The crescendo of campaign talking points and punditry has turned to Ohio and Texas, a series of contests that could change the narrative -- or perhaps, end it. Recent polls have differed, but have generally shown Obama gaining on what were substantial leads for Hillary only weeks ago. Bill Clinton has repeated what James Carville had said earlier, that without wins in both states, the campaign would be over. At last night's debate, Hillary expressed a similar sentiment, suggesting that it was Texas that would choose the nominee.
If Obama's resource advantage and organizational strength lead him to upset victories in either state, the Clinton campaign will be deflated beyond repair. Her concession that night will signal a shift in tone, her withdrawal announced within days. There is little doubt she will be gracious and touching, her humanity on full display.
But what if she wins?
What if the steady increase in Obama's polling numbers plateaus, shy of what's needed to overcome her once sizable lead? Surely if Hillary wins both states she will continue onward, hoping that after 36 contests, there is still such a thing as momentum. But win or lose, the math is still daunting. In the remaining contests where Hillary is viable, she will have to win nearly two-thirds of the delegates to regain her lead, a feat that no combination of her dwindling coalition could muster. In every contest since February 5th, Obama has systematically eaten into her traditional base of women, Latinos, and low-income voters. Of the remaining states, Obama is favored to win many, with none of her victories assured. Ohio and Texas may change the story on March 4th, but they will not change her reality. When fourteen more states are added into the mix, the numbers will change, but the calculus will not. She cannot overtake him.
And yet, the race continues.
Having staked out Ohio and Texas, Hillary Clinton cannot admit publicly that the nomination was lost before they arrived. Ohio and Texas are not must-wins for Hillary. After ten staggering losses in a row, there are no more must-wins.
If Hillary wins Ohio and Texas, it will just prolong the inevitable decline of the once inevitable candidate. She will continue to advocate the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations; she will continue to call for super delegates to overturn the public will if needed. She will continue to deepen the animosity she has encouraged from within her own base, showcasing the very politics they have chosen to reject. The irony will be that her greatest losses will be suffered as a result of her wins. With no end in sight, her attacks will look selfish and subversive. The empathy and respect she could have regained with a graceful exit in March will be replaced by a bitterness and frustration, with wounds unlikely to heal.
If it does wound McCain, but he still holds on to high hopes, then the delegates might say "bite the bullet, Barrack", you're still young enough to do it again. The sheep will bahh for awhile, but then they get back to whatever they were doing. The answers are out there. If the delegates are truly independent, and this thing turns ugly, they should draft the deserving Gore. I mean draft, like the Army. 4 years would be enough. Closest thing to a parliamentry election. All's well that ends well.
Mathematically over the last several weeks Senator Obama has climbed into a lead in delegates but only a marginal lead. If the remaining races go either way this margin will not change much. The margin I am talking about is a percentage of delegates and that percentage has persisted in the range of from 3% to 4%. By any stretch of the imagination 3%-4% is not a mandate and it would be my hope that the "super" delegates take their position seriously and vote to seek a solid,experienced, candidate who can win the general election against what will surely be a nasty vicious campaign. The visible signs are before us already.
I would hope that somewhere in the Democratic party there is that right person who can be drafted. After all what he or she will need is the sense to accept the fact that the chips in the coming general election are too high and important not to accept the draft and the party behind them.
Personally I cannot and will not vote for a person who does not have those qualities.I can no longer accept a weak unprepared candidate. I will support the rest of the ticket and hope that the Congress has that strength.
Isn't relevancy one of the reasons many states opted to move their primaries up on the calendar. In "our" democracy every vote should count (ie. popular vote vs. electoral college; popular vote vs. delegates).
With a popular vote spread of less than 5%, does it make sense to end this race prematurely? What kind of example does this provide to the next generation, to those aspiring U.S. citizens and to the growing democracies around the world? How does this make our democracy legitimate?
Real Clear Politics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
2/22/08
Popular vote
-
Obama - 10,300,410
Clinton - 9,375,213
---------------------------------
Total - 19,675,623
--
Difference of - 925,197 or 4.7%
If she loses Texas and doesn't do well--or possibly loses also--Ohio, she will most definitely concede and do so graciously.
And I hope that most of Obama's supporters aren't so wacked-out that they can't accept her concession graciously as well.
If you don't, you're hurting your candidate. Think about it.
I think every voter's vote should count. It takes a hella nerve for ANY political party to remove ANY Americans vote. That is our God given right. I really don't care what the candidates name is, nor what party. If this were happening in ANY other country we'd ALL be raising hell about it. Why? Because the PEOPLE were not allowed to be heard.
Dragging the process out to the convention would show utter contempt for what is best for the party... even if it's her right.
When is the last time a superdelegate announced for Hillary?
Who wants to buy the last ticket on the Titanic?