I’m generally not in the habit of giving advice to Democratic candidates, but things have been slow on the Republican side, and I suspect it’s still in our interest to see Hillary Clinton bloody Barack, so I’ll bite. Here’s how she wins tonight. She’s lost Mississippi. Whatever momentum she gained from Texas and Ohio is bound to have cooled in the wake of two large (if expected) primary losses. But, due to the very odd nature of the Mississippi primary, Hillary could potentially split the delegates despite losing the popular vote by 20% points. This is remarkable, and provides Hillary Clinton a potentially devastatingly effective narrative. Here’s how it ought to play out. Tonight she goes on TV, graciously congratulates Barack, and notes that he’s won by nearly 20 points. Then she pivots ever so slightly and says something like:
“It’s amazing that Barack has done so well in Mississippi; he’s won by such a large margin. But, I’ve talked to my team, and it’s very possible he won’t gain a single delegate for his victory. That’s happened X amount of times, where someone has won the popular vote, but lost the delegate count. Isn’t that remarkable? You win by 20 points and you don’t gain any delegates. Alot of Americans will be shaking their head at this, but it happened for a very simple reason; because our election system is fatally flawed. It’s not representative of the will of the people.
In Mississippi, there are fewer delegates in the large urban, heavily black areas that Barack won. So even if he wins the state by 30 points, if he loses the rest of Mississippi by 1 vote, he might pick up only 1 or 2 delegates. In some states, we have caucus processes. You all know what a caucus is, right? You have a bunch of party activists sitting in a room for hours, listening to other party activists make speeches promoting their candidate, and then at the end you have to stand on one side of the room with your friends looking on, and declare which candidate you support? Well, what happens if you’re supporting the “non-rock star” candidate? Are you going to admit that in front of your neighbors, people you see every day and people you respect? So there’s the intimidation factor.
Also, you who can go to a caucus and sit in a room for hours? Not working folks. Not usually. And if you look at some of the entrance polls for these things, you’ll notice that caucus voters are pretty rich and pretty well-educated. You’re looking at a small segment of the population folks. So I think there are a ton of problems with this election process, and I think what we’re looking at tonight, with Barack winning this state by 20 points and maybe not gaining any delegates, I think we have to wonder if this process really represents the will of ALL the people”.
Why should Clinton take this tact? Because she needs to begin framing this election as something fundamentally undemocratic if she hopes to persuade super-delegates to overthrow the will of the pledged delegates, and if she expects the public to go along with such a move. It’s difficult for her to attempt this in normal circumstances, because she’ll appear fundamentally self-serving. If she takes the above route, she’s in the enviable position of arguing that her opponent has been unfairly cheated. Thus, she appears gracious. But, she’s still essentially making an argument that benefits her candidacy, without explicitly mentioning any possible personal benefit. It’s political jujitsu, and if Hillary hopes to win the nomination, she should say something very much like this tonight.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Matthew, I generally respect your logic… but this time I think you miss the mark. Saying something like this will just weaken her chances. If I were Clinton I would say, Obama has a higher level of acceptance in certain regions, however delegates represent demographics. That said there are plenty of delegations that are support my issues, experience, and are behind my candidacy.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I think that would be an interesting speech. It certainly captures the narrative that she needs to build heading into Pennsylvania. I think, however, she would be better served raising this during a debate. She has been effective at controlling Obama’s responses during debates.
March 11th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Zach,
There are no more debates. And Hillary only has so many “big microphone” moments, where she can set and send out a narrative that lots of folks will pay attention to. The day of or the day after a big primary is one of those moments. Also, it allows her to express to express the narrative, while ostensibly projecting something else (graciousness in the face of defeat).
March 11th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I’m telling you, Gore on the second ballot!
March 11th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
CNN Exit Poll nuggets:
*Democrat voters’ opinion of McCain is 38% favorable. That’s higher than Bush’s approval rating nationally!
*Obama and Hillary split the independent vote! Why? Obama’s record is catching up to his rhetoric.
*Republicans voted for Hillary at a greater than 3 to 1 ratio and represented 13% of voter turnout. This Proof positive that Republicans can choose who the Democrats nominate in close states.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Matthew,
There will be a debate in Philly the week before the primary
Dave,
I’m with you on Gore. What if it goes like 1924 when John W Davis won on the 103rd ballot?
Can you imagine watching Olbermann, Matthews and Russert at 3AM as the dems on their 5th or 6th ballot, pandemonium has broken out, and no one knows what’s going on?
March 11th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
i think someone on the clinton camp will bring up obamas near unanimous support from blacks. 90%+ is very high.
March 11th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I think Republicans may be shooting themselves in the foot by supporting Hillary.
The interesting case is going to be Michigan, where (I was just told) there is no party registration. If there is a re-vote, there is no way to keep Republicans out.
How wild will it get if everything comes down to Michigan, and potentially ~30% of the voters are Republicans?
March 11th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I would rather face Barack than Hillary for several reasons. Barack Obama has never accomplished anything in his life. He can’t point to a single accomplishment other than having been elected. Once this is fully pointed out, and once his socialistic viewpoints, and various foreign ties are exposed, I think he is easier to beat. Another thing, I don’t think he puts Hillary on his ticket, but I think Hillary would put Barack and be pretty tough to beat that way. Mitt just said the same thing on Hannity and Colmes while ago, that McCain matches up better against Barack Obama.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
The big problem with this approach is that she is losing the popular vote too! Hillary would be better off announcing Eliot Spitzer as her running mate!
March 12th, 2008 at 12:08 am
She’s 680k down (maybe a bit more with Mississippi). She won Florida by 300k the first time, and might do as well again (there might be a much bigger turnout the second time). A big win in PA could easily net her ~300k. And then Michigan. It’s iffy, but she could win it narrowly, or close the gap to nothingness.
At that point it’s a virtual tie in delegates and a virtual tie in popular vote, and she can turn the conversation to electability.
If I were writing the script, I’d have her win PA, but not by enough of a margin to seriously embarrass Obama.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:49 am
I agree. At least 10, but less than 15. A nice 56-44 win in PA would be just great.
She goes on to win IN, WV, KY, PR all by at least 10%.
The FL and MI delegates show up in Denver and dare the DNC to keep them out.
Obama ends up with around a 75 delegate lead in pledged delegates, but the popular vote is narrowly hers, by say less than 50K.
She actually differentiates between caucus delegates and primary delegates and we discover that if you just go by primary delegates, she’s actually ahead by a nose.
After a few ballots where no one wins, we get Al Gore on the 4th ballot.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Matthew, that was an interesting idea. I do wonder if Hillary would look insincere doing that though. During her husband’s 8 years as President and her 8 years in the Senate, neither of them ever proposed getting rid of caucuses or changing the DNC rules of delegate selection. I think she’d look insincere bringing it up all of a sudden while she’s losing her party’s nomination. However, many Democrats may be unable to detect the phoniness of it, and it could work.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Romney on Fox said he would be honored to be McCain’s VP but that the choice was McCain’s. I think the only way McCain can win is if he has the hard-core conservatives enthusiastically supporting him, and that will only happen if he has a conservative VP like Romney.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Professional conservatives are more likely to be enthused by a Romney pick than grassroots conservatives would. Though a Romney pick would be a nice sign that McCain is trying to reach out to conservatives.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Romney came close to selling me on “Romney for VP” last night. You forget how impressive he can be when you don’t see him for over a month, but I thought he was just terrific last night. He sold McCain better then McCain does, and he made the case against Barack Obama with passion and sincerety. He’s moved onto my shortlist.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Matthew,
I believe the Romney you saw is the real Romney, not the one the media and other candidates who were trying to win were portraying. He IS an impressive man.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:26 am
If you talk to any liberal and ask which GOP candidate they dislike most, they will almost always say Romney. That is because he is effective. Out of the 5 top-tier GOP candidates, they liked McCain best, Huckabee second, Thompson third, Giuliani fourth, and Romney the least.
March 12th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I have to say as well how impressed I am that is such a big person to forgive all of the dirty politics that were used on him from both McCain and Huckabee. I am not sure I could be so forgiving.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:27 am
#16 Matthew – I felt exactly the same way. Romney is man of class and humility. I think he looks at life with a very sober and realistic perspective. The Bible says to “have a sober estimation of ourselves.” I think he did that last night on Hannity.
And, by the way, does Alan Colmes look creepier, spookier and more like death warmed over than ever, or is it just me?
March 12th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Republicans better stop pushing Hillary. She would win as the biggest comeback kid of all time.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Beth Topaz #20. Yes, Romney was absolutely exquisite in his interview this morning (or yesterday?).
March 12th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Alan Colmes is just a plain old CREEP, period.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Saw this someplace and just thought I would share:
“Would I want Hillary answering the red phone in the middle of the night? No, bloody not. The White House first responder should be a person of steady, consistent character and mood — which describes Obama more than Hillary. And that scare ad was produced with amazing ineptitude. If it’s 3 a.m., why is the male-seeming mother fully dressed as she comes in to check on her sleeping children? Is she a bar crawler or insomniac? An obsessive-compulsive housecleaner, like Joan Crawford in “Mommie Dearest”? And why is Hillary sitting at her desk in full drag and jewelry at that ungodly hour? A president should not be a monomaniac incapable of rest and perched on guard all night like Poe’s baleful raven. People at the top need a relaxed perspective, which gives judgment and balance. Workaholism is an introspection-killing disease, the anxious disability of tunnel-vision middle managers.”