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

[beaupritchard]

This really goes into lessons learned on how to get into and secure a plum spot in politics with relatively no credentials ... by Hillary Clinton.

The lesson Clinton learned during Bill Clintons impeachment is ... that the democratic party will promise and deliver on anything to keep from being embarassed. Wandering husband ... New York senate seat - lowball nomination run ... VPspot ... Supreme Court for life ... possibly a cabinet post .

It seems to me like Arianna says superdelegates should end this ... if not publicly ... privately enough delegates should get together and whisper "its over" in her ear.

[Simonanunhappydem]

Why should this be ended before it is over? Clinton has every right to stay in the race, go to the convention and giver hes best shot to convince all the super delegates to vote for her. It is the right way and the democratic way. Nothing wrong with actually having a meaningful convention once in a while. If we force the super delegates into deciding before the convention why have the convention? We could save a lot of money by just abolishing this meaningless gathering, or giving the money to charity.

[drooga]

i think rachel has got it exactly right.

and i'd like to take a sec to congratulate rachel on the way she's called the election so far - excellently done.

[nick1936]

Has anyone forgotten Ted kennedy at the convention against carter I don't remember him giving a unity speech

Correct me if i am wrong

[Simonanunhappydem]

Well, good example! Carter turned out to be a really good president, didn't he? If you expect Obama become a similarly successful one we should all run to support Clinton.

[GeorgiaOrwell]

Rachel, you are fantastic - keep doing what you do. Now, about your statement, which is the key:

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.

In light of Clinton's recent comment about Robert Kennedy's assassination, I have to wonder if she is staying in the race because she has had some kind of premonition about Obama's not making it through - like Kennedy. Then, of course, she would win the day. It sounds totally crass to think this, but it's really a no-brainer that she may be betting the odds. If Obama were the nominee, she has every reason in the world to try to be his VP at this point; better as VP for the next 8 yrs. (putting her at 68 yrs in 2016) and retiring or then running as Pres.

[califlefty]

If Clinton were to win Puerto Rico by 20 points she would LEAD in the popular vote count by around a 400,000-vote margin, swamping Obama if you include Florida. If she wins PR by 28% Clinton ends the primary process leading in every conceivable vote count, even excluding Florida and Michigan and including estimates for Obama's caucus victories.
And thus the ongoing firestorm of lies, attacks, and republican like pressure by Obama surrogates to call on Clinton to drop out. She needs to be gone now because they understand that she has an excellent chance of being the undisputed people's choice. Winding up with the most votes is sometimes called the "path to victory." It will be very hard for the Democratic party and Obama cheerleaders to explain why that doesn't matter.

[windyindie41]

No, it's actually quite simple to explain and understand. That is, unless you' re a Hillary supporter, in which case you live in "Hillary-world", where "a win's a win", even if the person your running against doesn't have their name on the ballot, so I'll explain it to you.

First, Hillary's popular vote math only gives her a lead by taking away four state caucuses that Obama won fair and square. Seriously. On this point, the burden is on Hillary supporters like you, califlety, to explain how this is either fair or makes the slightest bit of sense. Here you have Hillary talking about "voter disenfranchisment" in FL and MI, while at the same time she tells four states that played by the rules that their votes don't count.

Second, in every election there are rules, and no matter how close the outcome, there can be only one winner. Obama has followed the rules, and has shown the public that it can be done with grace and dignity, negating the need for Republican-like tactics. As for the race being so close, that just proves that Hillary isn't "the undisputed people's choice", and does the same for Obama. But the point is, Obama is in the lead in every single category, which is (in order that they matter): pledged delegates, super delegates, popular vote, states won, money raised, union endorsements, and a majority of independent, black, and first time voters.

Is that clear enough of an explaination for you?

[mawrm]

Once again, the metric in primaries is DELEGATE COUNT. Not popular vote count (which excludes caucuses), not "electoral votes", it's DELEGATE COUNT. If you do not win the delegate count, you do not win the nomination. That's how the primaries works.
Puerto Rico is not Arkansas, Kentucky or West Virginia and Hillary Clinton has not won many contests against Obama by 20 point margins outside the sorts of demographics these states represent. Consider also that Puerto Rico does not vote in the general election so including them in a popular vote count to be somewhat representative of what could happen in a general election is misleading.

[jarotra]

giggle

You seriously believe Clinton could wrest Puerto Rico out of McCain's column in the Electoral College?

Obama has all 57 states lined up - face it, it's over.

[maribelle1963]

"You seriously believe Clinton could wrest Puerto Rico out of McCain's column in the Electoral College?"

Puerto Rico doesn't vote in the general, just in the primaries. They're not a state.

[servatius]

Since Puerto Rico is not in the electoral college the trick is for McCain to wrestle in Puerto Rico before Clinton can wrestle it out.

[OwenScottIII]

All progressive voters as well as all superdelegates need to take this unbiased analysis to heart. The places of David Axelrod and Barack Obama in the annals of political strategy may well be determined by their success or failure in handling Hillary Clinton's relentless assault on the nomination. Perhaps Obama needs to act decisively on the issue of Michigan and Florida and to speak out forcefully to the superdelegates before it's too late.

[feminancy]

Rachel nailed this one -- as usual.

I couldn't agree more, it's time for the superdelegates to stand up and be counted.

But, even if they do, sharpen up those elbows, Barack. And, on June 3, be prepared to use them to push Clinton so far off the podium she won't be able to climb back on until September.

And, please, don't even think of rewarding her with the VP slot.

[OwenScottIII]

You know you're having a bad day when Keith Olbermann announces he's making a special comment about you. Now with HRC's terrible gaffe and failure to apologize immediately with full accountability, the superdelegates have all the justification they need to act. Hillary for Veep? Not in Michelle's lifetime.

[nick1936]

Lets stop calling them SUPER DELEGATES and Call them what THEY ARE PARTY HACKS

[Simonanunhappydem]

Yes I agree. It is time for the super delegates to stand tall, and show some integrity, and tell the media and the Obamistas to go fly a kite. They should hold back and do not make up their minds until the convention. They have not only the right to do this they have the duty to do it and stand up to this bullying of the Obama camp and the media.

[LAcarlito]

Obama, Axelrod, et al are working the May 31 Rules Committee behind the scenes, as they should be. They are keeping their mouths shut and working the right people to get the right result. Hillary and Bill are doing their usual bully tactics and trying to pressure the Committee to fall in line.

My guess is that Obama's tactics will prove to be much more successful. The Super Delegates are watching this bullying by the Clintons too. My guess is that all of the Super Delegates will fall in line as soon as this 5/31 Committee meets and the 6/3 primaries are wrapped up. At that point Hillary will have nothing left to fight over.

[cacique88]

I would like to invite the bloggers here to send email to [e-mail] thanking Olberman for allowing Rachel to sit in as a guest host twice so far. But now we beleive she should get her own show. She is smarter than Joe Scarborough, clearer than Matthews and sharper than Olberman. David Gregory should step aside and let Rachel have her own show. He is weak and shallow.

Please if enough of us here send MSNBC our emails, we may have Rachel by August in time for General election coverage.

[deepseas]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm sending my email in now for Rachel. I don't think she's sharper than Olberman; rather, she complements him. But I fully agree with you about the rest. Rachel has a balanced expertise that is refreshing. I have no use for Scarborough or Gregory, and little use for Matthews or Abrams. We need a changing of the guard.

[Philm35]

No need to cancel any of those guys to give Rachel her own show... Just get rid of one of those tiresome prison shows and let her have that time slot

[jarotra]

Those prison shows are depressing - the only reason I turn off MSNBC. Hell, they let Joe talk all night.

[Simonanunhappydem]

If I ever write to Olberman it will be about how disappointed I became with him. His was my favorite show for a long time until he became mindlessly biased toward Obama and against Clinton. I have not watched his show for months and probably never will watch it again.

[cacique88]

Thanks, Rachel for your clear analysis. I believe strongly that we are headed in this direction. She is looking to have her supporters on the Rules and ByLaws Committee push a pro-Hillary seating along with zero allocation of votes and delegates to Obama in Michigan. The nuclear war is inevitable.

Hillary needs to be stopped. The best way is for superdelegates to endorse Obama overwhelmingly and for a significant number of them to defect from her ranks as a protest to her destructive tactics. A major division and repudiation of these tactics from the likes of Rendell, Rangel, Bayh and others would create a massive problem for her. The key here is to create a number so insurmountable that the Florida and michigan delegations would not matter. While these moves would not dissuade her , the loss of support would undermine her arguments and isolate her politically.

We are watching the implosionof Hillary clinton and the end of the Clinton legacy.

I am hopeful that Hillary will not get away with this move and in the end we will triumph in November. It will be more difficult but Obama has inspired a broad based movement. This movement will become an even more powerful force unleashed upon the Republicans.

[Shenygirl1]

I find it interesting while reading this post, that nothing has been mentioned about the threats made by the pundits on MSNBC and progressive talk radio regarding the possibility of an all out riot in Denver,
if, for some reason, the S.D.'s go Clinton's way. I have found those comments to be a blatant invitation to incite a riot by deliberately angering the black community. I think these veiled threats will definitely intimidate the rules committee and the super delegates which was, of course the original intention of the left wing media..

No need to worry, Obama will easily slide by, even though 50 percent of registered Democrats will not vote for him. Regardless of what the punditry would like us to believe, lack of experience and naivete will be the reason for his demise and not racism. I already see the deceitful media and its faithful followers trying to set up the Clintons as the reason for an Obama defeat, although many Democrats feel it will be inevitable; thanks to the ineptness of the party leaders and its takeover by the far left.

A Lifelong Michigan Democrat

[unity08]

"Obama will easily slide by, even though 50 percent of registered Democrats will not vote for him."

Oh really, have you looked at the polls lately? Can you back up that statement? I think her supporters that really believe in the Democratic Party and the core values that we represent will vote for the Democratic nominee. If not, well we will just have to replace them with the millions of new voters and move on.

[Simonanunhappydem]

Bravo Shenygirl1! Well put!

I am not sure whether 50% is correct or not but I am absolutely sure that enough democrats will not vote for him that he can not possibly win in November. It looks like the mindless democratic bureaucracy, under the leadership of a totally incompetent and biased Dean, will make McCain a very lucky man.

[jafahr]

Your assumption that calls for riots in the streets of Denver are inciting Blacks to riot exposes the prejudice that "informs" your world view. If Clinton continues this to the convention, this 49 year old white woman will haul her ass off the couch and take to the streets.

[sheisme]

This 52 year old white woman will be right there with you.

[LeoMarvin]

The Michigan-Florida question is an irrelevant sideshow if, as you suggest, Hillary is using it as a pretext to keep the nomination theoretically open. She could just as easily base that argument on the Super Delegates' right to change their votes any time until the nominee is declared at the convention. But unlike the Super Delegate argument, this one knee-caps Obama with Florida and Michigan voters merely for trying to hold Hillary to her end of an agreement which she now acts, with a straight face, as if she never made. Nothing Hilary or Barack does will convince me not to vote for the Democratic candidate, but I have to say, Hillary's dishonesty around this Florida-Michigan question is pretty damn breathtaking.

[Simonanunhappydem]

Well, what is breathtaking is to even consider disenfranchising the voters in two large and important states. How can a party call itself democratic and consider it, in the name of some arbitrary rules?

[HumeSkeptic]

I think you are exactly right, Rachel. Hillary is buying time and hoping that either McCain's or her campaign would severely damage Obama or, somehow, Obama would self destruct. Even if that doesn't quite work out and she doesn't win the nomination, she is hoping that Obama would be damaged badly enough to lose to McCain in November. That way, she gets another shot at it in 2012.

This FL-MI thing is simply to buy more time.

[Simonanunhappydem]

Obama will lose in November because he is inexperienced and because he does not have the support of a large part of the democratic voters. Not to mention his many lingering problems that the republicans will exploit, like Rezko, Wright, large arab donors, his wifes exorbitant salary, paid by his earmarks in the senate, and a thousand other liabilities.
It is nice to see that you already trying to pin the blame for his high probability defeat to Clinton, nice...

[Sali68]

When you think it could not get any worse....when you think there is no way no one is more selfish, more diabolical, more self-serving than Bush she comes along and pushes it over the edge everyday. I feel like crying....how could I have ever respected these people.

When people show you who they are believe them the first time.
Maya Angelou

[The5thW]

Hate mail from Obama supporters? If you say so ma'm. Anyone can write an email of course. The candidate has encouraged constructive campaigning, so to me it this equivalence thing you are fronting is a transparent pandering for viewers. Whatever happens, the tenor of "progressive" talk has mostly been a turn off to this independent, evidence of Clinton coercion. The corporate media invented her candidacy after February and Air America has been their echo chamber while the country devolves into depression and tyranny.

[Belisarius]

I think you nailed it Rachel. The best place to steal this election is at the convention.

[Simonanunhappydem]

Not quite: the best place to democratically decide who out nominee should be is at the convention. After-all this is why the convention was invented for. If not for this why do we need an extravagant expensive convention when the economy is tanking and a lot of poor people could use these millions much better.

[elion10]

Steal? Grow up. its not stealing if you get the superdelegates to vote for you..
otherwise- if Obama wins- he stole it- right?

[mellene]

I totally see where Clinton will try and say that no nominee has been conclusively chosen as you point out. However, even if all the delegates went to Clinton, unfairly, as Obama wasn't on the Michigan ballot that might be the only way to end this immediately. As you noted the superdelegates need to declare by June 4 or within a day or so of that deadline. With Clinton acting so perversely in her own self interests, it will be hard if she's the candidate and one has to vote for her anyway. Too bad that any respect I did have for her is long gone, as it is with McCain.

[missinginminnesota]

Rachel..Rachel...if you don't see the difference between Obama and Clinton, then that graduate degree you have is not worth the paper it's written on. And don't tell me that Hillary has to pander to the left because she's a woman...I'm sick of that reasoning!!

[JimWalsh]

I would guess that Rachel is trying to express an independent observation. An actual journalistic approach rather than media for ratings articles.

[Simonanunhappydem]

Well I think Rachel is right not seeing much difference between Clinton and Obama. Both are democrats, they have identical or very similar positions on most of the issues that are important for many of us (for me for sure) and either of them will be a much better president than McCain. AS far as Clinton is pandering to the left, this is new to me, never seen this before. Obama clearly does this, and he very slickly also pandering to the right (remember his remark adulating Reagan?). But a political candidate pandering is not news, all of them do this, same as all of them lie. The difference for me is what they lie about. Lying about a blow job or misstating details of a trip into a war zone does not bother me much, lying about the reasons going into war, or lying about your father and family to get elected those things bother me.

[rughead23]

Hillary may be a longshot at best, though the dialougue is not wooing me under the tent.