Clinton: Stick It Out or Withdraw?

Hillary Clinton and her supporters continue to argue that if she cedes the Democratic primaries to Barack Obama she will be depriving the voters in the remaining primary states of a voice, and is refusing to be "bullied" out of the race.

A little history to put this in to perspective:

• As opposed to the general election for president which happens nationally on a single day, the primaries stretch over time, and thus end when one candidate wins enough support to deny other candidates the nomination. In a sense, the voters in whatever states have yet to vote at that time are "denied their voice." But this is how the primaries work, every single election.
• In 2004, John Kerry sewed up the nomination in the first week of March. In 2000 Gore wrapped things up on Super Tuesday. In 1992 Bill Clinton had a lock on the nomination after the New York primary in early April. One might argue that in all these cases millions of Democratic voters were "denied a voice." Alternatively, one could argue that the Democratic Party benefited from having the matter settled early, uniting behind a candidate, and focusing on the general election.
• Many of the later voting states did in fact feel that the voice of their voters was being routinely silenced in favor of voters in the early primary states of New Hampshire and Iowa. It was in response to these complaints that the party revised the schedule, moving Nevada and South Carolina, thus making four early primaries with a broader geographic and demographic representation. Michigan and Florida were penalized for jumping the gun on this agreement, which was intended to ensure that the voters in the early primaries -- those that were certain to vote no matter how early the contest was settled -- were more representative.

So Democratic primaries almost always end before all states have held primaries. This is nothing new. When Bill Clinton secured the nomination in early April, he certainly didn't complain about all the voters in later states whose voice would not be heard.

There is, however, a new wrinkle this year. In the past, the race has generally ended when one candidate wins enough delegates to win the nomination outright at the convention. This year's race is close enough that neither candidate will achieve this, due to the 794 superdelegates that are not selected through the primary process. Thus, while it is now clear that Obama will win both the popular vote and the delegate count, neither candidate will win enough delegates to put a lock on the nomination. And thus Clinton's only hope is to win enough superdelegate support that she will win the nomination even though she has lost both the delegate count and the popular vote.

So there are conflicting claims to the democratic high ground here:

• Clinton can rightfully argue that if she withdraws the voters in the final states will not be "heard."
• Obama can rightfully argue that the only way Clinton can win is if the superdelegates override the popular and delegate votes, thus "denying voice" to the voters in the primaries as a whole.

Logically, Obama's claim would seem to be the stronger. There are years of precedent of voters in the latest states not voting, while there is no precedent at all for superdelegates handing the nomination to a candidate who lost both the popular vote and the delegate count. Also, the contradiction of a candidate simultaneously insisting that the final states should vote on democratic principle, yet the superdelegates should overturn the final results of the overall voting, should be obvious.

Logic, however, rarely prevails in politics. Politically speaking, it is conceivable that a primary race could continue in such circumstances without damaging the party's chances in November. For this to happen, the candidate in Clinton's position would have to make clear that she is running on principle. There is ample precedent for this. Candidates often keep their hat in the ring even after the issue has been effectively settled, to "give their supporters a voice" and to strengthen their hand at the convention even though they acknowledge they will not win the nomination.

Clinton could do this. She could shift gears, stop attacking Obama, stop pressing the superdelegates to override the popular vote, and instead work on promoting the policies that are most important to her in preparation for the national convention. And she would keep her hat in the ring in the event Obama makes some horrendous misstep or gets mired in a disastrous scandal.

But what she is doing is the exact opposite, throwing Don Imus references and Republican National Committee talking points at the man who will almost certainly be the party's candidate, and relentlessly pursuing superdelegates.

Comments

[SonofLiberty1]

This just in...

On CNN's Lou Dobbs:

The press HAS been PRO OBAMA!

[frustratedinohio]

"Clinton can rightfully argue that if she withdraws the voters in the final states will not be "heard.""

She does not say this. She talks about the voters in FL and MI being disenfranchised and she does say, as do her supporters, that since there is no clear winner, she should go all the way until there is.

Is there any Obama supporter, well-known or B or C or D list, who has not written a ridiculous post about how Hillary should just give up. You should all know that doing so makes you look scared and insecure. You're afraid something's going to happen and she's going to win, and you should be.
Be afraid, be very afraid.

[IndependentJones]

Which post did you just read? Mr. Ostertag does not call for Sen. Clinton to drop out. He discusses precedent and suggests that if Sen. Clinton remains in the race, it would be better for the party if she were to alter the negative tone of her campaign.

[Bob Ostertag - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you!

[bridgeworker]

"Be afraid, be very afraid". - Sorry, no thank you. That tactic is how the Republicans have managed to "win" elections. Not interested.

Obama '08

[nazgul]

It's not about FEAR.

It's about the COST:

Each week the Dems negatives go up and McCain's positives go up.
Tens of millions are being spent from finite Dem dollars that could go to the general election.
Each week the intra-party divide grows.
Each week McCain is given a pass.
Each week is one less week to run against McCain.

Since she CAN'T win the most delegates AND the superdelegates won't give her the lead that Obama has... she's COSTING us the election a little more each week...

[Sabreen60]

When was the last Democratic primary when all 50 states plus territories got a chance to vote. If the candidate gets the maximum votes needed to win, the primaries stops. The remaining states don't get a chance to vote. That's one reason states want to be "first" to hold their primaries. So to keep harping on the states that won't get to vote if Hillary pulls out seems to be a pointless.

[Researchguy66]

There's very little reason for anyone to vote, especially people who may not vote for Obama. This whole election bit is becoming very tiresome and unnecessary. Why is no one calling for McCain to withdraw as well and we can avoid the trouble of an election in November. This is the only acceptable alternative.

[austinobserver]

I had thought that Mitt Romney was the supreme egoist among the 2008 presidential candidates, but even he withdrew for the good of his party when his chances dipped below five percent. I guess Mitt is more of a team player than Hillary is. I could never have predicted that before this year began.

[Schnitzel]

Very soon this discussion is going to become moot. Aside from votes,delegates and super-delegates the number that isn't being discussed nearly as much, and is really more important, is dollars.

The Clinton campaign is out of gas monetarily and that isn't going to be sustainable for very much longer. All of their donors have hit the legal limit and their credit is pretty much tapped out. How can you conduct a poltical campaign when you create a reputation among staging companies and other essential vendors of freeloading on your bills? Without the services of staging companies there are no rallies or fundraisers. Do Hillary, Bill and their handlers really think they're going to be able to mount a successful persidential bid shouting through bull-horns in the parking lot of Safeway? That strategy didn't work too well for Lyndon LaRouche!

Obama has a much broader funraising base that makes it possible for him to get smaller contributions from a much larger pool of people in a way that's far more sustainable over the long haul; plus his campaign has been paying their bills.

[entopticon]

Thanks for being a voice of sanity mr Ostertag.

[Bob Ostertag - Huffpost Blogger]

You are welcome. Thank's for noticing.

[MaineMike]

The numbers are the numbers and it’s no secret that people can spin them to their own advantage.

In my opinion, the Clinton supporters are exaggerating Clinton's chances of winning and the Obama supporters are equating Clinton's slim chance of winning with no chance of winning.

Either way, the Clintons will exit this race when they choose to exit this race and I don’t think anyone can change that. Debating the merit of the Clintons staying in the race is like debating the merit of having the sun come up in the morning: it’s going to happen whether you like it or not.

“Stay in or Get Out?” The Clintons have the right to stay in the race as long as they want.

Obama supporters that call for the Clintons to leave the race are actually just helping them justify not leaving the race and this also gives the media another empty issue to babble on about ad nauseam.

[jdm58]

Just a reminder to everyone on this post, and elsewhere, who keep insisting that they will only vote for "their" candidate come November, threatening to switch to McCain if she/he isn't nominated. There is SO MUCH at stake this year, and the differences between Hillary and Obama are miniscule, when compared to McCain:
Under McCain:
1. Anyone with a pre-existing healthcondition, or unable to afford insurance, will NOT get coverage.
2. Climate Change will be backburnered. Arctic Wilderness will be destroyed in favor of oil exploration. Ice masses the size of Ireland will continue to fall into the ocean at ever increasing rates, as a result of our failure to act.
3.The top 2% of the nations earners will continue to receive the lions share of tax benefits.
4. People struggling with scams from mortgages, and credit cards, will see no relief, and foreclosures will continue.
5. The Supreme Court, with the impending retirement of 2 judges, will most likely tilt completely conservative, jeopardizing RoeVWade and numerous other decisions yet to be made.
6. The Iraq war will continue for 100 years. We most likely will invade Iran.
So, get real. Vote Democratic. Hold your nose if you have to. But it's our only hope.

[Researchguy66]

All seems like a silly waste of time now, huh?

[IslandGyal]

jdm58,
I understand that, but I shall NOT reward Hillary Clinton for stealing the nomination IF she ends up with less pledged delegates, less of the popular vote and fewer states won. I can NOT vote for someone like that, who changes the rule because she feels entitled to the nomination, which she would not have won; I am sorry, I will let Roe v Wade go before I reward Clinton. I ain't gonna happen.

[Noracharles1995]

What (s)he said, for God's sake, eyes on the prize people!

[nazgul]

Excellent Post.

"Logically, Obama's claim would seem to be the stronger. There are years of precedent of voters in the latest states not voting, while there is no precedent at all for superdelegates handing the nomination to a candidate who lost both the popular vote and the delegate count. Also, the contradiction of a candidate simultaneously insisting that the final states should vote on democratic principle, yet the superdelegates should overturn the final results of the overall voting, should be obvious."

What else can be said? Logically, nothing.

[AnninCA]

One of the major reasons she should stay in the race is because of just how this election has been reported. We supporters were told she was going to lose big in NH........and then she won. We were told again that he had such a big momentum headed into Super Tuesday and the polls were "neck and neck" in CA..........and she won substantionally. We were told that in Texas he had cut into her Latino voter group........and she won them by a landslide. We've been told how she has to be out of the race because his donations are so much more that he'll blow her out with spending more......and then she won Ohio in spite of his outspending her 4 to 1.

We've learned. Really. Do NOT count Hillary out.

The more the surrogates race around demanding she drop out, the more excited I am that she must be really doing well. There's a reason he's desperately trying to convince her supporters to give up.

[nazgul]

She lost TX.

She is further behind now than she was before March 4th.

If you think HRC should stay in, tinker with Slate's delegate counter. It proves pretty effectively that she can't win.

http://www.slate.com/id/2187679/

If there weren't a cost to HRC staying in the race, I'd say, sure, why not? But there are costs:

1) Every week, the Dems negatives go up while McCain's positives go up.
2) The tens of millions of dollars being spent on the primary could go to the general election. I know I don't have unlimited funds, and I'll bet there are lots of people who will feel tapped out by the time the primaries wrap up.
3) The intra-party divide increases each week; the tension is real and the bad blood won't entirely go away. The more time to heal, the better.

There are numerous precedents for wrapping up the nomination before all the states have voted. There's no precedent for the superdelegates to overturn the votes of the voters.

[AnninCA]

Keep watching. Listen and learn.

[SuiginTou7]

*Sigh* Money running out, gaff after gaff and a very bad campainge staff. Fine, Cruella DeVille is gonna stay in the race and until she comes to her senses and realize that the voters don't want her and Ann, what's the color of the sky in your world?

[utd]

Her win in California wasn't as big as it seemed either once they actually certified the votes and then reapportioned Obama his delegates.

History is repeating here in weird way. Bill Clinton did not go on the war path to help us to secure a majority in congress while he was in office. If he had bothered he would have avoided being impeached. The longer Hillary drags this out, the less time is spent focusing on those congressional seats we need. The republicans haven't written off a loss for McCain by any means, but in the midst of all this in fighting they are planning to get back into congress in a big way. Wake up. People keep talking about the "good of the party" in very ambiguous context but there is very real tangible reasons Hillary needs to get out. Getting Hillary or Barack into the white house and losing congress is a draw not a win people. Hillary stands the worst chance of winning, Hillary needs to go. If Barack was in the same boat I would be calling for him to disappear to. We can't afford to mess this up.

[northeast73]

What is the BIG DEAL about letting VOTERS decide???

There are 10 states and in spite of the RUMORS that its is like, "impossible" for her to surpass him in votes that is simply not true.

750,000 votes betweeen them and 4 million registed dems in PA. YOU do the math.

[c1ee]

I think everyone has agreed it isn't a big deal. It is only a big deal if Clinton continues to insist on dragging the whole democratic party with her by her negative kitchen-sink behaviour. Please Hillary, campaign on policy.

[nazgul]

The contest is determined by delegates, NOT the popular vote. There's no precedent for superdelegates overturning the outcome of the primaries. No significant political will among superdelegates has been expressed for doing so.

If you think HRC should stay in, tinker with Slate's delegate counter. It proves pretty effectively that she can't win.

http://www.slate.com/id/2187679/

If there weren't a cost to HRC staying in the race, I'd say, sure, why not? But there are costs:

1) Every week, the Dems negatives go up while McCain's positives go up.
2) The tens of millions of dollars being spent on the primary could go to the general election. I know I don't have unlimited funds, and I'll bet there are lots of people who will feel tapped out by the time the primaries wrap up.
3) The intra-party divide increases each week; the tension is real and the bad blood won't entirely go away. The more time to heal, the better.

[AnninCA]

No, Obama failed in his bid on the delegate count. That's the truth.

He can't reach the magic number.

Live with the truth. It sets you free. :)

[Aleka]

Psst. The voters did decide. They picked Obama.

[AnninCA]

Psst......50% of his popular vote is from Illinois.......his home state.

*hooting*

[SuiginTou7]

Yeah, but she would need to win all of the remaining contest in landslide victories (which won't happen) and all of the superdelegates get behind her. Oh, yeah, and she gets all the unicorns to vote for her too. Another person whose color of the sky is different from the norm.

[ntmessage]

From what I understand the popular vote is not in and Obama has been fighting to keep FL and MI irrelevant in the primary. There is no clear winner and if we need to wait until the convention so be it. This is the process, regardless even if no one thought it should never come to this or not.

All rationalizations or agenda driven false equivalencies should not be reported as someone is hurting the party over another. Clinton could still win. Obama is less electable in the EC. There are serious decisions to be made.

From a democratic perspective Clinton has the moral and ethical high ground until MI and FL become relevant and all the voters speak.

[c1ee]

Aw well, ill just tell you what i told several others on this thread. The 'popular vote' isn't really a popular vote, because a lot of contests were done using caucuses. Caucuses are only open for a few hours. A lot less people attend because of the restricted time-frame. Not all caucuses counted the voter turnout, only the margin of victory. Obama won the vast majority of caucuses.

Delegates are apportioned to each state in a fair approximation to their population. Delegates won are awarded through proportional representation. This means the delegate count is the closest thing to the popular vote, because the 'popular vote' you are talking about fails to reward caucus victories as well as primary victories.

All this is a moot point anyway. Like i read somewhere else, you cannot, in the middle of a basketball game, start arguing that to win it is now no longer about scoring the most points. It's now about shooting percentages? Or most shooting attempts? Or most dunks? Democratic primary has always been about winning the most delegates.

[ntmessage]

What makes the process even worse is that the proportional system used by the DNC unfairly over represents based on previous voter patterns. I agree the delegates are way the DNC has set it up, but that included Supers that can vote any wat they please. It is these folks that are being threatened (if they choose, which we know is what will happen regardless there will be riots at the convention) and coerced, MoveOn and HuffPo organized campaigned to pressure them to vote for Obama or in code words the will of the people. Once we get to the will of the people we get into a circular argument that is not within the process or the rules.

So when we say delegates, they cannot clinch it. When we say voters what about MI and FL being relevant. When we say Super Delegates we want to change the rules.

[Yogsoggoth]

I disagree that Hillary speaks from the "moral and ethical high ground". She is arguing to have the votes counted for states that broke the rules. They knew this was going to happen if they broke the rules and they CHOSE to break them anyway. If they are not punished for breaking the rules, then the rules become meaningless and the next primary season will be total chaos. This isn't an argument about morals or ethics (unless you want to discuss how the lack of either caused this problem in the first place). Hillary's argument is all about "self-interest".

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

the same rules that stripped FL and MI of delegates also allowed for revotes in those states to sleect delegates. Everyone was fully aware of that as well.

[Aleka]

c1ee is correct, you can't very well use "popular vote" as an actual and factual measure given that 4 states didn't even hand in numbers for it. You then have to "guess" what the number "might have been" if it had been a primary, and I'm sorry, but you don't elect people on the basis of guesses. It might be a valid number if it were all primary or all caucus, but REALITY is, it was not.

I have no idea how oyu think Clinton has any moral high ground whatsoever. She agreed they would not count, went back on her own agreements, and is trying to get bogus numbers to count. In short, she's cheating and trying to change the rules. There is nothing moral OR ethical about that.

[ntmessage]

This is not about Obama or Hillary. It is about democracy. Count all the votes and make all the people relevant. Remember that? Not the DNCs attempt to screwup the process.

[AnninCA]

I so agree. Obama's move to block MI and FL as well as sending out his surrogates to drive the idea that she should just slink away, defeated, has energized me.

And it's not necessarily about Hillary.

I send her money in support of pocket-book Democrats.

Screw the Washington Elite!

Rebel!

Show Em!

[nazgul]

"Screw the Washington Elite!"

Those are the lobbyists, Carville, Begala, the DLC. That's HRC's BASE!!!

Nice try.

[Aaror]

Hillary is staying in to try to make enough money to pay her debts. Obama should offer her a cash buyout.

[utd]

Only republicans throw bail-outs to groups who can't balance their budgets.

[Purple Girl]

If she continues and THEY HAND Her the nomination- WE WILL LEAVE.
I will Not vote for her, as much as I will Not vote for Mac (two sides to the same coin- Corp Opertives.this 2x Bill supporter has had her Rose Colored Glasses Knock Off by HillaBillie and I have looked Back- seeing in 20/20 beyong the Smoke & Mirrors. Add to that the Obvious Rigging by th e'leading Dem's' I'm not only disgusted I'm Pissed!
the last thread holding me to my 26 yrs Reg Dem Status is Obama. And I'm out to Throw out every psuedo Dem who has crawled out from under their Camoflague of Blue- I'm ready to Expose the m to the Legal Light- nancy Diane Harry - even Carl, Deb, Jen and Terri in MI
I'm ready to no longer consider the Red Or Blue as major players in Our Democracy Anymore. This Two party System has had Their last Dance! I plan to give Obama a whole new Guest List in Congress. So 'bi partisanship' will be an Irrelevant Term from the 20th Century