Clinton to the Convention?

When the Democratic primary calendar ends on June 3rd, Senator Obama will have more delegates than Senator Clinton.

On what grounds could a candidate who is behind at the end of a race avoid conceding that he or she has been beaten? On the grounds that the race really isn't over!

After the primary calendar has ended, Clinton's campaign can only justify or explain her staying in the race if she makes the case that the Democratic Party still has not chosen a nominee conclusively. Clinton needs an argument that the game should go into extra innings. Overtime. Bonus round. Detention. Whatever. Clinton has now found that argument -- she says she will not stop campaigning until the issue of the Florida and Michigan delegates is settled to her satisfaction.

The Florida/Michigan issue get settled, of course, by the Democrats' Rules and Bylaws Committee... unless of course that committee's decision gets appealed to the Credentials Committee... unless of course that decision, too, gets appealed... to the floor of the convention.

Do you see where this is going? If there is an open, unresolved procedural issue involving the Florida and Michigan delegations, Senator Clinton will be able to cite that as her justification for staying in the race until the convention even though she is not ahead in the nomination contest at the end of the primary calendar.

If she can ensure that the Florida and Michigan issue stays unresolved until the convention (and by appealing it every step of the way, I don't see how that can be avoided), then Clinton stays in the race until the convention. Staying in until the convention buys her three more months of campaign time, three more months to make her case to the party and the country, three more months for some potential political unfortunateness to befall Senator Obama.

And it keeps the race for the Democratic nomination open, at least theoretically, for Senator Clinton to win instead of Senator Obama.

How could Clinton win at the convention? Seems to me that three months is a long time in this race, and if it gets that far, anything could happen.

Pffft! You say. Scoff.

Listen: you don't need a vivid political imagination to recognize that if what you really want is to be President of the United States -- a slim chance of becoming President (a fight at the convention) is better than no chance of becoming President (because you dropped out).

The Clinton strategy, as best as I can tell, is to stay in the race. You can't win if you don't play -- conceding the nomination is sure defeat, not conceding means there's still a chance.

The way for her to avoid conceding is for her to avoid conceding that the race is resolved.

As long as the Florida and Michigan dispute is alive, and it is being used as the basis of Clinton's claim that the nomination is unresolved, we should expect that Senator Clinton will stay in the race.

We should also expect that if the Democratic Party's committee system takes up the Florida and Michigan dispute through its rules as they stand now, Clinton's campaign will be able to keep the Michigan and Florida dispute alive until the convention. If there's a secret Democratic-insider plan to keep that from happening, it's time for that plan to become un-secret.

The pundit corps has been counting Clinton out and saying the race is over -- but saying it doesn't make it so.

If Clinton fights to stay in until the convention -- which seems utterly plausible to me -- then I believe the Democratic Party's nominee (Obama or Clinton) will lose the general election to John McCain. This last point is of course infinitely debatable -- but my take is that in November, the party that's had a nominee since February/March, beats the party that only got a nominee the last week in August.

So, how does the Democratic Party get a nominee before the convention? Seems to me there's two things that need to happen. One small, one big.

First, Obama's campaign should stop believing what most of the press says, and start believing what Clinton says -- she isn't budging. If they don't mind the prospect of a divided convention, then fine -- if they do mind that prospect, they'll have to fight for their desired outcome. Clinton is now arguing that taking the fight to the convention is OK for the Democrats -- even noble. This argument won't be defeated if it is ignored -- Obama's camp will have to rebut.

Second, if the Democrats are to avoid a divided convention, the Florida and Michigan dispute will have to be taken off the table -- settled in a way that avoids the risk of a rules dispute that stretches the nominating contest out through the convention. I can think of only one way to do that, but there may be others.

Here's my way: based on my read of NBC's delegate math, I think if the Clinton campaign won 100% of what they wanted on the Florida and Michigan dispute, Obama could still clinch the nomination -- even according to the most pro-Clinton math -- if 90 of the remaining 210-or-so undeclared superdelegates declared for Obama.

If they so declared before May 31st, the Rules and Bylaws committee would have no reason to take up the Florida and Michigan dispute because it would be a moot point -- Obama's camp could concede every Clinton demand on the subject and still win the nomination.

Otherwise? I'll be the twitchy one on radio row at the divided Democratic convention in Denver... spooked by the ghosts of 1968, 1972, 1980...

Rachel

PS -- I should note here, briefly, that I don't have a personal preference between Senators Clinton and Obama as to who would run a better campaign against John McCain, or who would be a better President. I think both Obama and Clinton would probably be pretty good general election contenders, and probably they'd each be a good president. (50% of my hate mail tells me I'm in the tank for Obama and 50% of it tells me I'm in the tank for Clinton - although the level of vitriol on each side has risen and fallen with the tide of the campaign).

Comments

[genielt]

Rachel,

I'm so excited, you finally figured it out! !!!!! It took you a while, but I have to give you more credit than all of your friends at MSNBC like Keith and Chris and Joe and Tim and ... (is there a reason these are all male names?) ... oh yeah, Chuck, the math whiz--almost forgot that one. I'm going to attribute your sudden clarity of thought to the fact that you're a woman and can see the practical reality of any situation with greater accuracy than your dreaming male colleagues. Yes, yours has (occasionally) been the voice of reason while Olbermann sat there with a bemused, dopey look on his face and wondered WHY, WHY, WHY was Clinton still in the race? So, kudos to you. She's still in the race to win it.

The problem with Democrats is that they keep picking losers--men who don't really know how to compete against Republicans. It seems that if Democrats can't win the presidency with their perfect, idealized candidate (Gore, Kerry, Obama) they would prefer not to win at all. Clinton is a winner with everyone except those pie-in-the-sky Democrats who value principle above practical reality, the African Americans who are voting for Obama because he's black (and rightly so), and the youth who are out to vote because it's about as trendy this year as the newest shade of iPod.

[JimP]

Great post! You should start a blog on this page.

[WoodyIV]

One note. "the African Americans who are voting for Obama because he's black (and rightly so)"
As an African American I find that as silly as me saying 'women who are voting for Hillary because she's a women, (and rightly so)'. If either is true, it would not be right. Vote on the issues alone, and realize that the issues will be promoted in a way that is decided by a chosen political method. The political method espoused and evidenced by the two democratic contenders is the only material difference between them.

[pilgrim7]

I strongly disagree. The Democratic problem is not that they keep picking losers. Al Gore won the 2000 election by popular vote. It was handed to GWB by the Supreme Court. The 2004 election results are also questionable but never contested. Obama has run a successful campaign against HRC based on no more politics as usual.

[Thabit]

The real way to settle this is to award all delegates as voted BUT SEAT NO SUPERDELEGATES FROM BOTH STATES It was the supers that voted to move up the primarys and the dem governor of mich that signed it (repub governor in florida so not our super anyway) That would penalize the ones that moved up the primarys while counting the voters . She might be forced to accept that

[Glacial]

I like this idea. But, how would they handle the Michigan uncommitted delegates?

[AbbieXHoffman]

Rachel,

Campaigns that were decided at the convention include JFKs candidacy when Johnson entered AT the convention and JFK still won.

[rooks]

"If Clinton fights to stay in until the convention -- which seems utterly plausible to me -- then I believe the Democratic Party's nominee (Obama or Clinton) will lose the general election to John McCain."

This says it all. It is the party stupid. Why is Hillary going to risk the presidency??

[SmellTheHorse]

If Hillary does bow out before the Convention, you can bet she will continue to work against Obama behind the scenes.
She and Bill are setting the groundwork for this right now, by pushing this (false) idea that she has won the popular vote (she has, if 2+2=3) and thus pushing the idea, to white female older voters, that the nomination is being "stolen" from Hillary --ain't entitled victimhood grand?-- and thus making sure many of those white female older voters stay home in Nov., thus electing McCain, thus paving way for Hillary 2012.

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

I thought it was "if 2+1=4"

[queotic]

I agree - but I think that once the race between Obama and McCain is in full swing and McCain's anti-women rights stances come to the forefront, the older women voters will realize what a mistake it would be to either actively or passively help McCain get elected. McCain wants to appoint even more conservative judges to the Supreme Court to overthrow Roe vs Wade. I know women who both agree and disagree with abortion, but almost every single thinks that it is the woman's right to choose. This would set women's rights back at least 25 years, more if you consider how long it would take to appeal it with newly appointed-for-life conservative Supreme Court judges.

[lthuedk 1]

Adding extra rounds to the fight just because one is losing is so Rovian, and now so Clintonian. Changing the architecture of the game after the rules have been agreed to is the Rove/Clinton standard of play. Along the entire path to the nomination we've witnessed the the rank and disrespectful campaign of not a future leader, but an angry martinet who has done serious damage to the women's movement and the Democratic Party she claims to be a member of.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/Baby_Billary.html

[millfarm]

Rachel is a treasure! She is so smart and sharp . . . just listen for once to what she says.

Hillary is going NO where--she has nothing in her life but POLITICS! After all, what is there to lose?
The voters have given her chance after chance to close this deal and she cannot. She cannot accept losing and cannot find a way to win honestly. But, do the Clintons ever play by the rules? NEVER have so why would you expect it now. She had not even noticed the voters in FL or MI until she fell behind and faced the impossibility of not becoming the nominee. Furthermore, she cannot believe or accept that a young, brilliant BLACK MAN has taken this election away from them. BillyBoy wants to be back in that White House more than the Ms. He is behind all this testing the votes and rewriting the rules. He cannot stand defeat--and then for her to make all the unforgivable, insensitive statements--only to spin it and never take the blame. Do we need a President like that--one who never takes the blame for a mistake in judgment? All the Clintons want is $$$$$$$ and false/faux credit for the job.

Wake up voters--what you see in Hillary is just what you will get . . .

[ornovscot]

I agree with Rachel's analysis, as I agreed with her analysis a few weeks ago when she appeared on MNBC with Keith Olberman during one of the primary elections.

Hillary Clinton should be taken at her word.

[mouselion]

Hey, it worked for W. getting the presidency in 2000. What's a little nomination compared to that?! Oughta be a piece o' cake, right?!

[PatrickforO]

JTyroler had a good point when he posted: How about seating the Florida and Michigan delegates as uncommitted and allowing them to vote based on their individual beliefs. This would get rid of what is apparently the latest reason for Clinton to remain in the race.

Good idea. But with the hot water Clinton is now in because of alluding to Bobby's death in 1968, I believe this may be a moot point. I expect a bigger trickle of supers to come out in Obama's favor next week, and Obama victories in SD and Montana. He should have it sewn up by mid-June. I sincerely believe at this point, most thinking Democrats are done with Hillary.

[dajay]

Rachel, save it. You don't have a personal preference between Obama and Hillary.

Then what have you been doing bashing Hillary since New Hampshire, on that dopey network of yours.

You might as well come out wearing an Obama 08 sticker on your forward, as you sit there and kiss Keith Olbermann's butt and giggle like a schoolgirl with Gene RObinson, everytime some empty suit next to you on MSNBC bashes Hillary.

By the way, 9 out of 10 times Pat Buchanan has been right, when you debate.

How does that make you feel? Pretty scary, I would think.

[brizzle]

"By the way, 9 out of 10 times Pat Buchanan has been right, when you debate."

Well, I'm not actually scared per se, but I'm pretty surprised that someone who agrees with Pat Buchanan 90% of the time can actually USE the internet.

[dottedzebra]

"By the way, 9 out of 10 times Pat Buchanan has been right, when you debate"

I love statements like this. Oh yeah? Well I think that 9 out of 10 times Rachel has been right.

If you listened to her long enough you'd see she's isn't for either one. What you're hearing is where she stands on current issues about each one. Sometimes it's against Obama, and sometimes is against Hillary.

It's really a great concept, judging someone by their actions instead of picking a side and blindly sticking to it no matter what.

[TrueThis]

I'm a big Rachel Maddow fan, I watch her alot on MSNBC but she don't need to push this article or even instigate it because the DNC rules are based on delegate votes not popular votes. All this women lib (I'm a woman) is really getting out of hand. I thought we were picking a president based on the issues and what's best for this country. It's obvious the American people want honesty and true change.

[olivia]

I don't think you read her article.

She is talking about delegate votes - superdelegate votes in particular.

And her post had absolutely nothing about women's lib.

[DogTown]

"All this women lib (I'm a woman) is really getting out of hand."
I'm sorry, but what are you even talking about?

[merle7]

Is it true Hillary want all her votes from MI and give Obama 0 votes because his name was not on the ballot. I heard they wanted to compromise 69/59 for MI and she said no. Florida should be seated as is after all his name was on the ballot, just to shut her up. But by rules they both should not count, I heard the voters went to vote on a tax bill that same day and some decided to vote in the primary knowing their votes would not count.

[wolfi101]

Yeah, I've heard a few versions of this. The latest from her staff was to give all of the votes that the candidates received to them and then divide the Undecideds or Others ( for those who dropped out ) evenly.

This means, that Hillary would get the votes cast for her in Michigan, but Obama would only get half of those Undecided/Other votes there.

[ He plays by the rules; She gets rewarded. ]

[GingerB]

She's entitled (at least in her own mind).

[rooks]

How unfair can this get. Why would we even think of putting this person in the WH when
she doesn't even have a grip on reality. Fed up.

[Dotsie]

I think she's in until the convention no matter what happens. If you give her Florida and Michigan she will say how close this is and then she will find something else to dispute. I have no trust for Clinton. By the way, I think you are always evenhanded in your commentary. It is appreciated!

[JTyroler]

How about seating the Florida and Michigan delegates as uncommitted and allowing them to vote based on their individual beliefs. This would get rid of what is apparently the latest reason for Clinton to remain in the race.

The super delegates are acting like, well, Democrats - often not willing to take a stand on an issue and stick with it. In the meantime, Clinton goes deeper in debt and in her desperation, willing to destroy almost anything that might prevent her from being president.

All it takes is several uncommitted super delegates to endorse Obama until Obama meets the required number of delegates for the nomination. That might stop young kids from selling their bikes and video games to support Clinton's campaign so that she can pay overpriced consultants.

[mijumom]

Awesome idea!!!

[brizzle]

This will still be a problem. Many of the "uncommitted" delegates have already been assigned, specifically with Clinton supporters. Don't forget that the Michigan democratic party elite favors Senator Clinton.

This is no solution. Those delegates are uncommitted in NAME ONLY.

[AZM]

Where the hell were all the women in 1984 when Geraldine Ferraro was on the Democratic ticket?
Reagan/Bush received 58.8% of the popular vote, Mondale/Ferraro received 40.6%.

[toocoldout]

Well first woman vice president is nowhere near first woman president.