Slouching Toward Denver

In the future, I hope that we can all look back on Obama's long, meandering path to the nomination (and, hopefully, the presidency) with fondness. I hope we can reminisce about how Clinton's relentless attacks just toughened him up for November, how she preempted the Republican attack machine by doing their work for them, and how all our fretting was for naught. However, though I'm loath to admit it, my hopes are fading fast - "the tide is turning" against them, if you will.

As it stands right now, it's impossible for Clinton to win with pledged delegates. She's too far behind Obama, and she has plum run out of time. It's not going to happen. This matters a lot, of course, least of all because no Democratic candidate has ever won the nomination without leading in pledged delegates.

Unfortunately, Clinton's campaign - who I will hereafter refer to as the Hillary truthers - is having none of this. On Tuesday night, campaign chairman and head truther Terry McAuliffe instead trumpeted the popular vote as a new measure of victory. However, even if the popular vote decided the nomination - and it doesn't - the math isn't looking too favorable here, either. Unless McAuliffe is counting the outlawed Michigan and Florida primaries, Clinton's likely too far behind on this metric to win as well. She is still 600,000 votes behind Obama in the popular vote, and he is looking to make up a good chunk of the 200,000 or so votes he lost in Pennsylvania in the upcoming North Carolina and Indiana primaries.

That is the stark math of defeat. And with that laid out in front of them, Clinton and the Hillary truthers may want to take a long, hard look at the three options they have left. Of the three, only one leaves her with a modicum of dignity at the end. She would do well to choose wisely.

In the first scenario, she trudges on to Indiana and North Carolina, running a tame, respectful campaign. Then - after losing in North Carolina and, likely, Indiana - she drops out of the race, licks her wounds, and makes up for her scorched earth strategy by campaigning relentlessly for Obama in the general.

This is obviously the best scenario for her, Obama, and the party. As for her, it leaves open the option of running again in the future (whether for president or another higher office), and she can finally get to patching together some of the relationships she and Bill have spent the past few months laying waste to. Obama benefits too - he can start campaigning against the Republican he's supposed to be campaigning against. And the party can begin the long, arduous task of mending itself.

In the second option, Clinton hangs in the race and ratchets up the attacks, continuing to thwack Obama with the heavy, well-used pages she has wrenched so readily out of the Republican playbook. The race lurches towards the finish line, with Clinton eventually losing because, well, that's what happens to candidates who don't win more pledged delegates than the other candidate. Hillary truthers, take note.

This scenario offers little in the way of merriment or viability. Clinton effectively ends her career, and she and Bill are left on the sidelines of a Democratic party that they once, for all intents and purposes, ran. Obama, on the other hand, slumps into the general election against McCain, who will pick up right where Hillary left off with the slander and innuendo and race-baiting and prevaricating. Then, if Obama loses, America stumbles through another four years of tragedy, this time with Calamity John at the reins.

And what, pray tell, lies beyond door three? The candidates continue to beat each other up as the primaries lumber on, and we end up in a Denver deadlock. There, Clinton is able to sway enough superdelegates over to her side to usurp the public's will, and she - and the truthers - manage to wrest the nomination away from the first legitimate African-American presidential candidate in history. The Democratic Party is likely torn asunder, with the millions of new or rejuvenated voters that Obama brought into the campaign disenfranchised by their own party.

The general election will proceed, and Clinton will likely lose for a couple of reasons. First is that she will have alienated the (more than) half of the voters that wanted Obama to win, and deserved to have their voices heard. The second is that she will have yanked the race so far to the right that McCain - being, after all, a Republican - will simply outflank her, especially on national security, sending her career to an ignominious conclusion. And on the off chance she wins, we get at least four more years of reinvigorated partisan bickering, and burrow deeper into a status quo that's not working for anybody.

So there are three options right now, two of which could charitably be called disastrous. So what will it be? As we slouch towards Denver, will things fall apart, or will the party hold? Will we be able to look back on this race with fondness, or regret?

It's in Clinton's hands now.

Comments

[dawlishgal]

What IS the "popular vote" anyhow? How are the results from caucus states handled? It is OBVIOUS that turnout in these states is going to be WAY lower than in those states that merely require a 5 minute time expenditure to duck into a polling place. To attend a caucus requires a time committment of 2 to 4 hours, so of course, it is more likely to attract more people who know what is going on.

To count caucus attenders as one and primary voters as one will delute the power of the caucus states to have a say-so in who gets nominated (which, of course, is exactly what Hillary intends to do).

Why isn't somebody from the DNC explaining this to people?

[hrayovac]

Mathew, Unbelieveable that you should find any factual solace in the running stream of delusions served up like Pillsbury crescent rolls. There is no doubt amongst people who pay attention to the facts and figures of the race (shall we call them "literate") that Obama has steadily gained in each state..10 full points in PA..and the more people see him the more he is liked. Brand Hillary is fading and not viable even in an easier match-up. Look at the numbers and stop worrying. And her career in the Senate will not end in the Senate. Expect a post in a Dem. admin.

[missjabez]

I think Option 2 is a good possibility. The Clintons have shown they have no shame and that they don't give a damn about the Democratic Party. I wouldn't be surprised if they took this thing to the Convention, raised plenty of hell there, and then, when Obama gets the nomination, sulk on the sidelines. They are really beneath contempt.

[dawlishgal]

I agree. Any option that rewards the Clintons for their horrendously bad and narcissistic behavior is going to harm the Democratic Party in the long run by setting the precedent for slash and burn.

Besides that, the Clintons have been trying to change the party into something else (a corporate-sucking replica of the Republican Party) for years. (What do people think their campaign promise to oppose NAFTA, then immediately turning around and ramming it through congress was all about anyhow? What do they think their effort to remove Howard Dean as head of DNC and replace him with a more corporate-friendly person was all about? Why do you think they failed to campaign for Gore and Kerry if not to keep the seat warm for her)?

I NEVER though I would think this way, but I am beginning to wonder if maybe 4 years of McCain might be better than 8 years of Hillary. At least he hasn't threatened to nuke an entire country. Yet.

[M.S. Bellows, Jr. - Huffpost Blogger]

Bang-on post -- thank you from spreading the gospel of Math! I think you've missed the twist Clinton can put on Option 2, though: continue the primary, kneecap Obama as much as possible on the way, lose the primary, put on a gracious face, do little to help undo the damage you've done with bluecollar whites, watch Obama go down in flames, then say "I told you so!" to everyone and begin ramping up your campaign for 2012.

It's her only road to the White House. If Obama beats McCain, he'll be the incumbent in 2012 and Hillary won't get another shot until 2016 -- when she'll be 68 years old and will have to compete against Obama's veep, whoever that is. But if Obama loses, Clinton's got the angle on 2012. Why the Supers need to stop this is that they're not fully aware that she's simply started her 2012 campaign.

[dawlishgal]

It is up to the Democratic leadership to prevent her and HIM from pulling this off. It is sad to see so many oblivious voters who can't seem to understand that the Clintons have already as much as joined the Republican party....for gawdssake, he is traveling around the globe and banking millions of dollars by lending his support to more dubious trade deals....deals that will take away more American jobs to pile on top of those that THEIR NAFTA already has taken away. And, thanks to Hillary and her bungling , the people who lose their jobs can't count on healthcare either.

[bougie]

I pray for scenario One, but the Clintons have proved to me that they are narcissistic power-craving people who put their own selfish interests above the good of the country and the Democratic Party. Andrew Sullivan said it best yesterday: the Clintons are "shameless". Scenario Three looks likely. God help us.

[GaiasChild]

Don't you see it??? All this is a setup for the brokered convention brawl that could even involve litigation. There's no stopping anywhere. All the Clinton campaign people are beating the same drum these days, count Floriday and Michigan, which, in my world, translates to "Convention Brawl,"

[katefranklin]

With the possibility of the activist base being disenfranchised and feeling heavily crapped upon, doesn't the Ralph Nader variable suddenly become all the more potent? There's nothing like a two-headed Clinton monstrosity emerging from their newly created swamp of disgustingly-negative-campaiging to bring out protest votes in droves. My $0.02.

[mrman]

You have stated the situation well Sir. I thank you!