I find the whole discussion about what Hillary Clinton will or will not do tonight to be a little bit hysterical (in both senses of the term).
The facts of the matter are as follows:
* After tonight, there will be no more delegate selection events.
* At some point within the next 48 hours (possibly tonight), Barack Obama will have secured commitments from at least 2,118 delegates required to form a majority of all available. By the end of the week, he will probably have substantially more than the number required.
* Both superdelegates and pledged delegates can switch their commitments. So Obama's nomination will not become final until the convention in August.
* Hillary Clinton will not have a political future if she mounts an active, public campaign to flip delegates.
* However, if some mission-critical event intercedes between now and then, she will of course have an opportunity to argue that conditions have changed and that she deserves to be the nominee. She does not need to be running an active campaign to do so.
* Things like Clinton's tone, rhetoric and behavior could matter in the extent to which Barack Obama is eventually able to consolidate Democratic support. But semantics of a formal "concession" are just one dimension of this, and perhaps not the most important one.
* It is certainly not Clinton's job to announce she is conceding before the final primaries and any sentient press shop would move to quash rumors thereof until the voting is actually concluded.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
BREAKING: Hillary concedes that she conceded to concede...
-- Nate Silver at 11:16 AM
Labels: clinton, endgame, pledged delegates, superdelegates
52 comments
I concede the point.
You forgot:
"Despite knowing all this, the media will continue to feign ignorance in order to give their overpaid pundits airtime and speculate on the inevitable outcome with breathless inanity."
Blargh.
I'm hoping this results in dead air for CNN, as revenge for their incredibly annoying coverage all year (and Lou Dobbs, who is an asshole). I want for once, Anderson Cooper to say, "well what does our panel think?"
*silence*
Well we go to our big map...
John King says "Anderson, its over. Nobody gives a crap about whether Obama did better in Helena or Butte."
*Donna Brazile spontaneously combusts*
Oh and Wolf Blitzer breaks down and admits, that if you keep repeating that you are the "best political team on television" then you probably aren't.
I agree wholeheartedly. Also, further to Jay's point, the fact of the matter is this primary is in the same position now as it has been since mid-March.
1. Neither can clinch the nomination based on securing pledged delegates.
2. It is/was impossible for Clinton to surpass Obama in the number of pledged delegates.
3. Superdelegates will need to make up for the lack of available pledged delegates.
The way some in the media have presented this Democratic Primary as somehow "up in the air" has been one of the most frustrating things I've ever witnessed.
Three new SUSAs:
Massachusetts Obama +5.
New England loves McCain this month.
Oregon Obama +10
This is unspectacular. The last three SUSA polls there had him ahead 9, 9 and 8 points, so 10 is not really interesting.
Washington Obama +16
Wow. That should bring Washington to a California-like Win Percentage for him.
I like their headline for Washington:
"Regardless of Veeps, Obama sweeps"
*-*
HRC is going to concede tonight if she loses South Dakota; otherwise I think if Obama has gotten enough people on board that the delegate math goes his way she'll also concede.
I'm really puzzled about this, however. It came RIGHT after someone leaked to drudge that HRC's camp believes it has a 25 point blowout coming in South Dakota. This after the HRC shop told Marc Ambinder, who got to look at their internals, they would lose by ten or less in South Dakota. And would definitly be blown out in Montana.
Then comes the conceding bit.
Changes the expectations and story a bit so I have no clue what is going on but that campaign is either brilliant and attempted to change the subject to avoid another IN and have a rationale to go to August OR they're flummoxed about the way forward.
Why couldn't she have pulled a Romney when Romney pulled a Romney? Who doesn't love a martyr who steps down for the sake of God, country, and one's own pocketbook.
Nate: Can pledged delegates really switch commitments if they are not released by their candidate? If so, why are they called 'pledged' delegates? Since they are representing voters, shouldn't there be a penalty for being faithless, as in the case of some states' electoral college representatives?
h-to-h: I have to admit picturing Donna Brazile spontaneously combusting cracks me up far more than it should.
Lisa:"Why couldn't she have pulled a Romney when Romney pulled a Romney?"
Is 'pulling a Romney' when you declare that voting for the other party is the same as surrendering to terrorists and that the worst fate for the US is ending up like France?
Ayinde, I would add to your three true statements one thing that has changed since mid-March: the announced supers have swung from favoring Hillary to favoring Obama. In principle that could have gone in the other direction, setting up a tension between the will of the people as captured in the only metric with meaning, the pledged delegates, and the choices of the supers. The fact that that hasn't happened is what really means this is over.
Rasmus,
All of that tells what exactly? McCain isn't expected to be competitive in the latte drinking states.
Maybe it's just my paranoia but this seems like another tactic to make it appear the media - and by extension Obama, since he, you know, lords over them all - are forcing Clinton out of the race (in reality, the exact opposite has been true for months).
On the other hand, it makes sense that the Clinton camp's messaging would be breaking down and leaking all over the place at this point.
I'm just sick of the drama, the hysterionics. Maybe that's all this is about - trying to steal attention from Obama's big night, because everything always has to be about the Clintons. They've got Chuck Todd and Jonathan Alter saying tonight is Clinton's night.
Oliver, very good point.
ptrsin,
You can read the DNC rules for "pledged" delegates. The rules state that upon election, each delegate signs a "bona fide" pledge of support for his/her candidate. Further, the rules state that these delegates "shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." There is no penalty specified for delegates who break their pledge. I imagine there's not much precedent for these delegates being actively lobbied by other candidates or delegates breaking their pledge.
And yes, that's exactly what pulling a Romney is.
It is certainly not Clinton's job to announce she is conceding before the final primaries and any sentient press shop would move to quash rumors thereof until the voting is actually concluded.
This is the thing that's been driving me crazy about campaign coverage for the last two days. Why would any candidate, at this late date, announce a concession before the two final primaries are over? This isn't like a candidate withdrawing from the race in February or March due to an opponent's getting damn close to the number of delegates needed to clinch.
The press should STFU about it already, and let the voters vote. But then again, if this election (oh hell, the last 15 years) has taught us anything, it's that the press prefers to gossip than act responsibly.
Oliver, if you remember back in March, that's exactly what many predicted would happen, that the state delegate count would go to Obama but the party establishment (i.e., the superdelegates) would side with Hillary. Yet that's not what we've seen. The establishment has realized the importance of honoring the integrity of the process, as bizarre a process as it may be. I do imagine we'll see the primary system adjusted before 2012.
Oliver:
Re: Superdelegates
Actually, I think that once voting started (after Iowa), superdelegates have consistently come out in favor of Obama. A significant portion of Hillary's supporters were well before this contest even started. Of course, the more Obama continued winning, the quicker the pace they started hopping on board, but I think in general, he's been winning the superdelegate fight all of 2008.
John Cole offers another theory:
"Some days, it is almost like many of you have completely and totally forgotten the Clinton modus operandi, and never lived through the 90’s or this campaign. What we are seeing is what the Clinton family does best- create confusion while they figure out what the best deal is for them. Trust me- as a Republican during the 90’s, it was maddening (particularly when you factor in the fact that the GOP was not exactly chock full of honest brokers)."
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10520
Correct, Nick. Clinton had a 100 superdelegate lead before Iowa. Obama then starting getting a lot of endorsements from Senators and was Clinton's lead down by 5-10 before Super Tuesday. A month later, before 3/4, Obama had cut Clinton's lead in half. This can be be verified at demconwatch.blogspot.com
It became readily apparent in md-Feb. that the nomination was Obama's to lose and there was nothing Clinton herself could do to stop him. It became about whether Obama would collapse from an external event, which is always a 5-10% possibility.