When Winning is Losing

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.

Comments

[mcfried]

Let’s get real.
From a story here on HUFFPO
The RNC when questioned as to why they are only sending out Obama related releases.
The RNC Communications Director told Marc Ambinder:

"What we do is a reflection of political reality."

Somebody needs to send Sen. Clinton the memo.
Honestly, Mark Penn et al are beyond incompetent. It's a sad day when the Republicans are more rational than the Democrats.

[altohone]

Penn only billed for 10% of Hillary's political donations.

I'm sure her supporters are happy to make him rich AND pay back Hillary's loan.

[standforpeace]

This is no longer about Hillary Clinton. It's about the Super Delegates now. It is up to each of them to make a personal pledge to support whoever emerges as the winner after the primary/caucus season is over. It's also about the Democratic party ponying up the money to rerun those races in Florida and Michigan. Those voters got shafted and that is unacceptable. Time for the Democratic party to admit this New Hampshire/Iowa nonsense has outlived any usefulness it ever had.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

Only the Republicans "win" states. In the Democratic primaries (and those things called "caucuses" where people who don't need a President show up in their limos) it's not about "winning."

It's almost like asking, "Did you win your mid-term exam?" It's about getting higher percentages, not just getting more than 50%.

So if Hillary "wins" Texas and Ohio and MSNBC plays their theme music while placing her quite attractive smiling photo on the screen-- but "wins" each by only 5%, well, that's a "C-" in Democratic terms.

That's why there's a good argument for her withdrawing right now. She's not Huckabee-- she's a Clinton, the name that still sits atop the Democratic party, not one that the party doesn't take very seriously.

And going all out negative would be disastrous. Meanwhile, newspaper endorsements, endorsements from politicians, superdelegates, the polls, the money, these will all be going go toward Obama up until March 4th. And any money she might raise would be something of a waste-- these donors might consider giving to the party in order to beat McCain.

Mostly, her campaign has been so unworthy of her, with no post-Super Tuesday planning, with the Rovian tactics of Wolfson and Penn, the everchanging slogans and themes-- put it out of its misery now, bury the "Ready on Day One" line before it attracts more flies, and hope Obama loses in the fall. Then come back in 2012.

[Researchguy66]

My god, that's a brilliant post!

I think I would disagree that she should pull out before Obama wins enough delegates to make her irrelevant, but that's simply a matter of playing out the clock. It just seems wrong to force a conclusion to the campaign when the electorate hasn't gotten there yet. I think the same of Huckabee. It just seems respectful.

Otherwise, I'm in complete agreement. Does put her on the wrong side in the general, but it's not like she wasn't there in 2004 already.

[JaneBecker]

Making Hillary more ladylike won't make her go away:

http://thedamedomain.blogspot.com/2008/02/wild-women-dont-get-blues.html

[Paul]

Obama is the future.

Hillary is the past.

McCain is an older Bush.

Guess who is going to be President this time next year?

[Researchguy66]

It would be better to put pressure on McCain to drop out. That way as soon as Obama wins the Democratic nomination, we can award the presidency to Obama. This silly election stuff just takes way too long!

[Paul]

McCain needs to lose badly so that Republican Conservatism is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

[JFRED]

Hillary Clinton should consider a graceful retreat from the presidential race, even before March 4. And President Obama should consider Senator Clinton as his first appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not a quid pro quo situation, but a repairing conclusion to divisive Democratic politics in the past several months. Everyone wins. And isn't that Obama's goal?

[HowardRoarke]

Senator Clinton has demonstrated she isn't afraid to attack Democratic voters directly, and doesn't play well with others. Let's not give in to her authoritarian streak.

Same holds for Senate Leader. She can't get cosponsors for her legislation in OUR party, how could she lead it.

Make her an ambassador to her choice of European allies.

[legalclubs]

Actually, this is brilliant. I think it's fair to say that there is enough bad blood between the Obama and Hillary Clinton that she couldn't serve in his cabinent, however, she would be perfect as a Supreme Court Justice. This position also suits her better where we need a hard worker in the position of a Justice, but we need someone to inspire the American public to force the Republicans to not block the progressive agenda.

[AnninCA]

I've thought about this. The fact is that if she wins the big states, there WILL be a shift in thinking about Obama.

His rock-star stage presence will start to tarnish.

People will start wondering.

So we await the voters in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Apparently, this is the TRUE Super-Tuesday.

[AdLib]

So wishful thinking trumps mathematics?

[TurnThePageGA]

In other wors"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". She just has to win those three states 52-48 or 51-49 or 50.1 to 49.9. Pay no attention to the "PLEDGED" Delegate count. Pay no attention to the caucus states. Pay no attention to Southern States with African American voting population greater than 10 percent. Pay no attention to primaries in red or purple states. Pay no attention to the popular vote.

[AnninCA]

Interesting how you are relying upon Math.

Really think that's a mandate?

[HowardRoarke]

I would just like to hear the Clinton excuses why the upcoming losses didn't matter?

Texas - red state. Of course she's been hugging texas like a native since super tuesday. You know, she spent a summer there once.

Ohio - was like Wisconsin, now definitely NOT like Wisconsin (post 17 pt loss). Filled with the same blue collar folks. Any loss will be do the blacks, right? They just vote their race so don't count, I hear. They're almost as bad as those ungrateful traitorous women who refuse to see reason and vote Clinton.

Pennsylvania - she's way ahead here. No worries. Pennsylvania definitely counts. Of course, the 20% leads in TX and OH vanished as soon as Obama started campaigning in those states. But PA is obviously different.

(and you should be aware PA isn't on the same Tuesday as TX and OH. He'll have weeks to campaign in PA before that election)

[Openeyes]

I'm still waiting to hear the excuses for the last 10 losses. they apparently aren't important enough to comment on, beyond, "well we didn't expect to win any way" as though that means the wins don't really amount to anything.

Oh well, who is John Galt?

[standforpeace]

Well if she loses Texas, it's because of the way that the delegates are assigned to districts. It's definitely not her fault for building her whole strategy around the state without first investigating its election rules.

And Blacks are a special case. They just don't count in the primaries. If she is able to somehow pull the nomination out of her ass, she will be out assuring Black voters that she will treasure their November block vote like she treasures Bill's new found fidelity.

[JerfyT]

shes already setting up that Texas doesn't matter

"I'd love to carry Texas, but it's usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are,"

[Trudie]

"Apparently, this is the TRUE Super-Tues­day."

Why, because you didn't like what happened on the first Super Tuesday? Which, by the way, is exactly what you predict will happen this time: Hillary winning the "big states." I'm pretty sure most people consider New York and California to be big... but I guess Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are the TRUE big states.

[PinkoAttic]

Super Tuesday gone. Say Goodbye Ruby Tuesday. The longer Clinton fanatics fantasize about that which will not be, the more chance swings toward Mr. McCain in November. No amount of calculated gestures of good will or wishful thinking is going to swing the pendulum back to Mrs. Clinton. If she does not win Ohio and Texas by at least 10 pts each, the only conclusion rational people will have is that she is bent on gaining power at the expense of anyone or thing in her path.

[GreenDemo]

Interesting analysis. I believe Mrs. Clinton has enough sense to withdraw gracefully when the time comes. Let's hope she doesn't spoil the election with a worthless battle gone too long.

[paixa3]

I believe that all of you loyalist democrats are going to very angry, and HOPEFULLY VERY PISSED OFF, when Hillary get the nomination, regardless of what the people want.

Why people have supported this corrupt 2 party system is questioned? As a result, the USA has gone from a stellar country to a third world nation in about 20 years. That fast decline has to be some kind of record (and not a GOOD ONE).

[AdLib]

You sound like the type who looks forward to the Apocalypse.

[TheAirport]

The 2-party system is mostly a result of the single plurality electoral system. Duverger's Law states this.

[Annette]

Hillary will get the nomination when more people vote for her than Obama. You don't like the 2 party system, well good for you, what do you propose to do about it. Threatening to hold you breath won't work any more than Naders efforts or Perot's did. Not voting till there is the perfect candidate won't help either.

[dav33]

I think that time was after the Potomac primaries. What this good post suggests, is that there is absolutely nothing to gain for the Democratic party in her going forward.

[AnninCA]

She'll withdraw if she doesn't win in this group of primaries.

I have no doubt.

And, I think it will be the right choice.

[RichLiberal]

This is nothing more than Obama spin to discourage Hillary supporters.

Fact: Obama's "10 in a row" were states with a grand total of 70 electoral votes. California alone, which Hillary won has 55. Texas and Ohio combine for another 54. Hillary wins those and the 10 in a row is more like 10 more red state caucus fiascos on which this Obama campaign was built.

Author knows his comment is BS, and therefore puts forth the other Obama gimme,gimme,gimme strategy of trying to change the rules for the super-delegates, since they, in fact, are part of farcical system the DNC put together. But, of course, like the Republicans did in Florida 2000 to the Fla Supreme Court, this Obaman is trying to bully the rule-makers to change the rules to suit his candidate.

The campaign is now in a new phase. If Hillary wins TX/OH then the game is not over. The Obamans hope they can end it fast, because they know that people are going to continue to ask questions about what Obama's "trusted advisor", Michelle, meant when she said:

"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."

This was not a "slip of the tongue" in the sense that it was a mis-statement of her beliefs, it was a slip that she revealed what she and Barack really think of America, unless, that is, they happen to become the First Family.

Obama has been back-pedalling 100 mph this week trying to run away from this remark. Michelle is busy trying to restate it in terms she is making up in the hopes the "friendly press" will make it go away.

It won't. It's there to stay. All that's left is who wins the spin game now that the truth has been unmistakably been revealed.

[HowardRoarke]

HA HA

Baghdad Bob has nothing on this guy.

You do understand that the delegates are delivered proportionately, right? You do realize that her margin in CA wasn't that great, right? You do realize that she'd be lucky to take 55% of either TX or OH, right?

Why is it Clinton supporters believe more in Hillary than in Democracy?

Let the candidate with the most elected support win.

[RadicalRuss]

Geez, I'm so tired of the "Obama didn't win the 'significant' states argument," and nobody calling out the most obvious point in rebuttal:

Barack won 10 states with 70 electoral votes... against Hillary. Hillary won California with 55 electoral votes... against Barack.

But electoral votes aren't given to primary winners, they are given to general election winners. Barack not winning California against Hillary means nothing. Barack winning California against McCain does.

Same goes for the other "significant" states of NY, NJ, etc. Barack losing them to Hillary means nothing, because he'll win them against McCain. Additionally, he may turn a few of those "insignificant" states blue, something Hillary has no chance of achieving.

[WoodyCPM]

That's exactly right. In the primaries, in terms of what it bodes for the general election, it does not matter who wins NY and CA. CA and NY almost ALWAYS vote Democratic in the General. The electability factor is far more significantly indicated in so-called "red" states like Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, Alabama. These primary voters, despite the fact that they're caucuses, are still voters from those states and are more likely to indicate which way voters, who are likely to vote for a Democrat, are leaning.

CA and NY? Obama will win them in a heartbeat come November.

[olderdem]

In your words "This was not a "slip of the tongue" in the sense that it was a mis-statement"


"I never had sex with that woman" not a misstatement, just a lie.

Again, in your words "It's there to stay" and it got us George Bush and an war in Iraq. No more of the Clinton lies.

[slw0606]

There is a huge difference between lobbying super delegates to vote for the candidate with the most primary/caucus votes (which is what the Obama people are doing and which is NOT changing the rules unless the rules suggest one cannot lobby a superdelegate - if so, you may want to clue the Clinton campaign in on that rule)

and

saying you (the Clinton people) will try and seat the Florida and Michigan delegates. Now THAT is changing the rules - rules even Clinton person Harold Ickes agreed to last summer as part of the DNC when it was decided only 4 states could vote prior to Super Tuesday).

No, my friend, it is the Clinton people who are trying to change rules in a desparate bid to gain delegates by any means possible (rather then "the old fashioned way" - earn them).

Funny thing is, unless a miracle of epic proportions come along and people awake from their Obama trance, the Clinton people will quickly see the super delegates are not their ace in the hole when they start fleeing toward a true winner.

[6louis9]

Giving over $600,000 (Obama money) to the superdelegates doesn't hurt either.

[AnninCA]

I agree. And I sent Hillary some money, wrote to Super-Delegates yesterday that I respected their defined position but also encouraged them to not think that support for Hillary has gone away.

So yeah, I have hope.

And I've been a hard-core Democrat for a very long time.

I'm used to tough fights.

[altohone]

Mark Penn's bank account thanks you.

[TriciaC]

I'm sure Mark Penn will be glad to get that money.
Perhaps you could rent out a swanky hotel for them in Texas or Ohio== That's what your money has been used for in the past. I guess this is the kind of fiscal responsibility you want in a President.

[desmirl]

Hilary needs to step aside. She needs to understand that the reason she is so umpopular in her own party stems from her votes on authorizing the invasion of Iraq and her recent vote on declaring part of the military of Iran a terrorist organization, thus giving Bush a back door to go to war with Iran. Hilary isn't offering any solutions, and truth is, SHE'S PART OF THE PROBLEMS!

[AnninCA]

She has nearly the same popularity vote as him.

So......wh­at's your excuse about the number of people in this elections who haven't been swept by Obamamania?

[todayslies]

Easy: her core demographic is older white women, just like her. They're voting for someone who they like to see as themselves. That's pretty basic. I know older white women (like my mother, and my spouse's mother) who disagree with Hillary's centrist positions vehemently, but are still voting for her because they see their own professional struggles in hers. That's a large, but fundamentally losing coalition, and it has nothing to do with some intellectual case against "Obamamania".

[altohone]

Actually, Hillary is way behind in popularity.

She's also a million votes behind in the popular vote.

[HowardRoarke]

She'll have spent 3 weeks campaigning in OH and TX by March 4th. She's telling them how very important they are to her. But then, she's said that in every state she's campaigned.

When she loses, history shows she'll just pick up and move on, as if TX and OH never existed at all.

Hillary is so insincere.

The only way Hillary will be gracious to TX and OH is if she bows out of the race after the loss.

[sarge]

Hmmm. Very true. Single digit wins in TX & OH will only prolong the inevitable, to the detriment of Hillary, and the Democratic party.

I don't think she can win Texas, however. Obama's ground game is too good. And not just in Texas, he's got the whole country on the phone, and a large contigent that are flying themselves in to volunteer a few days before the election.

For a great picture of what's happening in Texas, read these contrasting posts by Kos & Mayhill Fowler:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/22/1817/90601/37/461683

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/clintons-texas-ground-ga_b_87723.html

[slw0606]

With the polls dead even in Texas after Hillary being ahead double digits just last week, Hillary supporters are deluding themsleves if they really believe she can win Texas, let alone by single digit.

Did anyone see that huge march of black students, who marched 7 miles to vote early in Texas because their county refused to open more then one early voting station. I'm sure they were all rushing to support Hillary.

Dallas, Houston, and other big cities with large African American populations will go nearly universal for Obama and based on the primary in 2004, blacks voted in larger percentages then Hispanics in Texas.

But we all know Obama is starting to win the majority of white vote too.

Hillary will get the little old white ladies over 65 and maybe the older Hispanic vote.

She will lose Texas double digits.

As for Ohio, I live in Columbus. The popular Democratic governor of Ohio support Clinton. The popular mayor of Columbus supports Obama.

OK, so what?

More importantly, over 700 people crammed a union hall February 13 in Columbus to volunteer for Obama. When it was asked how many are volunteering for the first time in a political campaign, about 4/5th raised their hands.

In my state legislative district alone, over 65 people have volunteered to GOTV.

You should see how professional and targeted the GOTV canvassing material is - they are probably using John Kerry's vast database from 2004.

Clinton polled over 20 points ahead of Obama in Ohio two weeks ago. The most recent Washinton Post/ABC poll showed her only 7 points ahead in Ohio. By March 4, I predict Clinton will lose Ohio, at least by single digits.

With her parting comments in the debate last night, I hope that signals she will suspend her campaign March 5 if she loses Texas OR Ohio.

[HowardRoarke]

That's incredible.

Obama draws more VOLUNTEERS than Hillary draws gawkers.