![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Pressure Isn't Disapprobation
Disapprobation is a 50-cent word meaning strong disapproval and condemnation. And that's not what I think most Obama supporters are doing in putting out the line that Clinton should get out of the race for party unity. This is no different than any other campaign narrative or hypothesis. It is one part genuine view of what would be best for the Democratic party going forward, to end the race sooner so that McCain can be the target of the million plus little donations flowing to our candidate.
The second part is pure political strategy, unsurprisingly since this is politics. If it actually succeeds and Clinton gracefully leaves the campaign it is obviously good for our candidate. If she does not leave, but people agree with our argument (party unity, clearly ahead, stronger against McCain, etc) then it may help to win the remaining contests. People love jumping on a band wagon with the winner.
Now I'm going to address some specific complaints from Clinton supporters (I won't stoop to the level of calling them entitled whiners as about half of them usually do whenever this subject comes up). First off this is unlikely to be the first time pressure has been brought to bear on a candidate to drop out. Do you really think that there were not editorials asking what the heck was Edward Kennedy doing to our party's leader in 1980? Or by Republicans against the sainted R. Reagan in 1976? Even though I was a wee tyke of 11 I am pretty sure I remember complaints about even Jesse Jackson staying in the race in 1988 as well, and his bitter line about the process being "distorted by rules that favor insider politics" at the convention certainly was not helpful to party unity.
The Clinton delegate count and popular vote count certainly are close to Obama's, but only when Florida and Michigan are thrown into the mix. Without them, indeed without Michigan where Obama did not appear on the ballot, she will need wins that would otherwise be called blowouts in the remaining states. Currently she is 168 delegates down according to the NYT count, 136 down if you go by the associated press' numbers including super delegates. In the remaining states there are 566 delegates. Given that all the Democratic contests are proportional she would have to take an average of at least 62.2% (a spread of 24.4%) in order to just catch up to Barack Obama by the easy numbers. If the notion is to catch up in pledged delegates she'd have to win 64.85% of the remaining votes. Given that her best showing was in Arkansas (69.7%) and all the rest of her wins have been by less than 58% it seems exceedingly unlikely that she can win. Especially since the polls (which are not destiny, but are a tool) predict more or less a wash over the next couple months. He'll win some, she'll win some, but not by huge numbers.
Adding back in Florida brings the count to Clinton 1355.5 (+105) and Obama 1485.5 (+67) as well as adding 13 to the small count for John Edwards. The would make the pledged delegate gap 130, almost the same as the count with super delegates. With them added in it would be 98 so she would still need to capture 58.7% (a 17.4% spread) of the remaining vote. Just barely inside the realm of theoretical possibility if the polls of the remaining states are all very wrong.
In the 'popular vote' done by adding up all the primary and caucus votes Real Clear Politics has the count at 827,308 ahead without Florida and 532,536 ahead with Florida (that's only 3.0% and 1.8% respectively just to be fair). It is only when add in Michigan that it comes down to under 100k lead for Obama and even then only if the numbers are massaged a bit by excluding some states that had estimates. Otherwise its still 204,227 and 0.6% ahead for Obama. Not a blowout, but it certainly is not insignificant in a primary. Gore won the popular vote by a smaller percentage in 2000.
So we have another couple months of campaigning and ahead of us to complete the process and then the 'super delegates' will cast their votes to decide the winner since no one will have 50%+1. Is there any way that Clinton can win the contest? Not unless Obama makes a serious gaff, indeed it would have to be a pretty big skeleton in the closet. A child out of wedlock or something big. The super delegates won't take it away from whoever wins the 'popular vote' and the pledged delegates absent something like that and Clinton can't win either of those two counts.
So why is it wrong to suggest she should get out for the good of the party if the only thing staying in does is waste Democratic campaign money?
Do you really think that if the roles were reversed Sen. Clinton's supporters would not try to put public pressure on Sen. Obama to drop out?
The second part is pure political strategy, unsurprisingly since this is politics. If it actually succeeds and Clinton gracefully leaves the campaign it is obviously good for our candidate. If she does not leave, but people agree with our argument (party unity, clearly ahead, stronger against McCain, etc) then it may help to win the remaining contests. People love jumping on a band wagon with the winner.
Now I'm going to address some specific complaints from Clinton supporters (I won't stoop to the level of calling them entitled whiners as about half of them usually do whenever this subject comes up). First off this is unlikely to be the first time pressure has been brought to bear on a candidate to drop out. Do you really think that there were not editorials asking what the heck was Edward Kennedy doing to our party's leader in 1980? Or by Republicans against the sainted R. Reagan in 1976? Even though I was a wee tyke of 11 I am pretty sure I remember complaints about even Jesse Jackson staying in the race in 1988 as well, and his bitter line about the process being "distorted by rules that favor insider politics" at the convention certainly was not helpful to party unity.
The Clinton delegate count and popular vote count certainly are close to Obama's, but only when Florida and Michigan are thrown into the mix. Without them, indeed without Michigan where Obama did not appear on the ballot, she will need wins that would otherwise be called blowouts in the remaining states. Currently she is 168 delegates down according to the NYT count, 136 down if you go by the associated press' numbers including super delegates. In the remaining states there are 566 delegates. Given that all the Democratic contests are proportional she would have to take an average of at least 62.2% (a spread of 24.4%) in order to just catch up to Barack Obama by the easy numbers. If the notion is to catch up in pledged delegates she'd have to win 64.85% of the remaining votes. Given that her best showing was in Arkansas (69.7%) and all the rest of her wins have been by less than 58% it seems exceedingly unlikely that she can win. Especially since the polls (which are not destiny, but are a tool) predict more or less a wash over the next couple months. He'll win some, she'll win some, but not by huge numbers.
Adding back in Florida brings the count to Clinton 1355.5 (+105) and Obama 1485.5 (+67) as well as adding 13 to the small count for John Edwards. The would make the pledged delegate gap 130, almost the same as the count with super delegates. With them added in it would be 98 so she would still need to capture 58.7% (a 17.4% spread) of the remaining vote. Just barely inside the realm of theoretical possibility if the polls of the remaining states are all very wrong.
In the 'popular vote' done by adding up all the primary and caucus votes Real Clear Politics has the count at 827,308 ahead without Florida and 532,536 ahead with Florida (that's only 3.0% and 1.8% respectively just to be fair). It is only when add in Michigan that it comes down to under 100k lead for Obama and even then only if the numbers are massaged a bit by excluding some states that had estimates. Otherwise its still 204,227 and 0.6% ahead for Obama. Not a blowout, but it certainly is not insignificant in a primary. Gore won the popular vote by a smaller percentage in 2000.
So we have another couple months of campaigning and ahead of us to complete the process and then the 'super delegates' will cast their votes to decide the winner since no one will have 50%+1. Is there any way that Clinton can win the contest? Not unless Obama makes a serious gaff, indeed it would have to be a pretty big skeleton in the closet. A child out of wedlock or something big. The super delegates won't take it away from whoever wins the 'popular vote' and the pledged delegates absent something like that and Clinton can't win either of those two counts.
So why is it wrong to suggest she should get out for the good of the party if the only thing staying in does is waste Democratic campaign money?
Do you really think that if the roles were reversed Sen. Clinton's supporters would not try to put public pressure on Sen. Obama to drop out?