us election
24 Apr 2008
Hillary Can't Win
The Pennsylvania Primary on Tuesday was Hillary Clinton's last chance to deliver a game changing blow to the Obama campaign. She failed to deliver
Clinton needed a crushing victory of 18 per cent to 25 per cent to have any real chance of altering the math or the psychology of the campaign. Demographically, Pennsylvania was made for Hillary: the second oldest state in the nation, heavily blue collar, Catholic and rural - Hillary's voter profile. She started with a lead of almost 20 points. But her final margin - which the Pennsylvania Secretary of State says was only 9.2 per cent - fell far short of what was needed to stop Obama's nomination. Here's why.1) Pledged Delegates. By CNN's count, Clinton netted about 14 pledged delegates in Pennsylvania. That still leaves Obama up by 151 pledged delegates. It is likely that after Guam, Indiana and North Carolina, there will be no net change in pledged delegates, even if Clinton wins Indiana, since Obama will certainly pick up delegates in North Carolina. But at that point only 251 pledged delegates will remain to be chosen.
Even if Clinton won 80 per cent of all of the pledged delegates that remain after Indiana, she would still trail Obama at the end of the day.
The battle for the pledged delegate advantage is over.
2) Popular Vote. Pennsylvania was Clinton's best opportunity to really close in on Obama's popular vote lead. She picked up about 216,000 net votes. But that still leaves her over 600,000 votes behind, and Obama will likely increase his popular vote margin further after the contests on 6 May. Her failure to blow Obama out in Pennsylvania makes it almost impossible for her to close the popular vote gap.
3) Electability. Clinton's entire strategy rests on the premise that she can convince Super Delegates that Obama is unelectable. Only a massive win in Pennsylvania would have credibly made that case. Clinton's victory did little to enhance her argument.
Regardless of the passions of the moment, history shows us that just because voters prefer one candidate in the primary, it doesn't mean they won't vote for her Democratic opponent in a general election when the other choice is a Republican. When all is said and done, primary voters almost always vote for the candidate of their party in a general election - regardless of what they might say (on either side) in the middle of a primary fight.
In fact, the people who decide general elections rarely set foot in primary voting booths. They are the independent voters who vote only in general elections and unengaged voters who would vote Democratic, but have to be mobilised to go to the polls.
The fact is that whatever appeal Hillary might have among independent rural and blue collar voters, Obama more than makes up for in appeal to independent suburban voters. Obama's ability to mobilise new young and African American voters in the general election is indisputably greater than Clinton's.
And of course, Obama will not go into the General Election burdened by the towering Clinton negatives that her own negative campaign strategy increases daily.
The polls - and even Pennsylvania Governor and Clinton supporter Ed Rendell - make it clear that Obama can win Pennsylvania in the general election. But Obama can also broaden the playing field with a shot at winning states like Colorado and Virginia.
4) Super Delegates. Finally, is a fact that is generally overlooked by pundits. At the close of the primaries, Obama will not need a stampede of Super Delegates to clinch the nomination. In fact he will only need about 40 per cent of those that remain undecided today.
Let's make the most conservative assumptions about the outcome of the remaining races: Guam, even; North Carolina, 58 per cent - 42 per cent Obama; Indiana, 54 per cent -46 per cent Clinton; Kentucky, 60 per cent - 40 per cent Clinton; West Virginia, 60 per cent-40 per cent Clinton; Oregon, 56 per cent - 44 per cent Obama, Montana 56 per cent - 44 per cent Obama; Puerto Rico, 60 per cent - 40 per cent Clinton. That would leave Obama at 1,846 delegates at the close of the Primaries.
He would need only 41 per cent of the Super Delegates remaining today to clinch the nomination with 2,025. And let's remember, he has picked up almost one Super Delegate a day for the last month. There is no reason to believe he won't keep picking up Super Delegates as the contest continues. So by the end of the primaries he will need an even lower percentage of the Super Delegates that remain.
All that remains for Clinton are more opportunities for her own campaign to be shut down. If she loses Indiana and North Carolina it will be extremely hard for her to continue. But there is no longer any opportunity for her to defeat Obama.
Clinton may have won on Tuesday, but she failed to do what she needed to do to derail Obama's march to the nomination. In retrospect, Pennsylvania will appear as Clinton's Waterloo.
The article first appeared on the Huffington Post.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Obama has more celebrities on his side, and more primary numbers from increased first time voters, but Hilary has the blue-collar, conservative battlers, the true underdogs of US society - hence her funding is far harder to come by. Considering that she is doing rather well.
I wouldn’t write Hilary off yet as the Super Delegates may construe the voting figures in a completely different way and suggest that the increased Primary votes are not the only reliable gauge of who should be the next Democratic Party’s leader, believing a more experienced politician, preferrable over one with the most popular ‘big vision’, but not enough experience to deliver it.
They also know of the underlying racist tensions that exist in much of the regional areas of the US, as well as the gender-bias, meaning there will be voters who will prefer one candidate over the other, purely based on the fact that they are either black or white, and/or a man or a woman.
If I was voting for the leader, I would prefer Hilary (as a feisty woman ) and obviously a hard-fighting politician ( probably the best opponent to beat John McCain) over Obama’s more enthusiastic and creative approach, that is tapping into the US hype of celebrity (with pledges of millions) that now after Pennsylvania, appears to be more about show than substance.
For the good of the world, I must hope that Obama wins this nomination, and then wins the Election.
Clinton just proves, time after time, that her vote for War was not an accident. Her overblown rhetoric in respect to Iran and israel in an effort to get more of the Jewish vote was damned scary to me.
Obama has also spoken support for israel, but a much more balanced statement. After all, no one would be game to say that they wanted more balance in their treatment of israel/Palestine and expect to survive an American election. They would be crucified in the Media immediately. Already, Obama has suffered some racial and religious attacks by Jewish interests, with a lot of attention drawn to his middle name. He is still being tagged by some people as being Muslim, even though they should and probably do, know better.
Billary is going to spear a lot more hate and nastiness towards Obama before she throws in the towel, and I doubt very much that it will be with any grace that she does give over. Her and Bill have just too much personal baggage riding on her and his much desired election. The good of America and the World just does not come into it.
Dazza.
While I agree that Sen. Clinton is not the likely nominee, it is not true that she ‘cannot win’. Essentially, it is up to the DNC, who must decide what to do about the Florida and Michigan delegations. If we include these, then Clinton is only about 4 pledged delegates behind Obama, and ahead in the popular vote. It would be insanity for the DNC to lock out these delegations - but I would not put it past them, as Howard Dean for example is a notorious Obama supporter.
At the moment I would say Obama’s chances hinge on what happens with Michigan and Florida - if the DNC continues to avoid the issue then yes, he is almost certain to win because the delegate gap will be too wide for supers to bridge the gap. If however, some resolution that seats the delegates or calls revotes is passes, then it’s back to 50/50 chance for both and hinges on things like the Edwards delegates even! This would more accurately reflect the true electoral map - it’s an essential tie.
This, sadly, is the peril of the PR system. I think PR is very good in a general election, but for this kind of nomination contest, where you probably want a clear winner sooner, PR is clearly not a good choice.
If Michigan and Florida are allowed to be counted, it would be an abomination. They made their choice, broke the Rules, and paid the price. They had choices of running the election again, this time with both participants (not just one of them as in the case of Michigan, I think it was) and decided not to go that route. Sure, Billary wants them counted, why would she not, but I say, leave them out. We do not want any more drawn out Hell. It is just doing damage to the Democrat cause of winning the Presidency.
Dazza.
They will end up counting Florida and Michigan, even if it is only half the delegations (as the Republicans did). Half would of course may not be enough to get Sen. Clinton ahead. However, including the popular vote count from those states may help her convince some supers - remember, the punishment for holding early votes was to not seat the delegates - no one ever said anything about not counting the VOTES in the final tally when taking consideration of the whole picture.
BTW Obama and Edwards took their own names off the ballot in Michigan and then urged their supporters to vote ‘uncommitted’. This was because they knew they would not win it and didn’t want to interrupt their early ‘momentum’. Then Obama argued ALL the ‘uncommitted’ delegates should go to him! Obama was also spoiling against a revote in both states, again because he would not win them. So much for ‘a new way’ and ‘changing politics’ ad nauseam.
I agree with apaul it is wrong to state she can’t win because technically she can. But I think Obama’s more likely to succeed. I’d be interested to know what Obama would do if he was in Hilary’s position, would he continue running for the nomination knowing it could damage his counterparts chances of winning the Presdency? I think given the likelihood Clinton will not win the nomination she should concede defeat and stop the damage that is likely to occur to the Democrats as she persists. If she losses the next one she should do the statesman like thing and quit. The World needs a Dempcrat in the White house right now, and that is more important than who that Democrat is - so some real justice can be achieved for all people.
Can I refer you Billary Backers to some articles by Andrew Sullivan in the UK. Sunday Times? Shows exactly where Billary and HillBilly are coming from, and it is not from anywhere nice. They now have the enthusiastic backing of the Lunar Right, encouraging them to keep on in there, knowing that by doing so, they are destroying any chance that a Democrat can win the Presidency this time. People like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh, and lots of Nutters like them are enthusiastic in their backing of Billary. They also know that if she does win the nomination, they can beat her hands down. She and Bill have already destroyed their credibility. These boyos are smart operators, and they KNOW that they are backing (temporarily) a guaranteed loser!
Dazza.
Dazza, listen to yourself. Conspiracy theory nutbaggery. Or have you forgotten how hated Hillary Clinton was in 1990s by the ‘lunar right’ you now claim is ‘backing them’!? Sigh.