Clinton Keeps Fighting over Rules, Metrics, and Whatever
John McCain is not officially the nominee of the Republican party, he is only the “presumptive” nominee now. The party nominee is not the official nominee until a majority of delegates at the party convention officially vote for the candidate.
Soon Barack Obama will be the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton must decide how long she will keep her party in limbo.
Hillary Clinton continues to fight for every last delegate. She will certainly end up with the best second place showing in modern party nomination history. But as Mitt Romney knows, politics does not award “silver medals”.
The Democratic Party Rules allow for delegates to change their minds. The only time their choice matters officially is when they cast their votes at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, August 25-28. One scenario is that Hillary Clinton will continue fighting for the nomination until the Democrats officially choose their candidate.
Clinton metrics:
By now, everyone knows that the only metric that counts is delegate votes. Sports fans usually like statistics. In determining the winner of a game, the only stat that really matters is points (or “runs” in baseball). In football, total yardage, time of possession, sacks, turnovers are all interesting measures. They are helpful in understanding how teams score points, but at the end of the game, the team with the most points wins regardless of all the other statistics combined.
The Clinton campaign has an interesting set of metrics to make the case that Hillary should be the nominee:
- “She won the big states”. This is not exactly true because Obama won Illinois by a large margin, Texas was a bit of a split decision, Florida and Michigan don’t count because of rules violations - more on that below.
- “She won the states that the Democrats need in November”. This is somewhat of an overlap of the “big states” argument. Also, Obama won Missouri, Wisconsin, and Iowa, which are typically essential for Democratic victory. Obama also won Virginia, North Carolina, and other Southern and Western states that could be “in play” for the Democrats this year, especially if Obama is the nominee.
- “If the rules for awarding delegates were winner-take-all for each state, Clinton would have clinched the nomination”. Basically, that is just a silly argument. I do agree that the Democratic Party needs to change the rules significantly, but new rules cannot take effect until next time, 2012, and I’m not sure winner-take-all is a positive rule change.
- “She won many more delegates from primaries, Obama ran up his delegate count via caucuses, which are not as significant”. Again, this is similar to the last one, although I agree more with the suggestion to replace most if not all caucuses with primaries in 2012.
- “She won the popular vote”. This is factually true only if you count Michigan and Florida using “Clinton math”. Also, caucus victories by Obama inherently diminish the popular vote for Obama because many more people vote in primaries than caucuses, and some caucuses do not officially report the popular vote. It is another reasonable suggestion for a 2012 rule change. “One person, one vote” sounds good to me, except not in 2008 when the rules (however misguided) state otherwise.
- “She wins more white working class voters”. This one completely contradicts the more attractive “one person, one vote” argument. Everyone in the Democratic Party coalition is important. The demographic “identity politics” mentality has some merit, but only in the context of ultimately trying to unite people.
The point of “Clinton metrics” is to persuade delegates that she is really the strongest candidate. Regardless of one’s opinion of the candidates, objectively speaking, the Obama campaign did an excellent job of organizing within the existing rules. If football teams won games by “most yardage” instead of points, they would play the game differently, using different strategies and tactics.
Florida and Michigan (again):
If Florida and Michigan counted, the Obama campaign would have had Obama on the ballot in Michigan. Obama probably would have visited those states, and would have had massive rallies, and organized volunteers to work before and during election day. Since Michigan and Florida didn’t count, the Obama campaign focused on other states.
On May 31st, Democratic Party leaders and representatives from the Clinton and Obama campaigns will meet in Washington, D.C. to try to reach an agreement to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan. I have been very critical of the Democratic Party for allowing this problem to persist, and I’m glad they are making a new effort to resolve this.
Analysts predict that the resolution will be to seat half of the delegates, following the Republican Party’s successful example of handling essentially the same problem. Delegates may be apportioned slightly in Hillary Clinton’s favor, but not disproportionately enough for her to surpass Obama’s delegate count. Election geeks will need to re-calibrate their scorecards. The “magic number” of 2,025 (or 2,026) will increase to something like 2,118 or 2,138, depending on the specific agreement made.
A major problem with all of Hillary Clinton’s arguments about rules and metrics is that she did nothing to change these BEFORE she was losing to Obama. In fact, some Clinton political allies helped write these rules.
Why is Hillary Clinton still in the race and what will she do?
First of all, she has every right to continue. Obama has not clinched the nomination, and even if he did, candidates have a right to continue “until the last vote is counted”. For the last several weeks, her campaign has changed its tone to be much more positive, instead of the earlier, and often unfair, attacks on Obama. It was better for Obama and the Democratic Party that Obama lost overwhelmingly in Kentucky and West Virginia against a candidate rather than a former candidate.
Hillary Clinton is all about tenacity, resilience, endurance. She has blazed a new path for women and made history in 2008.
The Clinton campaign may still be hoping for an Obama meltdown before the convention in late August. Having close to enough delegates already, Clinton needs only relatively few to change their minds, and then she would be the nominee.
Delegates equals power. Hillary Clinton is fighting for every possible delegate and will go to the convention with significant power. Obama will have more delegates, more power. The nomination is winner-take-all. There is no official consolation prize, no silver medal. How Clinton can use her power is not clearly defined. She could use this to pressure Obama to select her to be his running mate, or at least be in the cabinet, or perhaps a Supreme Court appointment.
Hillary Clinton can play a major role in either uniting or dividing the Democratic Party. Some speculate that she will divide it with the hope that Obama loses to John McCain, thus setting the stage for her to try again in 2012.
After the last primaries on June 3rd, Hillary Clinton may give enthusiastic support to Obama, even if she is not his running mate. The Clintons are hard-core Democrats after all. Bill and Hillary Clinton could help Obama significantly in winning over voters that have been difficult for Obama to get during the nomination contests.
Hillary Clinton may give lukewarm support to Barrack Obama, reminiscent of Ted Kennedy’s very weak endorsement of Jimmy Carter in 1980. That year’s nomination contest between Kennedy and Carter is the closest historical analogy we have. 1980 was disastrous for the Democratic Party, although I think the Iran hostage crisis and economic stagflation were much more determinative than Kennedy’s weak handshake with Carter.
I have advocated the “dream ticket” of Obama/Clinton as the strongest ticket for the Democratic Party in 2008. This is not popular among “Obamaniacs”, and even some “Clintonistas”. I’m not sure it is the best choice necessarily. I have heard good arguments against Clinton as the running mate. However, Obama cannot defeat McCain without overwhelming support among Clinton voters. I see the Obama/Clinton ticket as the surest path to party unity and synergy, and I’ve believed that since before the Iowa caucus.
I worry that some from both encampments (hard-core “Obamaniacs” and “Clintonistas”) are too caught up in a cult of personality. The policy differences between Obama and Clinton are minimal unless you’re drinking too much kool-aide. Even these small differences probably won’t matter if Obama (or somehow Clinton) is elected, because the practical politics of “getting things done” dilutes ideological purity.
Hillary Clinton is still very relevant whether you like it or not.
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
Comment by David, NY
Posted on May 23, 2008 at 10:28 am
“Some speculate that she will divide it with the hope that Obama loses to John McCain, thus setting the stage for her to try again in 2012″
An Obama victory in November, whatever her supporters think, is the best thing that could happen for her and her carrier.
If Obama looses this election because of her stupidities, selfish and shameful personal ambitions, be sure that she won’t be able to run again in 2012, don’t ever consider this possibility because we’ll do everything to make sure she looses even before she starts thinking about that idea.
We’ll see !!
Comment by Annette
Posted on May 23, 2008 at 12:38 pm
No, No, No! HRC on the ticket with BO is a nightmare. She has thrown everything at him, lied, and now trying to cheat her way to the White House. I have lost all respect for Hillary. She is just not trustworthy. There are some many BO supporters that would be heartbroken if she is selected as his VP. There are other options for VP that will get him those same voters besides a lot of people will vote for BO in Novemeber. He doesn’t need all of the drama that Hillary and Bill will bring into the White House.