Since I Haven't Been Flamed In Comments For A While

Let me be blunt:  Obama needs to drop out of the race.  Seriously.  Simply put, his path to the nomination requires him to blow Hillary out of the water in every remaining primary - not by 10 points or even 15, but complete massacres.  Obama only has 1616 pledged delegates, which means he needs to win 408 more to secure the nomination.  Since there's only 566 winnable delegates left through the rest of the primary season, Obama needs a whopping 72% of the rest of those delegates - and there's nothing in his history to suggest that he can pull such a neat trick off. 

And please don't get me started on the superdelegates.  If the superdelegates decide to just make Obama the nominee, it would be nothing short of a coup to take over the Democratic Party and impose their will on the rest of us.  It would ignite a civil war and ensure that our nightmares of a President McCain would come true. 

Further, we have in Hillary Clinton a candidate that is pulling in massive support and raising money at a record pace.  In February, Hillary raised $35 million, over 3 times what John McCain managed to raise - and the total raised for each candidate continues that pace, with Hillary's total almost 3 times what McCain has been able to do.  Unfortunately, Obama's stubborn refusal to withdraw his nomination means that Hillary has needed to spend this money fighting him instead of focusing on the general election.

I'm also sick of Obama's campaign using GOP tactics to fight Hillary.  Sexism is a real problem in this country, and it's unconsciable that a Democrat would stoop to references about "claws" and "feeling down."  Then there's the Obama advisor that referred to Hillary as a monster - how much right-wing radio does she listen to, anyway?  And now another advisor has compared Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy.  Perhaps next the Obama campaign will start to distribute The Clinton Chronicles at its events.  And you've surely read about Gordon Fischer's little joke about Monica Lewinsky.  I'm quite sure it was a mistake.

This could have been a good campaign.  The Democratic party could have been showcasing intense interest in two very good candidates.  Indeed, Obama could have been living up to his self-description as someone who doesn't practice "politics as usual."  But it's turned into a nightmare instead.

Senator Obama cannot win the nomination.  For the good of the Democratic Party and the country as a whole, he needs to withdraw his candidacy.  It's time for this farce to be over.

 

Note:  I've done something here, with this post. I hope you can see it and take a lesson to heart - namely that it's possible, if the numbers are presented from only one side, to make a viable candidate look like a loser.  It's time for the liberal blogosphere to take a deep breath and start thinking about all this instead of acting as if seeing one's favored candidate win or lose is the same as one personally winning or losing.  Both candidates are good Democrats, and neither of them are John McCain.  If you can't see that, there's some serious issues to deal with.

Comments

[Matt Weiner]

Sadly, I've seen people who aren't being parodic say that both Obama and Clinton need superdelegates to win the nomination. But the argument that Clinton can't win is IINM that she will need something like 70% of uncommitted superdelegates to win. And that won't happen. Can't exchange "Clinton" and "Obama" in those sentences.

I agree with this:
Both candidates are good Democrats, and neither of them are John McCain.

But just because Clinton is a good Democrat and not John McCain, doesn't mean that she's got a chance to win the nomination.

[ikl]

DIdn't you more or less declare Obama's candidacy over last week?

[Stephen]

But just because Clinton is a good Democrat and not John McCain, doesn't mean that she's got a chance to win the nomination.

That's not my point! So much of the blogosphere is so focused like a laser on "Hillary can't win!" that people are ignoring how it's fairly likely that Obama won't win either. I've seen quite a few calls for Hillary to step aside, as if there's no reason other than her own ego to stay in the race.

It seems to me, however, that if Hillary's continued support in the primaries - even after people have been told that she's dead in the water and is messing everything up they insist upon voting for her - can keep Obama from winning the nomination outright, then she's in an incredibly powerful position and can expect something really huge - like VP - in return for her support at the convention. In 8 years Hillary will still be younger than the GOP nominee is now. She would still have time to run for and become President.

DIdn't you more or less declare Obama's candidacy over last week?

Didn't Obama's response to Wright show that he and his campaign shared my concerns?

[ikl]

There is a lot of room between "not a problem" and "candidacy in danger". You didn't express concerns, you expressed grave doubts about the viability of Obama's candidacy. You stated that you didn't see how Obama would get the nomination after the Wright video hit the media. Of course, you still might turn out to have been right about this. But at this point, it sure doesn't look like it. Unless you think that Obama is so good that he can give one good speech and change the whole state of the race (going from the brink of collapse to being back to even or better). Now, I'm a pretty big Obama fan, but even I don't think that he is that good. So I think that it is fair to say that you were pretty seriously blowing things out of proportion.

The point is, you don't seem in a good position to criticize others analysis of the state of the race in this tone. Your own analysis in the very recent past seems to have been (a) overheated, (b) rather mistaken. Surely a lot of Obama supporters are also making cases that are overheated and somewhat mistaken about the state of the race. But some of them are not. Including people who make some varient of the argument you are parodying. If you think that are wrong, you should outline Clinton's path to the nomination, rather than making fun of them.

[weboy]

um, Matt, as Stephen points out, you actually can substitute Clinton and Obama in these sentences: the fact is, the Superdelegates will need to go overwhelmingly for one candidate or the other in order to solve this. It's not as though Obama could pick up 40% of the Supers and get to 2025 (especially if the committed delegate number remains within about 100-150 difference, which now seems quite probable).

And thanks, Stephen; I only ask people to realize there's two arguments here, and both of them are workable. Which is why, though I prefer Clinton, an Obama nomination will do just fine.

[weboy]

ikl, I have an outline over at my blog.

[ikl]

Also, if HRC wants to run after 2008, she should think about getting out of the race as soon as plausible (such as after losing NC). Sticking around until August and then losing is not a good way to improve your position in the party. I'm not sure whether Clinton would have much of a chance in 2012 or 2016 anyway, but I am pretty sure of that.

You still haven't outlined how Clinton is going to win. It is possible if Obama collapses, but I think that the chances of that just went down by a fair amount (Wright is the only serious problem in his past that I am aware of - that camp Clinton is pushing the Rezko nonsense is sort of a backhanded compliment - if that is the worst that they can find, Obama is probably pretty clean).

Otherwise, the path seems to involve convincing a significant majority of remaining super delegates. This just doesn't seem likely - anyone who really wants HRC as the nominee probably would have endorsed her a long time ago. Of course, at this point, a similar logic applies with Obama (though probably to a lesser extent given his slow but continuing stream of new endorsements). I do suspect that a lot of super delegates would like to avoid a convention fight. So that means that they would prefer to agree on somebody before August. And it is a lot easier to be that somebody if you have a significant lead in pledged delegates and add-on delegates. Clinton might get the pledged delegate margin below 100 if she does well in the remaining primaries, but it is hard to see how it goes much lower than that absent the Obama collapse scenario. I don't doubt that team Clinton can convince a significant number of outstanding supers to go against the pledged delegate leader - I do doubt that they can get a large majority. Absent some sort of game changing event, I doubt that very much.

There are also a number of outstanding super delegates who have made pro-Obama noise but not formally endorsed (Nancy Pelosi, Jim Clybourn). In this context, it would not be implausible for Clinton to get around half of the outstanding supers - but she is going to have to do a lot better than that. And frankly Clinton would be lucky to hold onto all of the super delegates that she has now: do you think that all of her supporters in the CBC want to cast deciding votes for her when their districts went 70%+ for Obama? Even if they really still do prefer Clinton in August, in a lot of cases this is just begging for a primary challange . . .

[ikl]

Weboy, I read your scenario - I agree that is a conceivable, but try doing the same arguement with delegate math. And don't forget about add-on delegates. You can get the math to come out right for Clinton. But it requires huge blow outs in the remaining primaries or the currently uncommitted super delegates to go hugely for Clinton or both. I agree that winning NC might be game changer for her - but I wouldn't get too optimistic unless Clinton starts polling in the high 40s. We have seen this pattern in almost every southern state with a large African-American population - polls make the race look closer than it is when the polls shows lots of undecideds.

And you are just wrong about what Matt said. He wrote "uncommitted super delegates." Obama needs less than 50% of outstanding supers if he splits pledged delegates (more or less) the rest of the way and add-ons go as expected.

[Matt Weiner]

Well, if there's a 150 pledged-delegate gap and Obama gets only 41% of the 800 superdelegates, then (by my calculations) he still stays ahead -- and that's counting the unpledged add-on delegates (which I don't understand, so may as well toss them in with the rest). According to DemConWatch, Clinton currently has 36 more supers, with only 338 uncommitted; which means that if Obama is ahead by 150 pledged delegates, then Clinton needs to attract 67% of the unpledged supers. Only 59% if she can keep the pledged gap to 100, but I just don't see how she's going to get 60% of the remaining supers. And if Obama only gets 45% of the supers, that's not the supers going overwhelmingly for him.

Which is the problem with Stephen's idea that Clinton can deny Obama the nomination. Clinton may be able to force the nomination to a floor vote, but unless something unforeseen happens he'll win. Again, she needs 60% of the supers.

But don't listen to me, listen to Clinton. You don't talk this kind of guff when you have a real chance.

[ikl]

OK, so to be clear, Clinton can keep it close enough to possibly make a serious super delegate play under the following scenario:
PA + 30
IN + 10
WV + 10
KY + 20
PR + 10
No significant Obama net gains in NC, OR, MT and SD

Possible? Yes, I guess so. Likely? Not very (well, I think that the WV result is pretty likely - it is either + 8 or + 10 most likely).

So, I think that it is fair to think that Clinton should get out if she doesn't come close to these results in PA, IN and NC - for example if PA and NC cancel each other out and IN is just about a draw. And if she doesn't it is reasonable for Gore or other heavyweights to step in at that point.

[lux]

I see what you're trying to do, but I disagree with the implication that Obama and Clinton are basically interchangeable Democrats and that we really shouldn't care which one wins.

[ikl]

Matt's 338 number includes 75 add-on delegates who are not really free agents in the sense that most of them are selected because they support a certain candidate. The selection process varies by state but Obama looks to have the advantage here since most caucus states select their add-ons at the state convention and a number of his primary states (VT, AL) also give thier add-ons to the state winner. It's a bit of a mess (in some states the state Dem committee chooses the add-ons, but at this point, Clinton would be very lucky to split the add-ons 50-50. So the math is actually better for Obama than Matt made it sound.

[low-tech cyclist]

Stephen, it's pretty obvious what you're trying to do. But sometimes reversing the argument, rather than showing the weakness of the original argument, merely shows that it's not nearly as good an argument going the other way.

[Mike Meginnis]

This is hilarious.

In this comment, as in your post, you can substitute another, crueler word for "hilarious" and it'll still be true!

I mean seriously can somebody take responsibility for helping Stephen avoid this stuff?

[Stephen]

You still haven't outlined how Clinton is going to win.

Perhaps it's because I'm not trying to. Nowhere in this post have I suggested that Hillary can win the nomination. Frankly, if you and Matt would just get that through your heads, an awful lot of this comment thread would become totally unnecessary.

My entire point about Hillary continuing her candidacy is that she wants to take this to the convention in order to extract favors from Obama and/or set herself up as the clear choice for Majority Leader. If she manages to make this a convention issue, Obama's going to be really worried, because that can only happen with uncommitted superdelegates. If the supers haven't declared themselves by then, Obama would have to worry about the chance that they'll go for Hillary.

If all you know about Democrats is one portion of the liberal blogosphere, then that would be, in Kos's eloquent little phrase, "a coup." But there's a lot of Democrats who have voted for Hillary, and the superdelegates throwing this thing to either Obama or Hillary would cause serious problems. If Obama doesn't want legitimacy problems in his own party, then the best thing would be for him to win Hillary's support.

But sometimes reversing the argument, rather than showing the weakness of the original argument, merely shows that it's not nearly as good an argument going the other way.

I wonder if you think I'm trying to argue that Hillary will win, which I must say, I'm not. I'm trying to illustrate how most of the blogosphere's horserace analysis is focused merely upon how Hillary can't win the nomination while completely ignoring Obama's own vulnerabilities.

Obama can't win without superdelegates. Y'all Obama partisans all think that it's a problem for the supers to vote for Hillary, but not for them to vote for Obama. I believe it's a big problem for them to clinch the nomination for either candidate - and I would suggest that the continued equivocation for several hundred of them means they're worried about it too.

Your own analysis in the very recent past seems to have been (a) overheated, (b) rather mistaken.

You wrote that I expressed grave concerns. How was I mistaken to have those concerns? In what way have I been wrong that the Wright video would be a big problem for Obama? I said in that post that I didn't see how he could get the nomination, and in that I was wrong. But the Obama campaign's immediate focus on this issue, by having Obama hit CNN, MSNBC, FOX(!) and even the Huffington Post, then after all that having him do a Romney speech shows that they took it at least as seriously as me. I was wrong in how badly this would affect Obama - I have no problem admitting that. But if Obama took the attitude of the commenters to my previous post on the matter, how well would he be doing?

[ikl]

This commentator identified Wright as a problem long before the story hit, so if you are refering to me you are wrong. I told you so on a thread where you suggested that Obama's drug use was a problem. I replied that I doubted this, but thought that his church was his real vulnerability. So, yeah, i didn't flip out when the Wright story hit the news, partially 'cause I was expecting it all along. I did call it "damaging" though. As did Nicholas and other folks. You should just admit that you were wrong and move on rather than trying to lump all of us with those who didn't think that Wright was a problem.

You still don't seem to have any sense of perspective - there is a lot of room between being a candidacy ending scandal and not being a problem.

[Stephen]

You should just admit that you were wrong and move on

Hard to do when others won't. You brought it up, and now you don't want me to talk about it. Apparently what you want isn't just for me to admit that I was wrong, so far, in the extent of the damage that Wright's comments can do to Obama, but for me to admit that I was wrong about everything in the whole world for my whole life and, I don't know, stop blogging. Or maybe just run every post by you first.

And that's a lot to take from someone who has completely and repeatedly misunderstood the point of the post at the top of this thread.

[John]

Obama can't win without superdelegates. Y'all Obama partisans all think that it's a problem for the supers to vote for Hillary, but not for them to vote for Obama.

Yes, because Obama will have a majority of pledged delegates. This is a real distinction. If, in this circumstance, Obama wins, that'll mean the superdelegates ratified the choice of the electors. If Clinton wins, it'll mean they ignored actual voters. They obviously can do whatever they want, but to suggest that the optics are the same is ridiculous, and either disingenuous or profoundly stupid.

[low-tech cyclist]

I wonder if you think I'm trying to argue that Hillary will win, which I must say, I'm not. I'm trying to illustrate how most of the blogosphere's horserace analysis is focused merely upon how Hillary can't win the nomination while completely ignoring Obama's own vulnerabilities.

No, I thought you were trying to show the weakness of the pro-Obama argument that you were reversing. My point was that it didn't work very well - Obama's own vulnerabilities just aren't comparably large, except through the lens of 'Obama needs superdelegates to win' = 'Hillary needs superdelegates to win' without regard to the respective numbers of SD's they'd each need.

Think of it this way: if they had that hypothetical 'superdelegate primary' and the votes broke 55-45, it would hardly matter who got the majority - it would clinch the nomination for Obama either way.

[Joe]

Stephen--

Your argument implies that Obama and Clinton are similarly situated. This is utterly disingenuous. Yes, based on the numbers, both will need some superdelegate support to win the nomination, but:

(1) Obama will need far less support (about 30% of the currently undecided superdelegates, and less than 50% of the total superdelegates); and

(2) If Obama wins with superdelegate votes, these superdelegates will be *ratifying* the pledged delegates and popular vote totals. If Clinton wins with superdelegate votes, these superdelegates will be *overturning* those results.

Either you can't see why ratifying the decision of the democratically selected delegates and clear plurality of voters is different than overturning it, or you can and are pretending not to. Neither alternative speaks well.

[ResumeMan]

Stephen, you're really being obtuse.

Of course Obama can't win without *some* superdelegates, but he most certainly could "lose" among supers and still win. As the math above shows, it's likely that the currently uncommitted supers could come down 60-40 for Clinton and Obama would still win.

Which is what the whole superdelegate argument is about. In order for Clinton to win, the superdelegates would have to vote overwhelmingly against the clear choice of the Democratic electorate. You can't wave that away with the cute "Obama needs superdelegates" comment.

[Matt Weiner]

Frankly, if you and Matt would just get that through your heads, an awful lot of this comment thread would become totally unnecessary.

Maybe the reason you get flamed in comments is that you respond to civil disagreement with things like this.

You wrote in your original post that Obama's path to the nomination "requires him to blow Hillary out of the water in every remaining primary." This is simply not true; Obama path to the nomination requires him not to get blown out in every primary and then not to get blown out again by the superdelegates. As the last three commenters have shown, their situations aren't comparable.

Now, Obama doesn't have a clear path to winning a majority of delegates before the convention. But that's not what "it's fairly likely that Obama won't win either" means. If other people have "completely and repeatedly misunderstood the point of the post at the top of this thread," it's because you haven't expressed it well.

As to the question of Clinton's leverage: Maybe she can extract favors by taking the convention to a floor fight. I'm not sure; it might be as harmful to be seen to be cutting a deal as to be seen to be letting the superdelegates participate in the decision. Still, there's a big difference between the candidate who's able to take the convention to a floor fight, which she's very likely to lose, and the candidate who's able to take the convention to a floor fight, which he's very likely to win.

[Matt Weiner]

The last *four* commenters -- ResumeMan posted while I was typing.

[Henry]

Thanks for this. When the primary season started, I was thrilled to see three strong candidates. None of them suited me perfectly, but I would be happy to vote for any of them.

Since then, I've been disappointed by the venom and anger I've seen thrown around by people who should know better. I understand that people get attached to their candidates, but c'mon - the other Democratic candidate is not the enemy here.

[Skipaway]

It's fun but missing the point.

The argument is never about if there is a path for Clinton to win. The argument is about the chance for that to happen. Nowhere in this parody article did it make any attempt to address the chances. A lot of the sentences read absurd because they are, when we consider real life chances as opposed to fantasy number games.

It makes sense to write an article about how Ichiro could have 250 hits this season, but I don't see a point writing the same article about Ross Gload.