The Results Are In
That's it, it would appear to be over.
The Rules & Bylaws Committee of the DNC has ruled (apparently with the agreement of both parties) to seat both FL and MI delegates with half a vote each, giving the UNDECLARED delegates to Obama.
There's some minor issue about 4 delegates in MI that Clinton says should be hers, and they reserve the right to protest about it, but...
She picked up just 26.5 delegates on Obama, 34.5 if they give her the four she's complaining about.
The results after this are 2052 delegates for Obama, 1877.5 for Clinton, with a willing threshhold of 2118. Obama needs 66 more. He's expected to pick up at least 40 of those in the next three days (the final three primaries in PR, SD and MT), and probably the rest from super delegates pushed into declaring by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean and the other Democratic party leaders.
It's pretty much over. Reading between the lines of the statements made so far, it sounds like she might be on the verge of giving up.
Then again... nothing she does surprises me, so we'll see in the next few days.
Liam.
posted by Liam at 5/31/2008 09:56:00 PM
6 Comments:
Did it go as you expected?
It was interesting watching the live stream of the meeting, although I missed the part before the recess. The part after the recess which included the voting was interesting. There were lots of Clinton supporters in the audience disrupting things. Sheesh, as if that would change their minds, given they likely had them made up certainly by the recess. Only one of the persons permitted to speak was a bit inflammatory, mildly cursing often.
I came away with feeling that it was sad that the DNC had to deal with a compromise, but reassured somewhat that they seemed pretty professional about it, in my view.
I feel resentful of Clinton because Obama had played by the rules in Michigan and people who might not otherwise have voted are getting the short end of the deal, no matter who they would have voted for. Clinton's a fighter, you have to give her that. And it's not necessarily a bad quality. I guess the question is would she fight as hard for the American people as she did to try and get elected?
Sunday, June 01, 2008 11:07:00 AM
I didn't watch the live stream, I didn't realize there was one until after it was no longer an issue.
I'm not surprised to hear your characterization of it, one of the things I really felt embodied leadership in Obama was that he strongly requested that all of his supporters NOT attend, NOT protest, just let the group do it's deliberating and let his representatives and Clinton's make their cases.
She, on the other hand, encouraged mass protests. It was theater, she wanted to make it look like there were vast legions of disgruntled people feeling like democracy and the Democratic Party were a sham if these votes were not counted, in full, exactly as cast.
The results were pretty much what I expected though. I didn't think it likely that they wouldn't seat anyone, because that's a more extreme punishment than is actually prescribed in the DNC bylaws, the only sticky wicket was whether they gave anything to Obama in MI, but as you point out there's simply no fair way (to Obama nor to any of the people who might have supported him) not to.
The thing I really liked was that they came up with a way to structure the assigning of the MI delegates to Obama that fits in law, removing one of the Clinton campaign's objections (because they got all of the other retired campaign's approval to give all the uncommitteds to Obama, which meant it wasn't technically the DNC assigning them (which wouldn't technically be legal, or so claims Clinton), but the candidates urging their delegates (however many each might have taken had they actually been on the ballot) to vote for Obama.
Or at least, that's what I understood of the description.
And as to your last question, I believe that Hillary Clinton will fight just as hard for the American people as she did in this case... as long as the cause she's fighting for benefits her as well. Her behavior in this campaign can lead to no other conclusion than this: Had she lost in MI and FL and been winning by some other metric, she would have been just as outspoke and just as indignant about being the party that "doesn't follow through" and that "doesn't understand that there are repercussions for certain actions", and would be casting aspersions upon the leadership abilities of anyone who believed poor behavior should go un-punished.
Make no mistake, this core, heartfelt defense of the voters of MI and FL did not show up until after those votes were crucial to her dwindling chances in the race, and combined with the sum total of her behavior paint a clear picture of a consummate politician, deflecting criticism about their own selfishness away with stirring rhetoric and feigned core beliefs.
Liam.
Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:10:00 PM
Interesting. Harold Ickes (and was a man ever more appropriately named?) was on Meet the Press this morning (I'm watching it now on the TiVo) and apparently the Obama campaign had sufficient votes on the committee to split the MI delegates 50/50. I gather (from other sources) that the basis for this was polls and exit polling results showing that had all of the candidates been on the ballot, the results would likely have been about 50/50.
A 50/50 split would have given Obama 5 more MI delegates (and Clinton 5 less), meaning she would have picked up just 16.5 delegates on him.
Apparently the Obama campaign voluntarily accepted the less favorable-to-them plan that was ultimately accepted in the interest of party unity... and the Clinton campaign has decided to complain about it.
I understand their frustration; after all, they had a candidate who was the presumptive nominee for almost the full year prior to the first votes being cast. Nonetheless, they were unable to close that deal, most likely doing as well as they did in FL and MI because without campaigning there, it became a ballot on name recognition only, the same metric that had Clinton the presumptive nominee up until January of this year.
So I can understand why they'd be bitter, but I really don't see how she thinks it's in her own best interests to continue pushing this. If she thought she could still pull it out, maybe, but because there was nothing flagrantly unfair or improper about the Rules & Bylaws meeting, I don't expect pushing things at this point is going to gain her any support from superdelegates. There are not enough delegates in the three remaining contests to make up the current difference in standing in the pledged delegate count (she'd still be down by 43.5 even if she took 100% of PR, MT and SD), and even if she takes back the four she's currently protesting she's STILL down by 35.5 (or 39.5, I'm not sure if those are four delegates or four delegates with half a vote).
Her narrative as to why she should win isn't resonating with anyone.
So my latest prediction in a long line of previously faulty predictions is that self interest will now dictate that she get out. She’s already damaged her standing in the Senate and, according to some reports, made her reelection to that body somewhat questionable. If she keeps this up, she’ll invalidate herself as a candidate in 2012 (should Obama lose) or 2016 (if he wins). She’ll be 68 during a campaign for 2016 and 69 just before the election, well within the reasonable age limits to run set by the John McCain / Ronald Reagan metric.
But she has to know she’s looking ever more self-serving and desperate in this campaign, and that she’s burning a lot of future bridges in service of ever dwindling chances in this campaign. Sooner or later what love of party or country or even self dignity won’t accomplish, pragmatism and service of future self interest perhaps will.
I think we’ll see her bow out of the race by the end of the week. I think she’ll take PR, but not with the kind of vote counts needed to really sustain her narrative of being a huge popular vote winner. I think SD and MT will be closer than they otherwise would have been because Obama has moved on to the general election and isn’t really wholeheartedly campaigning there, for a total delegate gain on Clinton’s part of maybe 15 delegates at most. I think on Wednesday, after all the votes have been counted, you’ll see a large number of previously undeclared super delegates declaring, most of them for Obama, and by Thursday or Friday he’ll have the numbers and she’ll bow out.
The only open question is whether she sees the writing on the wall and tries to appear gracious, departing BEFORE all the superdelegates make their statements (so it’s on her own terms) or stays in until they do (so she can maintain the image of a fighter who doesn’t give up unless the cause is truly and totally lost).
Liam.
Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:59:00 PM
Y'know, on thinking about it further, maybe the calculus for Clinton is more complex than I wrote above.
Yes, she could theoretically run again in 2012 or 2016, but perhaps her chances of winning a nomination then are already so tarnished that it's not a real possibility. So she may (and perhaps correctly) view this as her one chance to win it all. At which point the question becomes whether she values her Senate seat, or whether it was always just a means to the end that is the Presidency.
My prediction regarding her self interest is predicated upon her valuing her Senate seat, the possibility of a governorship, etc. But she's also 60 years old and flush with cash, an age and circumstance that would have most average people considering retiring and beginning the process of living out their lives in luxury.
Politicians in general and the Clintons in specific are not average people. Still, the prospect of being a Senator for a few more years may not be valuable enough to her to make preserving it a worthwhile goal.
Hillary Clinton's best chance of becoming a President may honestly be (if viewed entirely dispassionately) a failed Obama attempt in 2008 followed by a resurgence of her campaign in 2012. She’d be 64, still reasonably young in politician years and would have the whole “See, we all screwed up and fell for Obama and it’s led to four years of John McCain. I told you then, and I’m telling you now, I’m the best person for this party” argument and it would likely resonate.
She could well write off this year’s nomination but decide that a “scorched earth” policy that damages Obama is in her best interests, being careful to do all of the damage in support of her own campaign, not in explicitly tearing down Obama’s (because that wouldn’t reflect well in 2011 and early 2012).
So I guess the end result of this week will be instructive. If she’s bowed out, it means she still believes she has a career in front of her and doesn’t wish to damage it. If she hasn’t, it likely means she really only cares about the Presidency and has determined this is her best chance, in 2012 if not today.
Liam.
P.S. Isn’t it fun how on a blog like this, you can pretty must just type all of your thoughts as they occur to you?
Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:12:00 PM
I like reading your thoughts on the subject; I often learn another tidbit or so, plus it helps me think things through better.
But I don't agree with your prediction that she will bow out soon. I don't think knowingly burning bridges or future reprecussions will deter her. Why hurt her fans? I really think she feels she has the right to take her drama to the convention, whether or not it hurts her in the future. She knows, or believes, that people have a short memory. Judging by her success in rallying some of her protesting troops, I don't think she has any plans to bow out early gracefully.
Sunday, June 01, 2008 3:51:00 PM
You may be right. My impression is that she's a shrewed politician. She does what she does by calculation. Earlier, there may have been an aspect of disbelief that she wasn't winning, but at this point the numbers are completely against her. She needs approximately 97% of the remaining super delegates (after PR, SD and MT, unless there's some extreme and unexpected blowout by either side) to win the nomination.
With the four delegates in MI that are in dispute, perhaps that number drops to 95%.
And she has to do that (or convince some Obama super delegates to switch sides) in a political environment in which he's beating her daily in super pick-ups.
The news media are reporting that Obama is likely to pick up at least 30-40 super delegates on Tuesday or Wednesday, many of them on record as saying they'd make their decision known AFTER the people had had their say.
30-40 plus the delegates he's going to win today and Tuesday (even if he loses the races) will be enough to put him over the new threshhold of 2118.
At that point, as I've said, the only way anyone pays any attention to Hillary Clinton again is if the FBI raids Obama's offices and finds a whole batch of children chained and beaten in the basement, or some similar event of monumental disqualification. But as I've said, in that case, whether she's still in the race or not she's STILL the most obvious "go to" replacement choice.
Her rabid fan base isn't going to get her elected if she's not the nominee. So as I sort of said before, if she keeps feeding their anger with a pointless fight up until the convention, then it's clear she's decided her best chance of being President is to sabotage Obama in 2008 and then beat John McCain in 2012.
I just don't believe it's possible to be so self-delusional as to believe you still have a shot today or especially after Tuesday/Wednesday when many of the supers will likely have spoken. (And if it is, is that sort of tenuous grip on reality what we really need in a President?)
Liam.
Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:08:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home