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

[AbbieXHoffman]

I adore you Rachel but I disagree that 3 months isn't enough time. Most people that haven't made up their mind are going to vote on their gut and three months IS enough time for Obama (and yes, youre most definately in the tank for him) to get their message out--especially since Obama has been campaigning heavily and non-stop in every state, except MI and FL.

[irishgawdess]

And what if people just leave for their vacations and totally forget about the campaigns for a while... give it a rest, relax and let all the stress go?

Naw, not gonna happen. We've got to maintain vigilance! Pundits, have at it! We're hooked.

And I was so looking forward to those cool lake waters... ;-P(

PS - Rachel, hope you'll write here again. I love your analysis and insights.

[FlowerGirl]

Hillary's campaign has turned so many of us off that I doubt sdhe can ever recover respect. She can't win against McCain if she steals the nomination, and she can't get that nomination by any fair means.

What she has successfully accomplished by her campaign is to prove what so many have been saying about her for so long: she is a power mad, selfish, destructive, divisive, unprincipled person.
When you think on it, that is quite a lot to have done in so short as time.

[sak]

You are right on the mark. Months before Rachel predicted that Hillary would take this to the convention, I made a bet with my brother that she would in fact do so. She will stop at nothing to win. I began as a Hillary backer. As the race went on, I was turned off by her tactics, especially the race issue as brought up by Bill and by her remarks about white working people backing her. I predict that she will take this to the convention and fight like crazy to win using whatever back room methods she and Bill have up their sleeves. If she does this, the Democrats will look even more foolish than they do now after years of pandering to Bush.

I am one of those "older" - over 65 - "women" of the working class that do not support Hillary, but in fact now support Senator Obama as he represents a fresh way of doing things. Most importantly that means working with Republicans to actually change things rather than continue the fight. Hillary is a fighter. We do not need a fighter. We need a thoughtful, intelligent, listener who is willing to bring the very best minds into the government and to talk to the people as though they are more than five years old. We have had enough fighting. It is time now to get some work done.

[Mirri]

I am tired of voting for men again, so this time I want a woman on the ticket. No more boy-boy tickets for this Hillary supporter. Rachel, you have been fair. 50% of me wants Obama in, but 100% of me wants Hillary in, so I will vote for a joint ticket, if the good folks have the good sense to join it. Otherwise I think the party will fall apart. -- If women want to change the world, they will have to vote for women.

[igotid35]

I keep hearing this sort of sentiment, and its logic is just so flawed. I'd be more than happy to vote for a woman -- I think having a woman president would be fantastic for our country -- but not just ANY woman. Hillary Clinton is a female, liberal version of George W. Bush. The hubris, the unbridled arrogance, the chronic self-deception. I'd like a woman president, but I'm not going to vote for or support a dishonest, morally bankrupt candidate just because she has a vagina. I'm glad we have (had) a woman in this race... but why did it have to be *her*?

[strifeknot]

Why would you support an inferior candidate just because she has a vagina?

[dajay]

Why would support an inferior candidate just because he is half African-American?

[barryscott]

The best scenario is one in which Hillary can be given her way on FL and MI and still be the loser by every metric. It looks like all the numbers look good for this outcome except for the ridiculous popular vote count.
She can cheat and he still wins...wor­ks for me.

[motu]

besides so many other issues that Hillary has created...

you wrote:
'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.'

Well I just hope there are others that will help make this all end soon besides Hillary's OR even Obama's camp!!!

PS I love you anyways Rachel!

[lvogt]

I think Clinton has gone overboard and to the extent she bad-mouths Obama it is detrimental. To the extent it keeps the party interested it boosts participation to a huge degree and people who vote in the primaries vote in the general.

If John Kerry had shown this kind of tenacity fighting the election fraud in Ohio he could have made the difference and Bush might have been gone.

There are things one should do in the general one should not do in the primary.

[jdenham]

There is one sure way to get Super Delegates to make a move, that involves campaign contributions. If we stop donating to the Congressional campaigns June 1, and tell them we will start donating again when they have picked a nominee, I am pretty sure they will have one fairly soon. Otherwise plan on them procratinating until the convention.

[Redeemer777]

Rachel is cute.

Rachel, I think you are in the tank for Obama and perhaps also in denial about it.
But I also think its noble that you consciously try to be objective.

Rachel is cute.

[Rogue55]

Yes, Yes, and Yes. I think she's definitely in the tank for Obama

[john85msy]

That's a good thing if she is! She's not pulling for McBush!

[sheisme]

Problem is the superdelegates can change their mind ... right up to the convention. So if Obama gets 90 now and concedes the Michigan and Florida fight, who says some of the 90 wouldn't switch back to Clinton afterwards? It could be orchestrated by her campaign to pull such a stunt. I don't trust any of these holdouts and I surely don't trust the Clintons to abide by anything they agree to. I also don't see how anyone, including Rachel, does not have a preference between the candidates at this point. Just don't believe you Rachel.

[AbbieXHoffman]

SDs could move to Clinton, but they aren't going to.

She is staying in for one reason only--to be VP. Of course she HAS to say she is running for the top of ticket and not VP, but she wants VP. Why? Because she can help him win and has over 17M supporters that are going to follow her AND he can unite the party by doing it.

How can she help him win? See these sites below take polls and convert them into electoral votes show Clinton having a bigger lead than Obama (as of today) against McCain.

270 is a win

Obama 273 McCain 264
Clinton 283 McCain 254
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Obama 266 McCain 248 Ties 24
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May24.html

Clinton 314 McCain 207 Ties 17
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May24.html

[barryscott]

Those numbers change and have been trending in BHO's favor. Wait until his GE campaign against McCain goes into high gear.
And, Hillary is toxic to the ticket...s­he needs to concede at the right time and either support the candidate or go into hiding.

[eej]

So her point is that it is totally up to superdelegates to save the general election for the White House. They must come out for Obama in force within the next week.

[Testtubebaby]

Why are you scrubbing comments here? Not everyone agrees with her outlook. I’m socially progressive and I don't agree with her on a host of issues. She is upset that Hillary is losing and she did say that she feels that McCain will win the General. Not as a pundit but it's her personal opinion, yet it was said on national TV. She's smart yes, but she isn't an all knowing seeing god and I don't appreciate an opinion that isn't fawning over her automatically gets scrubbed.

[chappelforpres]

"What a difference a day makes. 24 little hours.....­"

[veracity]

Rachel, I apologize for making my 2nd comment here on your post, but.. WTF?!

Rachel, I've been a fan of your radio show. I drove closer to town on election night 2006, just to hear the AM signal of you calling that election late into the night.

I remember you practically screaming at your producer/soundman for playing Guns n' Roses "Welcome to the Jungle" clip a second time, after you flipped out the first time he played it ending the commercial break.

And I remember all those things you have said supporting a progressive, democratic, open, equality based distribution of power and politics here in America, and in our relations overseas.

SO... what part of "I WOULD OBLITERATE IRAN" do you find NOT disagreeable?

What part of Senator Clinton's presuming to launch an OPEN-ENDED retaliatory attack on a nation, WITHOUT PRIOR CONSULTATION and SPECIFIC APPROVAL by Congress, do you NOT find objectionable?

Because if you are a fence-sitter during this primary, then you must not find anything objectionable in Hillary's "I am QUALIFIED to PUSH THAT BUTTON!" repetitive campaign mantra. (You know, she really is a parrallel to Dick Cheney re his morbid obsession with pushing the button.)

I can honestly say I never thought along these lines before (if I was smarter, I might have my own talk show), but upon reflection and reexamination of your comment here, the question, "Is Rachel, too, an Alan Dershowitz Neo-Con?" unavoidably popped in my head.

[LeoMarvin]

You're obviously entitled to agree or disagree with anyone you like, but referring to Alan Dershowitz as a neo-con reveals an ideological distortion that calls your judgment into question.

[sand252]

Rachel Maddow is by far my favorite cable news personality; sad to know that she gets hate mail.
In any event, superdelegates should come out with their preferences when its know to them and this process should be over with by june 3rd. No if ands buts or maybes.