3.28.2008

Dems battle over impact of lengthy primary

With 6 weeks separating the Mississippi and Pennsylvania primary, it was obvious that Clinton would have as tough a time surviving than she did continuing beyond March 4th. And indeed the Obama campaign has been very successful at upping the pressure for Clinton to withdraw for the good of the party. After Chris Dodd's suggesting that the lengthy primary was "devastating" for the party, Senator Leahy of Vermont (an Obama supporter) explicitly called for Clinton to retire from the race today:

There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama. Now, obviously that's a decision that only she can make frankly I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate.

I am very concerned... John McCain, who has been making one gaffe after another, is getting a free ride on it because Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have to fight with each other. I think that her criticism is hurting him more than anything John McCain has said. I think that's unfortunate.


Considering that there is speculation that one factor that might push Clinton out of the race is fear that she would damage her Senate career (and her chances, perhaps, of becoming Majority Leader), the reference to a tremendous career in the Senate could even be a veiled threat. In any case, the fact that McCain is now running his first general election ad will likely help Obama supporters make their case.

This talk is, of course, partly an exaggeration to force Clinton out of the race. After all, McCain might be airing ads in New Mexico, but Obama has been airing many in Pennsylvania and just started airing some in Indiana and in North Carolina. All voters will see these ads, not just Democratic voters, and the message in the ads is not necessarily centered on a primary message. One of the ads Obama has been running in Pennsylvania is a biographical ad seeking to introduce himself to voters. If Obama had been the nominee already, he could start airing ads but he would likely not have an excuse to saturate the airwaves without angering and frustrating voters the way he can now.

On the other hands, there is increasing bitterness between supporters of the two camps, and the nominee will have to spend a while mending divisions and unifying the Democratic Party. A central contention of both campaigns is, of course, that the other candidate will not be able to do so.

Whatever the impact of a lengthy primary, Clinton is clearly feeling the heat of the pressure to withdraw and she is responding by... drafting a fundraising plea, making it clear that she is determined to fight on and that calls to get her out of the race are signs that Obama supporters are getting worried about her comeback:

Have you noticed the pattern?

Every time our campaign demonstrates its strength and resilience, people start to suggest we should end our pursuit of the Democratic nomination.

Those anxious to force us to the sidelines aren't doing it because they think we're going to lose the upcoming primaries. The fact is, they're reading the same polls we are, and they know we are in a position to win.

We aren't going to simply step aside. You and I are going to keep fighting for what we believe in, and together, we're going to win.

In a race that is showing no sign of heading to an end, the party elders are trying to find a solution to get the race to not go all the way to the convention, even if Clinton is still alive after the end of the last primaries on June 3rd. Howard Dean proposed a solution today. Dean explained, "I think the candidates have got to understand that they have an obligation to our country to unify. Somebody's going to lose this race with 49.8 percent of the vote. And that person has got to pull their supporters in behind the nominee." And he asked superdelegates to make up their mind by July 1st, 7 weeks or so before the convention. That way, one of the candidates will cross the majority threshold and will emerge as the winner early in the summer. That would still require the loser to not try to change superdelegates votes, but in such a scenario the pressure would likely be too overwhelming for the race to continue.

Labels:

18 Comments:

  • while a dirty convention fight or attempt to do a convention "steal" might hurt, and are things no one wants to see, the only voices calling for clinton to drop out now are party officials, democratic senate/house mandarins, and mainstream media commentators. the rest of us want this race to continue through the end of the primaries and know it won't hurt the general election one whit. crowning obama now would condemn us to a dreary-beyond-belief extended general election, and bring on the (!and, folks, believe me, it's gonna be huge and painful!) massive obama buyer's remorse too late to do anything about it. these "drop out now" maneuvers are disgusting and self-interested.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 March, 2008 16:54  

  • Rubbish - you are just a Clinton partisan. In most election cycles the primaries are over before all 50 states have had a say. Clinton would have been very happy to call for the primaries to end if she had won Super Tuesday. It is just convenient to hide behind "let every state vote". In 2000 and 2004 the Dem primaries were over partway through and nobody complained that it was anti-democratic.

    The GOP voters in PA and NC will not have the chance to vote for the nominee since McCain already has the required delegates. Nobody says this is unfair to those voters.

    This is just another Clinton excuse for staying in - hoping something will happen. Obama has had two "scandals" - Rezko and Wright and weathered both. He is vetted and to "hope" buyers remorse sets in shows a delusional mind. But then Clinton and her supporters it would seem never know the truth (aka Bosnia etal)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 March, 2008 20:17  

  • I hope that Clinton will not withdraw from the race, especially given how close she is. This is new territory, and, frankly, whoever the underdog is should stay put until it becomes clear in the mind of the voters which direction to move in and then, of course, acted upon according to the discretion of the superdelegates. This is why we have superdelegates; otherwise, leaders like Leahy look like fools by not abiding by what the party decided twenty-five years ago. He (and others) ought to know better. If he wants Clinton out, he ought to tell Howard Dean to convene an emergency meeting to dismantle the superdelegate rule. Because with no competition, there will be no reason to abide by party rules: Obama will indeed be crowned, and perhaps one of the first (if not 'the' first) to win the nomination without reaching the winning number of delegates. Is that really what we want to see happen? A candidate who can't even win over enough voters to secure the party's nomination?! Oh, I can see the GOP headlines now!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 28 March, 2008 23:59  

  • "Dems battle over impact of lengthy primary"

    Maybe if the nomination process didn't start so soon it would be so long.

    Here's my plan.

    1.) Divide the country into 6 sections: Pacific Coast, South West, West, Midwest, South, and Northwest.

    2.) Pick a small state from each section: Oregon, New Mexico, Wyoming, Iowa, South Carolina, and New Hampshire.

    3.) Sort them alphabetically and have each state have their primary / caucus every Tuesday for six weeks.

    (This way smaller candidates can run on less money before the first Super Tuesday, while every section of the country has an early vote.)

    4.) Two week break.

    5.) Take the remaining 44 states, and D.C. and other places (Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, etc.), and list them alphabetically.

    6.) The first 15 have their primaries on the first Super Tuesday, then two weeks later the next 15, and finally two weeks later the final 15.

    --------------------

    Four years later, do the same thing except drop the first small state to the end of the list of the first 6 states and the first group of 15 to the end of the three Super Tuesdays.

    ---------------------

    The pros here include having the schedule set from the beginning so no States can try and fight for the front. Also, since they rotate, no one state gets to go first every single time. You still allow some smaller states to go first to help smaller candidates, but the three Super Tuesdays will help test a candidates national campaign machine as well, three times.

    -------------------------

    What do you guys thing?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 29 March, 2008 06:31  

  • c.s.s. good idea about the primaries. I wouldn't mind Clinton staying in if she would stay out of the gutter and maybe attack McCain once and awhile.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 29 March, 2008 07:55  

  • whoever the underdog is should stay put until it becomes clear in the mind of the voters which direction to move in and then, of course, acted upon according to the discretion of the superdelegates. This is why we have superdelegates

    I don't think that's why we have superdelegates. I thought superdelegates were to prevent a motivated faction of the party from nominating someone who would be a disaster in the general election. That's not the case this year, as both candidates would be viable against McCain.

    And the idea that superdelegates should exercise so much control diminishes the rest of the process. There are so many supredelegates that they could take the nomination away from a candidate that got 61% of the pledged delegates, which would not be considered a close contest. If they have that much power to do what they want, one wonders why we've bothered going through the past several months at all.

    Lehey is just advocating a resolution that is completely within the rules. It's impossible to "win the nomination without reaching the winning number of delegates." Neither candidate will win without superdelegates, but he superdelegates are free to commit whenever they want, and most have already done so. Lehey is saying that when the chance of getting that required number of combined delegates is small, one has to wonder about the better interests of the party as a whole for November.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 29 March, 2008 08:50  

  • I would like to ask Obama supporters one question. If a video (or 5 or 6) comes out showing Obama sitting in church nodding his head and saying "Amen" with the rest of the congregation while incindiary anti-American, racist remarks are being said by Rev. Wright, would you still be so vehemently supporting him? You know, because I don't believe you are stupid or naive, that Obama knew exactly what his pastor's views were. The GOP probably already has this proof and is licking its chops for the GE and praying Obama is the nominee. Wake up, Obama CANNOT win the GE.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 29 March, 2008 09:53  

  • If Obama cannot win the GE (I don`t agree with that but) then Clinton certainly cannot.

    Why do you think the GOP has evidence of Obama in Church nodding in agreement?? I think speculation - much like a certain blue dress existing (except in that case it did!!)

    Of course most Obama supporters would not support him if something terrible came out. Just as I assume most Clinton supporters including the poster at 9:53 would not support Clinton if she had done something terrible - say murdered Vince Foster.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 29 March, 2008 14:28  

  • You know, because I don't believe you are stupid or naive, that Obama knew exactly what his pastor's views were.

    I know a lot of people who have said some terrible things once in a while. Doesn't mean I agree with them, does it? Just as I don't think that McCain's speech at Falwell's Liberty University is an endorsement of Falwell's view that gays and abortionists caused 9/11.

    This guilt by association game gets us nowhere on either side. What matters is what they'll do when in office. Really, does anyone really think Obama is anti-American and/or racist (except those who would vote against anyway him no matter what) and would run his presidency accordingly? Let's focus on the issues please; that's what counts.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 29 March, 2008 17:52  

  • The untrammeled rage from the Obama camp, coupled with inordinate adulation for a neophyte politician spells doom for the Democratic Party. It is only a matter of time when these raging paramours turn their back on Obama, for example, if he reaches out to Republicans to foster a GOP style health care reform bill or, heaven forfend, leads an invasion in a foreign country. The Obama supporters really know nothing about the guy, yet they defend him as if he was some loyal party leader. He's not. He's a nobody from Illinois, by way of Hawaii. To think that this is the way you treat tested leaders like Hillary Clinton is a real disgrace. And I refuse to rule out the obvious misogyny perpetrated by (mostly) white guys in all facets of the media. But, alas, you will destroy Obama once you tire of him. You know, who needs Rush Limbaugh when you have folks like Markos Moulitsas and Ariana Huffington throwing just as much mud at Democrats. Sad to say, Democrats really do eat their own.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 29 March, 2008 19:56  

  • The untrammeled rage from the Obama camp ...

    Seems like someone is mistaking a few loudmouths for the entire population. The post's description doesn't match all the Obama supporters I know.

    Also sounds like there's a fair bit of untrammeled rage coming from the non-Obama camp.

    There are legitimate reasons for liking either candidate, and for not liking either candidate. Can we accept that and move on already?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 29 March, 2008 23:06  

  • How is Hillary Clinton a leader?? Being a spouse to an elected official (Governor of Arkansas and President of the US) and leading a failed, secretive healthcare taskforce 14 years ago does not make one a leader!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 30 March, 2008 10:34  

  • 14:28 29 March said:"Of course most Obama supporters would not support him if something terrible came out. Just as I assume most Clinton supporters including the poster at 9:53 would not support Clinton if she had done something terrible - say murdered Vince Foster."

    The Obama supporters sometimes get to be the most repugnant creatures I have ever seen in politics, specially considering the fact that they are talking about an opponent within the same party.

    I and a lot of other Hillary supporters I know have long held this view that for us it's either Hillary or McCain. If there is the slightest doubt every once in a while to that assertion, disgusting comments such this one do serve as a sour reminder as to who our choices should be.

    May God bless American and may he save this country from the fake prophet Barack Obama and his sick followers.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 30 March, 2008 13:50  

  • this is not about unifying the party. it will not further the party one bit to let the scheduled primaries take place and put on the pressure (if needed, and i believe clinton has been signalling it might not be) to prevent a bloodbath at the convention itself. so unification is not what this is about.

    what this is about is, breaking clinton well before the convention and crippling her so she does not go into the convention as a strong, though in second-place, force. this is what the hacks and mandarins and misogynists want. and though i will not support her if she tries to force a war once the convention starts (and i think all the shrieking about this imagined possibility is deluded), i hope and urge her campaign to let the voters in the remaining primaries have their say. the voices screaming for her to drop out now are the same voices who a) shredded and derided al gore during his campaign; b) shrieked for al gore to drop out after the florida vote and not fight the crime that went on in that state and the supreme court---yes, the identical voices. but funny thing, in the light of hindsight, gore was then derided and vilified for bowing to the party hacks. and in the light of history, the gore they were all making fun of for being boring, prating, pedantic (sound familiar?) during his campaign, is the candidate who should have been president. let the voters have their say, for history if for nothing else.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 30 March, 2008 17:50  

  • It is not a good idea for the Dems to go into a contested convention - the GE is then only a little more than 2 months away. Not a good idea - nothing to do with breaking Clinton or being sexist.

    There is no vast left wing conspiracy. Also Obama supporters are not repugnant, nor are most Clinton supporters so keep it civil.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 31 March, 2008 06:46  

  • By Blogger oakleyses, At 15 November, 2015 22:12  

  • By Blogger oakleyses, At 15 November, 2015 22:19  

  • By Blogger oakleyses, At 15 November, 2015 22:30  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home