Pressure Isn't Disapprobation

[mishalak]

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?

Comments

[eiricmacbean.livejournal.com]

Good points, all.
My memory of previous elections starts in '72, and I clearly remember '76 and '80. I couldn't vote myself till '84, but did follow the news before then.
Looking back at elections over the past century or so, it seems to me that despite the campaigning starting much earlier than it used to (2-3 years? wtf?), we are taking much longer to narrow down the choices and have front-runners emerge for each party. It's every politician for themselves, and the parties have become nothing but corporations trying to find the product that's most likely to sell well. The heck with issues or platforms that require or enable voters to think, it's all marketing.
It's not wrong to suggest that a candidate bow out for the good of a party, it's just smart tactics. If the roles were reversed, you can bet the pressure would be going the other way. I'm just disappointed that there wasn't more of a challenge to McCain as well. I honestly don't like any of the candidates completely.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

If the conservatives had been able to decide on just one, rather than two darlings, and the season was not so front loaded it probably would still be going for the Republicans. It may be that this will still hurt McCain later because the religious nuts still don't like him.

[ajournalguy.livejournal.com]

I don’t think the situation would be different in reverse. But we’d be right. :-p

Seriously though, the reason we object to her being asked to drop out because we believe the benefits of that slim chance of her winning outweigh the damage to the party from the continuing contest.

As I told an Obama campaign volunteer the other day, I believe he is a good man and will make a wonderful President - in another four years or more.

We need Clinton’s experience now. We need a woman president. We need someone who can make deals with her opponents. We need someone thick-skinned and willing to let it all hang out in the public eye. We need someone willing to be hated to get done what needs to be done.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I think Clinton is a fine person and she does an effective job as a Senator. I think she would would do a good job as one of the placeholder presidents like Ike or the her husband. But we don't need a steady hand who's going to keep the good times rolling without doing anything to upset the applecart. We do not have good times anymore. We need able leadership such as demonstrated by Obama's superior campaign organization, someone who's able to work with Republicans without giving away the farm to them (when/if necessary), and someone who will appeal to Republican and non-affiliated voters so that we have a better chance of winning the presidency and winning a working margin in congress.

I do not want to disparage your point of view, but Clinton's experience is a phantom, a mirage, it does not exist. This is not a bad thing in a president (some of our worst have been the most experienced and able, see also Hoover, Buchanan, and Nixon). But she simply does not have any experience. For that matter neither does McCain who's never been in charge of anything larger than a Senate office. If you want to point to a qualification for the presidency why not point at the fine bills that she's worked to get passed despite having faced a hostile president for the whole time she's been in office?

I think Sen. Clinton would have made a fine president in 1992 when all was right in the world and nothing needed fixing other than an economy that largely righted itself (as it usually does). But she simply does not have the ability or vision to actually fix what is wrong with this nation.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

And more to the point, it is not just a slim chance. I as a gay atheist former Republican would have a better chance of getting elected to office than Sen. Clinton has of taking the nomination. It is not just slim, her chances are negligible. At this point I'd bet my favorite book on it. She needs a 16% spread even if Michigan and Florida get seated. To put that in perspective, the biggest presidential win in US history was 21%, Johnson vs. Goldwater. When there is a real credible opposition almost no one can do better than 10% under the best of circumstances. Reagan's "landslide" in 1980 was a 9.7% spread. The "crushing" of Dukakis in '88 was by 7.8%. Clinton's victory in 1996 was by 8.5% spread.

In the primary contests so far only one candidate has managed spreads like that. I'm saying that even with his campaign skills if Obama was facing having to get an average of 16% swing towards him in a couple of remaining states his campaign would be as dead as a dodo and I'd be the first to say it. For the good of the party I'd stick a fork in my own candidate because I want to win. Heck, if Clinton can manage a 16% spread in Pennsylvania I'd stick a fork in Obama because we need someone to drop out and that would be a decent comeback. But it won't happen. It is out of reach and it is about one week from needing to admit it.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

There's an old (and possibly accurate) adage that "A Government does not survive long without a healthy opposition", and I suspect this applies within a Party as well. (The (radical) NeoCons have not had a strong & healthy opposition from conservative Republicans (or Democrats *sigh*) for something like twelve years, and I think the results are showing. I think it was someone named Aberthnot who said something like "All political parties die, eventually, from swallowing their own lies".)

It seems to me that continuing opposition between the Democratic candidates could be a fine thing -- _if_ they'd concentrate almost entirely on their different approaches in matters of Policy & Implementation, and reserve their actual Attacks for McCain and established Republican Policy as it has been manifested (i.e., often the precise opposite of the Official Republican Platform & Selling Points).

If pressed, I'd have to say that it seems to me that Clinton has been a bit less good about this than Obama. She's demonstrating that she's strong, aggressive, and determined (all qualities we need in a President now) but I think maybe she's lost track of the idea that it's not smart of alienate anyone unnecessarily, and that the Really Crucial thing is not that she be nominated, but that The Democrats Win Big in November.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Healthy opposition is great in theory, but the years when a party has had the 'healthiest' opposition are also the years that they've lost. And often lost big. I'm part of the group that's making these public calls because I think we are getting close to the point when someone need to bow out. Even if it is Obama. There is no objective numbers reason I can point to that he should get out and I do support him, but someone needs to get out and soon. Because the Democrats are not going to win if we stay divided. We need some months to lick our wounds in private so that we can come out and make the big smiles for the person we did not want to see win and cheer him or her on.

Loyal opposition works best to strength rather than weaken when the victor will concede a bit to salve the egos of all those who have not gotten what they wanted. A bit of policy or even tokenism, which should not be hard for either of them since they are so close in political views. And second that the side that lost actually does close ranks when it comes to the end.