Hillary's Inconvenient Truth

With recent rumblings of the possibility of a revote in Florida and Michigan, Hillary supporters are starting to sense the beginnings of a Clinton comeback. But there is little evidence that new votes in Florida and Michigan will be valuable enough to put Clinton back on a trajectory that leads to the nomination.

Clinton currently trails Obama in pledged delegates by 156. She leads Obama among superdelegates by 38, a lead that has been cut by more than half since Super Tuesday. Florida has 185 pledged delegates. Michigan has 128.

In January, Hillary won Florida with 50% of the vote, seventeen points higher than Obama. But at the time, Edwards and Kucinich were still in the race, and received a combined 17% of the vote. Thus far, exit polls have suggested that Edwards and Kucinich supporters have trended toward Obama.

But let's assume Hillary's dream scenario. We will assume that more than 60% of those Edwards and Kucinich voters cast votes for Hillary. We will assume that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Obama's aggressive campaigning in the state won't see any other increase in support. In such a situation, Hillary would win Florida 60-40, netting, at most, 37 delegates.

In Michigan, a state with demographics highly favorable to Obama, we will also assume that Clinton wins 60-40, an amount she wasn't even able to achieve when hers was the only name on the ballot. In such a situation, she would net, at most, 24 delegates.

Between the two states, she will see a net gain of 61 delegates, but Barack Obama will continue to maintain a pledged delegate lead of more than 95. In that best case scenario, she would still have to win two-thirds of the remaining pledged delegates to regain the lead, a feat that will require far more than two-thirds of the votes.

As a result, Hillary has turned her attention to the superdelegates. But even among them, she is seeing a number of pitfalls. Since Super Tuesday, Obama has gained 45 superdelegates while Clinton has lost 6. There are approximately 320 superdelegates that remain unpledged. If Clinton's comeback continues to be as dramatic as we assumed in Florida and Michigan, if she manages to cut Obama's remaining delegate lead in half, he will still have a nearly 50 pledged delegate lead. Clinton will have to then convince almost sixty percent of the remaining superdelegates to ignore the will of the people, tear the party in half, and hand her the nomination.

Such an outcome is truly inconceivable, and the strongest argument the Clinton campaign is making to those superdelegates is markedly unpersuasive.

Hillary Clinton has aimed her sights at painting Obama as unable to defeat John McCain. She argues first that she has won big states like New York, California, New Jersey, and Ohio, all states that are necessary for a Democrat to win in November. Her argument, plainly, is that her primary wins are somehow predictive of her general election outcomes. This argument is ridiculous in terms of its intellectual dishonesty.

The voting population of a Democratic primary is vastly different than that of a general election. Winning the Ohio primary suggests only that the Democratic base prefers one candidate over the other. But in the general election, Democrats, including many who don't vote in primaries, as well as Republicans and Independents will be voting. The voting population is entirely different, and the coalition for victory must include a combination of Democrats, Independents, and some Republicans. Hillary's win among Democratic voters says absolutely nothing about her ability to attract other voters. In fact, Obama has consistently faired dramatically better among Independents and Republicans than has Clinton. A recent Survey USA poll shows both Obama and Clinton ahead of McCain by double digits in Ohio.

Moreover, the notion that Obama would be unable to win California and New York in a general election is insultingly ludicrous. Both states have been consistently Democratic, and no public polling data suggests otherwise.

In terms of electoral strategy, Hillary Clinton is in a far weaker position, and is using misleading data to bolster her claims. It is true that Hillary Clinton cannot win the general election without New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida. She is still playing on a traditional field, the same on which Kerry and Gore served up painful losses. But, as those same Survey USA numbers show, Obama is playing on an entirely different field. Obama's victory will not require Florida, Pennsylvania, or New Jersey. He can build a broader coalition, with states like Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, and Virginia. Obama's success in those states means the party will not have to depend on states like Florida, many of which have been tragically unreliable.

The weakness of Clinton's arguments should say something about the likelihood of her victory. But even if her arguments were logically sound, they are consistently undercut by national polling which has consistently shown Barack Obama beating John McCain. In most polls, Hillary Clinton loses or is within the margin of error.

Her rationale might work with the average voter, but it will not work with politicians and party insiders who are familiar with presidential elections. She has no realistic path to the pledged delegate lead, and lacks any persuasive argument to convince superdelegates to fall in line.

And yet, she continues.

Comments

[frustratedinohio]

Yes Obama has a slim lead in the popular vote and in pledged delegates and he polls better up against McCain, but those polls are based on current circumstances. If you analyze the different groups of voters that each candidate has and what those groups will likely do in the fall, Clinton has a better chance of winning against McCain.

First of all Obama does well mostly in caucuses, which won't help him in the election.

Most of his support comes from the strong republican states which he will not win in the November. Clinton has most of the large states and the battleground states.

His voters are the most reliable voters, well to do African Americans and the young. These groups would turn out for Hillary in the general election. Whereas, her voters, the poor, senior citizens, hispanics and educated women over 50, would likely stay home or vote for McCain.

Also, if you include Florida and Michigan as they stand now, she has the lead. Either way, it's too close to just hand it to the candidate who has a few hundred more votes. Arguments will have to be made by both sides as to who can win the election and Hillary has the best arguments.

[LeftRight]

Do you honestly think that he can't win the big states? Particularly the big democratic states, which will go for whoever has the little D after their name come November. And since he IS polling, caucusing, and voting better than her among independants, and republicans, I would say that's a good nidication that he will do well in November!

[efranklin]

"... Clinton has most of the large states and the battleground states." Who? Clinton essentially has a single battleground state: Ohio. Obama has Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, and Minnesota. "... Obama does well mostly in caucuses, which won't help him in the election." If you're going to discount caucuses, go ahead and discount Hillary's win in Nevada.

[Shannon2008]

Obama got 0 votes in Michigan and he wasn't on the ballot so let's throw that one out. Besides polling shows that it's dead even in Michigan. She may even lose it. We'll give you Florida. So, she's still behind in the popular.

[LeftRight]

Except that you also cannot count Florida, since the fact that the whole state was told that their votes didn't count cut voter participation to almost nothing, which means that it's not a democratically accurate description.

[JB2]

Hillary will not win any kind of fair contest in Michigan against Obama, whether it be a primary, caucus, or mail-in.

Michigan Dems are much more similar to those in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota than to those in Ohio and Pennsylvania. African-Americans dominate the base of the party, while the crucial swing Dems are upscale Oakland County moderate-liberals - the latter have been the key to Governor Granholm's two victories as well as Gore in 200 and Kerry in 2004. They are natural Obama voters. Add in students and young voters and Obama will win Michigan by at least 10 percentage points and possibly much more

[Moose49]

"Hillary Clinton has aimed her sights at painting Obama as unable to defeat John McCain."

It's one thing to try and paint this picture -- it's another to actively try to make it so, which is exactly what her cynical, Orwellian "threshold" argument is doing. That's putting her self-interest above that of the Party and reducing the odds of a Democratic victory in November no matter who is the nominee. Shame on her.

I also think it's worth noting Jonathan Chait's observation, originally made on The New Republic website and reiterated today on Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/11/8502/524877). This really says it all:

"Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero."

[winterline]

Obama Foreign Policy MemoTo: Interested Parties

From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department

RE: Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?

DA: March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times.” Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

[RickO]

Excellent! Thanks for posting this. It's lengthy but worth reading twice.

[CaveatMagnusFrater]

The response is 1,751 words, The article was 898 words. I don't think it was really a response. I think Winterline just felt like bitching about Hillary Clinton and used Dylan's forum.

[JackWOrf]

DUH. We're not talking about HILLARY. We're talking about TEAM CLINTON. You know. The guy she sleeps with? (usually). The guy who was President for 8 years? Hellooooooo-oooooh.

After all, the person answering the phone at 3 AM would probably be BILL.

As opposed to community organizer Obama, who always looks to me like he is 12 years old. And whose foreign policy experience is.....?

[cyndeewi]

DUH! Just to let you know JackWOrf, Hillary's BILL Clinton did not have any foreign policy experence!!! Helloooooooooooo!! If you love that man did you will have no problem with Obama.!

[KiwisCanFly]

Actually, my initial comment was meant for u winterline. I guess I was just too dam excited over what I had read.....Bravo, in a nutshell winterline!!!

[cassieblue]

Hillary wins the big states controlled by party bosses where favors are collected for things done in the past and for promises made for things to come. This is the old way Obama talks about. Most of the big states Hillary talks about will go Democratic no matter who the candidate is. Florida with its elderly and Latino population favors Hillary. If it favored Obama, the same people that are yelling for a do over would be singing a different song. I don't feel the people want a do over care about the voters rights, they just think advantage Hillary.

[WayBeyondBlue]

Hillary Clinton summed up in just two words: Sore Loser.