« A simple solution: Gore/Obama for the nomination, Hillary to the Supreme Court | rabbitsmorgasbord's Blog | BREAKING: Obama vows to stay in the race until the convention »
Let's talk scenarios: The Status Quo, the Hillary Mo, and the Obama Oh No!
Scenarios assuming the race goes to the convention:
Scenario 1: Status Quo. Hillary wins the races she's expected to win, Obama wins the ones he's expected to win. Obama is still ahead in pledged delgates. Obama is still ahead in the popular vote (even counting FL and MI). The polls continue to show Obama ahead of Hillary nationally. Hillary's approval numbers remain down around the seven-year low she's currently at. Obama continues to stay way ahead of Hillary in fundraising.
Obama wins, obviously.
Scenario 2: Hillary has the Mo. She wins PA, and some of the states Obama was expected to win. Obama still has the lead in pledged delegates. Obama has the lead in the popular vote or perhaps Hillary has the lead with FL and MI included. Hillary pulls even with Obama or slightly ahead in the national polls. Hillary's approval numbers are low, but off the current seven-year low. Obama continues to stay far ahead in fundraising.
It's hard to get Hillary supporters to look seriously at this sort of scenario, but the key question is what here would motivate the super-dels to overrule the pledged delegates. In this sort of scenario Obama and his supporters still have good reasons to believe that he's in good shape to win the general election. Overriding the pledged delegates will cause a deep rift in the party just a few months before the general election. The super-dels understand this and will need a deeply compelling reason to overrule the pledged delegates. That sort of reason isn't created in this sort of scenario, and giving the nomination to Hillary under such circumstances would kill any chances she'd have of winning the general. No way they do it.
Obama wins this scenario, too.
Scenario 3: Obama, oh no! In this scenario Obama's campaign craters. Hillary and her supporters hoped that Wright would do this to Obama, but that didn't work out the way they'd hoped. It would take some new and big scandal to do this. But let's suppose such a thing happens.
As Team Hillary is fond of saying lately, even the pledged delegates can break their pledge and vote for anyone they wish. There's no rule that says they can't. And this is the sort of scenario in which the pledged delegates and super-delegates would, justifiably, change their votes.
They might change their votes to Hillary. But they aren't obligated to do that, either. Let's review the scenario. We're imagining a scenario in which the party is in deep trouble. It's the end of August, and the election isn't that far away. Feelings are raw over a lot of things.
So now which is more likely? Option A: the pledged and super-delegates, all still free to vote for anyone they want, give the nomination to Hillary. But there's a lot of tension between Obama and Hillary supporters, especially if the scandal story (whatever it was) was heavily pushed by the Hillary team. And memories of Hillary endorsing McCain over Obama are still fresh.
Or Option B: they pledged and super-delegates, all still free to vote for anyone they want, give the nomination to Gore, or Edwards, or someone else who can unify the party.
I'd suggest that in the desperate circumstances that are the only sort of scenario that could get the super-delegates to overrule the pledged delegates, it's not at all obvious that they go with Hillary. Under such circumstances, coming out of some ugly campaigning with lots of hurt feelings on either side, there's no good solution (and this is also the best scenario for McCain, obviously) but someone like Gore would have the ability to unify the party.
Summary: if you accept the premise that the super-dels aren't going to overrule the pledged dels unless there is an absolutely compelling reason to do so, because otherwise doing so would rip the party apart, then the sort of scenario that is Hillary's last hope isn't even obviously a win for Hillary. Hillary's argument that (correctly) points out that pledges can be broken doesn't imply that they'll be broken in her favor. She's burned a lot of bridges to get to this point, and that's not going to be easily forgotten.
Apologies in advance for whatever ways the posting software has managed to mangle the html tags I tried to use in this article.
Scenario 1: Status Quo. Hillary wins the races she's expected to win, Obama wins the ones he's expected to win. Obama is still ahead in pledged delgates. Obama is still ahead in the popular vote (even counting FL and MI). The polls continue to show Obama ahead of Hillary nationally. Hillary's approval numbers remain down around the seven-year low she's currently at. Obama continues to stay way ahead of Hillary in fundraising.
Obama wins, obviously.
Scenario 2: Hillary has the Mo. She wins PA, and some of the states Obama was expected to win. Obama still has the lead in pledged delegates. Obama has the lead in the popular vote or perhaps Hillary has the lead with FL and MI included. Hillary pulls even with Obama or slightly ahead in the national polls. Hillary's approval numbers are low, but off the current seven-year low. Obama continues to stay far ahead in fundraising.
It's hard to get Hillary supporters to look seriously at this sort of scenario, but the key question is what here would motivate the super-dels to overrule the pledged delegates. In this sort of scenario Obama and his supporters still have good reasons to believe that he's in good shape to win the general election. Overriding the pledged delegates will cause a deep rift in the party just a few months before the general election. The super-dels understand this and will need a deeply compelling reason to overrule the pledged delegates. That sort of reason isn't created in this sort of scenario, and giving the nomination to Hillary under such circumstances would kill any chances she'd have of winning the general. No way they do it.
Obama wins this scenario, too.
Scenario 3: Obama, oh no! In this scenario Obama's campaign craters. Hillary and her supporters hoped that Wright would do this to Obama, but that didn't work out the way they'd hoped. It would take some new and big scandal to do this. But let's suppose such a thing happens.
As Team Hillary is fond of saying lately, even the pledged delegates can break their pledge and vote for anyone they wish. There's no rule that says they can't. And this is the sort of scenario in which the pledged delegates and super-delegates would, justifiably, change their votes.
They might change their votes to Hillary. But they aren't obligated to do that, either. Let's review the scenario. We're imagining a scenario in which the party is in deep trouble. It's the end of August, and the election isn't that far away. Feelings are raw over a lot of things.
So now which is more likely? Option A: the pledged and super-delegates, all still free to vote for anyone they want, give the nomination to Hillary. But there's a lot of tension between Obama and Hillary supporters, especially if the scandal story (whatever it was) was heavily pushed by the Hillary team. And memories of Hillary endorsing McCain over Obama are still fresh.
Or Option B: they pledged and super-delegates, all still free to vote for anyone they want, give the nomination to Gore, or Edwards, or someone else who can unify the party.
I'd suggest that in the desperate circumstances that are the only sort of scenario that could get the super-delegates to overrule the pledged delegates, it's not at all obvious that they go with Hillary. Under such circumstances, coming out of some ugly campaigning with lots of hurt feelings on either side, there's no good solution (and this is also the best scenario for McCain, obviously) but someone like Gore would have the ability to unify the party.
Summary: if you accept the premise that the super-dels aren't going to overrule the pledged dels unless there is an absolutely compelling reason to do so, because otherwise doing so would rip the party apart, then the sort of scenario that is Hillary's last hope isn't even obviously a win for Hillary. Hillary's argument that (correctly) points out that pledges can be broken doesn't imply that they'll be broken in her favor. She's burned a lot of bridges to get to this point, and that's not going to be easily forgotten.
Apologies in advance for whatever ways the posting software has managed to mangle the html tags I tried to use in this article.
Advertisement
Interesting formulation. The problem is in the gray area--how do you know exactly when one scenario ends and the next begins--what type of scandal? How much Hillary mo?, etc.
March 30, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is in the gray area--how do you know exactly when one scenario ends and the next begins--what type of scandal? How much Hillary mo?, etc.
The premise is that the super-dels won't overrule the pledged dels unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Of course there are degrees of "compelling," but the damage would be huge if the super-dels give the nomination to Hillary when Obama has the most pledged delegates, and is still doing well in the polls, and is still doing well in fund raising, etc. The resulting uproar, so close to the general election, would be very harmful to the party, and for that matter, very harmful to Hillary's chances of winning in that scenario.
So there would need to be enough Hillary mo, or a big enough scandal, that it's obvious Obama can't win and his supporters are deserting him en masse. The sort of hand-waving arguments that Hillary supporters sometimes make, based on hotly contested speculations about demographics (or, worse, based on the silly assumption that the primaries are good predictors for the general election, as if Obama not winning California proves he wouldn't carry California in the general), aren't arguments that will sway the super-dels. Not when the consequences for the party would be so negative.
But then, even the most ardent Hillary supporters don't seem to be able to come up with a scenario in which Hillary has sufficient mo to make a compelling case for the super-dels. Nobody thinks she can catch up in pledged delegates. The "big mo" for Hillary supporters is along the lines of Hillary gaining a small lead in the popular vote, but only if you at least count FL and possibly also MI, etc.
So that leaves scandal. That's what Hillary is hanging her hopes on. The remaining primaries aren't about the votes, because without some huge Obama scandal, those votes aren't going to change the picture substantially. Obama will still have the pledged delegate lead, and Hillary still won't have a compelling argument for why the super-dels should overrule the pledged delegates and cause a deep rift in the party by doing so. Hillary is just trying to keep the clock running in case some big scandal might emerge for Obama. But even that scenario might not work out the way she hopes, as I argue in the third case above.
March 30, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not much of a campaign to simply hope the other campaign tanks, but it's all Hillary has.
March 30, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Gore on 60 Minutes said he has no interest in running for anything. I believe him. He and Tipper have made a fortune, he has fame and no need for Democratic politics.
Edwards would not unify the party.
Let us stop with all of these what-ifs. Hillary lost on super Tuesday. Let us get on with the process of forming ranks behind Barack Obama.
It seems to me that all of this what-if talk, is a cagey, subtle way of saying... "we (white folks) aren't ready to elect a black man, so let's see if we can find a way to get out of it that doesn't make us look bad, just "concerned" about the party."
[not all of you are saying that, or even thinking that, at least not out loud, but one could make a reasonable case, that that is the case.]
March 30, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Al Gore has no interest in running, but he (more than Edwards, I agree, and certainly more than Hillary) could unify the party in the dire circumstances of scenario 3.
Hillary lost on super Tuesday
That was the start of her downfall, but a big part of it was that she didn't have any plans at all for what to do if she didn't win big on super Tue. It wasn't clear that she had no chance (unless Obama stumbles very, very badly) until later.
It seems to me that all of this what-if talk, is a cagey, subtle way of saying... "we (white folks) aren't ready to elect a black man, so let's see if we can find a way to get out of it that doesn't make us look bad, just "concerned" about the party." [not all of you are saying that, or even thinking that, at least not out loud, but one could make a reasonable case, that that is the case.]
Your mind reading skills are in need of improvement. I'm an Obama supporter. I'm making a case here that Obama's win is as close to inevitable as it could possibly be. Hillary supporters make arguments that are in deep denial about the realities of how super-dels will make their decisions; they assume that the super-dels won't take the damage that would be caused by overruling the pledged dels into account at all, and that's delusional. Even in the extremely unlikely disaster scenarios that are Hillary's only chance, it's not even clear that Hillary would win. She'd be a terrible choice for a party in distress and in need of a unifying leader.
March 30, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink