cook -- one of the most respected political analysts in the country -- on how Hillary Clinton has been "winning a lot of battles" yet "even in victory, she isn't getting any closer to securing the nomination." Specifically, Cook explains that Democrats determine their nominee by pledged delegates, not by popular vote (although Obama leads that too, unless you count Michigan, where only Clinton's name was on the ballot as the state had been sanctioned by the DNC).
At the end of the day, the popular vote for the Democratic nomination means nothing. I doubt that having won the popular vote in the 2000 general election is of much solace to Al Gore. Many a football team gains more yards than its opponent in a game yet loses on that important technicality called points.The Clinton folks shouldn't be faulted for the arguments they are making: In the big states that will determine the final outcome in November, she has done better than Obama, and she holds on to downscale white voters better than her opponent does. Beyond the fact that both assertions are true, I'd make the same arguments if I were in Clinton's shoes, as would most of Obama's strategists if they were working for Clinton.
But you can't change how the game is played once it has begun. The Democrats have decided that the nominee will be determined by the number of delegates won, not by the popular vote, and that primaries held in direct violation of party rules (in this case, Florida's and Michigan's) don't count. End of discussion.
If only it really were the "end of discussion," and if only we could end this nomination fight already. As David Broder writes today, this whole situation is "The Democrats' Worst Nightmare." And as the New York Times (which endorsed Hillary Clinton) said yesterday, "It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."
On the other hand, Clinton is helping to keep new voter registrations up, and helping to get Obama more and more name recognition if this goes right up to the last states to hold primaries on June 3rd. If she bows out on June 4-6th, she has probably been helping get a Democrat elected all along, well - except for the negative campaigning...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
43. If Obama gets 43 more super delegates, then even if Clinton runs the board on the rest of them, she comes up short. We're hearing this news today that Obama has 20 more super delegates already pledged to him that will be trickled out in 1s and 2s over the next 10-15 days in order to create a steady drumbeat of good news. That would mean that he only needs to scrap up another 23 to absolutely shut her out.
So here's the question: since, as Charlie Cook describes, this popular vote thing is nonsense, is there any reason to continue to engage with Clinton once Obama has those 43 additional super delegates? I mean, what would be the downside of declaring victory at that point and just moving into the general election campaign? In whatever states were remaining on the map, the campaign could still open offices and organize there, but have the thrust of the work be ostensibly against McCain. Stop running ads that even acknowledge Clinton's existence. Stop responding to anything she says.
Is there a major downside to this?
McCain is at his ceiling. I'd be surprised if he finishes with more than 45% of the national vote, and I think it'll end up being around 43 or 42%. If it's lower than that, we're looking at a Democratic trifecta, a wave election not seen since FDR.
Barack made tremendous strides amongst white Democratic voters in Pennsylvania -- look especially at the Philadelphia suburbs. There are parts of Pennsylvania that he still has a problem in, and there's no guarantee that he can pick up all of Hillary's support. But the difference in registered Dems versus registered Repubs in PA is huge because of this primary, and that means he'll most likely carry PA in the fall.
Like it or not the Clintons still own a large part of the party. Frankly, I'm not optimistic that they won't pull something goofy to mess things up. In fact, they already have done quite a bit to create problems for the Dems.
The Clinton machine was built largely on fear. People got behind Hillary Clinton early on because they thought she was inevitable. It was just dangerous to cross Bill and Hillary Clinton and you didn't want to be on their naughty list once they had the White House again. Ok, but once Hillary Clinton is out, that's over. 'Ding-dong the witch is dead.' She'll lose her hold over a lot of people.
The problem would be if they were actively working against Obama. That would be a definite danger. But we don't need their active support.