Chris Bowers and Mithras have a strange theory that Clinton supporters will have an easier time accepting defeat if the campaign keeps going and going and going all the way until July. For Bowers, he simply assumes that Clinton will win Pennsylvania. For Mithras, he seems to suggest it will be better if she does. As both of them support Obama, I find this analysis passing strange.
The Clinton campaign is like a band-aid. It’s better to rip it off as fast as possible. The pain will be sharper that way, but also far briefer. The worst thing that can happen is for Clinton to do well enough in the remaining states that her case for the nomination grows in plausibility. In that case, her supporters are likely to hold onto an undying grievance against the little things that cost her the nomination (like Michigan and Florida’s decision to move up their primaries) or Mark Penn’s big-state strategy, or their perception of biased media coverage. They can accept a technical knock-out, but a split-decision from the judges will keep them howling about the injustice of it all.
The best thing that can happen is for Hillary to lose Pennsylvania, which will make all talk about Michigan and Florida irrelevant. If Pennsylvania cannot do that job, perhaps North Carolina and Indiana can. But I do not believe it will be easier for Clinton’s base to accept a loss if she maintains her strength to the very end.
Where does Mithras suggest it would be better if she won Pennsylvania? I don’t see that.
Mark this day on your calendar – I agree with Bowers and not you.
That’s not the same as saying it would be better for her to win Pennsylvania.
It would, imo, be best if she stayed in the race, strongly contested each state but lost every single contest between now and June 3. That would be long and drawn out but definitely the best possible way to end it all. Not likely to happen – but the best scenario at this point.
I also think you mischaracterize Bowers’ argument and that you and he aren’t that far apart.
He’s being realistic though. She’s not likely to lose Pennsylvania. SUSA has her up 18 points today.
she’s not up by 18 points.
In this area of the state she has almost no visible support at all. She is going to get slaughtered in the southeast, and it is impossible to get a big win out of the state if that happens.
I need to know how strong she is in Scranton and the southwest to know if she has any chance of winning the state. I’m not there, so I don’t know, but I can’t see how she can possible win here based on what I’m seeing in Philly, Bucks, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester. Obamamania has definitely arrived in the burbs.
I was calling some rural area of PA last weekend and couldn’t find a single Obama supporter. You can’t go by the city areas – that’s always been his base. What’s key is how well he does in the rural parts of the state.
If you just look at the big cities, or at the rural center of PA, it doesn’t give you a balanced picture of how the state as a whole will go.
The suburbs, on the other hand, do give a pretty good average. Like Booman, I’m seeing Obama 2:1 in the suburbs. At least, close enough to Philly that the Ron Paul supporters aren’t dominant.
Actually, you can go by the philly area. If Clinton was doing at all well here then she’d win the state easily. But she is not.
Although someone did steal my yard sign last night.
I don’t believe she’s up 18pts either, but how confident can you be that what you’re seeing is representative of the voting public? What I was seeing in Alexandria for example, was a slight edge to Obama, but on election day he slaughtered her.
Certainly no one doubts he’ll take Philly, assuming you all don’t manage to gun each other down beforehand (I kid, I kid). The question then becomes, By what kind of margin? Surely we can’t expect him to take 80% like Kerry did, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect him to lose the rural areas by similar margins to Kerry’s in 2004.
Lisa, are you from PA?
If not, you need to know that the rural areas have VERY sparse populations, and that in general whoever takes the cities takes the state.
For instance, ere’s the wiki for Pennsylvania 2004, which Kerry won. Notice that the only areas he took were Philadelphia and the metro region, Pittsburgh and the metro region, and Erie. That was more than enough.
2006 was a little different, because Rick Santorum was so unpopular, so there was a lot more blue. Still you get the idea: the rural counties are not necessarily a predictor of electoral success in PA.
Oh, that’s very encouraging then, because he IS doing very well in the cities.
glad I could help!
Lisa, I live in Central Pennsylvania, a suburb, sort of, but with a dairy farm two blocks away. A couple of blocks in the other direction is an Obama yard sign, the only yard sign for miles.
And there are now 54 Obama offices in the state.
Plus rural areas are almost entirely Republican–some of them the old liberal Republicans that the state was once full of rather than these right-wing nut jobs and neocons, and so they’re not hopeless in the general–and only registered Democrats can vote in our primary.
Each state is different and I believe BooMan knows his state.
It sounds much like Missouri. Big urban victories can counterbalance the rest of the state and you can pull out a close win. Or, in this case, at least a close loss.
Here are some internals.
Some observations:
Obviously, turnout is key. But Hillary probably will not get 17% of the black vote. She is also showing too strong, in my opinion, in these poll numbers for the Philly burbs.
I just don’t believe she is going to crack 40% in the burbs or break 35% in the city.
I found some Obama supporters. They were women who “don’t want Hillary in there.” Men too.
SurveyUSA is the poll that has Clinton up 18 points but plenty others have the race as five to six points diff.
Rasmussen: April 6th – all tied 45% 45% , but April 8 – Clinton 48% Obama 43% still Clinton down from a ten points lead two weeks ago
Quinnipiac: Obama only six points behind down from nine points last week.
Lets see what the SEIU pro Obama $740 K ad buy do for the campaign.
Hillary will not quit this race.
I think it’s unlikely she’ll win by 18 points too. But it’s good to hear your analysis of your state.
But I still think it’s likely that she’ll win PA and Bowers’ point that candidates don’t concede right after a victory is a valid one.
If Obama can pull out a win in PA that would be different. But it’s unlikely and it’s not clear that Hill would concede anyway.
I think Bowers’ point is valid that the supporters need to either see her concede after an important loss and/or they have to reach the point where they understand that it’s over whether she concedes or not. The second is more likely than the first and that means we have to continue the long drawn out process.
Frustrating, but in the end we will be more likely to be united by July rather than risk dragging hurt feelings into the convention.
I don’t agree with you that ripping off the bandaid will make the healing happen faster. Ripping off the bandaid makes the pain of taking off the bandaid be over faster. It doesn’t make the wound heal faster and sometimes it can open a wound that isn’t already healed. If it looks like she was pushed out the wound that is already starting to scab over will be re-opened.
maryb-
Way to get to the heart of the argument. You said it better than me.
You make a persuasive case and I hope you are right about being unified in July. I have been in the throes of a discussion today on a local blog with a couple of enthusiastic Hillary supporters and I’m not exactly feeling the Democratic love in our discussion there today. The loathing they seem to have for Obama is almost palpable. I don’t loathe Hillary, by any means, but if these people are even a remote representation of the strong Hillary supporter, I wonder if the “I’ll vote for McCain over Obama” contingent that is purportedly in their ranks might exist in greater numbers than I could imagine.
Kinda scary.
It’s the Hillary supporters’ loathing of US, i.e., Obama supporters, that I find particularly distasteful.
Yes, I guess in retrospect most of the comments thrown out were, in fact, more directed at me than Obama.
I was told I should “WAKE UP!!” and that I’m “funny in the head” for thinking that Obama is a better candidate than Hillary. Obama should drop out and take Hillary’s VP offer. The GOP smear machine will destroy him and Hillary has been steel-hardened against it. And besides, why should she drop out when she’s only behind by 1%.
Well, then I proceeded to lay out “The Math”, as BooMan calls it. That was a couple of hours ago and all I’ve gotten back is silence. Invective, as opposed to objective, must be more their forte.
I agree with you and not Bowers. The longer the campaign goes on, the deeper the loyalties, the more the perceived hurts and slaps from the media and Obama, etc.
This needs to end quickly. And if it feels brutal, that’s just politics.
No way does dragging this out at THIS point help anyone.
I think it was good that the campaign didn’t end on Super Tuesday. But at this point, we’re cutting into much needed general election time. No. They need to rip it off, and quickly!
No, I didn’t mean to imply that I thought it would better if she wins Pennsylvania, I meant that whether she does or not, she’ll likely stay in it anyway, her supporters will not lose heart and we’ll be left with the status quo ante. Consider: Back on Super Tuesday, Obama’s campaign predicted that she would win PA 52%-47%, for +8 delegates. Let’s say best case scenario for him that he wins PA with +5 delegates. Just like I didn’t think that the “she can’t win” media narrative would drive her support way down before the PA primary, I don’t think a PA loss for her will be enough incentive for the undeclared superdelegates to jump to Obama. Although a loss would be disappointing to her supporters, if she doesn’t accept defeat and continues to make the “superdelegates could and should select me” argument, I don’t think they lose faith yet.
What I should have added to my post is that the exhaustion of Clinton’s supporters will be the best path to a unified party. Let me make a sports analogy: Say a football team goes into the fourth quarter down by three touchdowns, and say further that, to an objective observer, their performance in the first three quarters doesn’t suggest they can come back in the time remaining. That team doesn’t quit. Most of their fans don’t leave the stadium yet. While it’s true that their unlikely to win, it’s still possible. Anything could happen. But as the clock winds down, the less loyal fans see the inevitable and leave. The real diehards are left, but they get quieter. Their feelings slowly turn pessimistic, more so as the seconds tick away. At some point before it’s over even they reconcile themselves to defeat.
So, in the end, what anyone could see at the start of the fourth quarter was likely to occur eventually came to pass. But now let’s say that the referees were to have stepped in at that point and ended the game, on the grounds that the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Would the losing side accept that as a legitimate loss? Would they feel angry at being cheated or would they accept it?
The reason why you rip a bandaid off is because once the pain is over, it’s over. You feel relief, because you’re already healed. I don’t think that’s a good analogy to the nomination because things are not healed in any sense. If the superdelegates – the referees here – were to end it now, it would be ripping the bandage off a raw wound.
So, I think it goes to June. I may be wrong. If she loses PA, public sentiment may turn against her to the degree that sooner rather that later the superdelegates feel free to declare for Obama, and he gets to 2,023.5. Less likely, if she loses PA, Hillary herself may decide it’s time to throw in the towel. I think both of those scenarios would eventually work out fine in terms of party unity. But the worst case scenario would be if the superdelegates put Obama over the top before PA or even soon after a Clinton loss in PA, before the public has time to absorb the news and make up their minds.
Another sports analogy is boxing — where a match can be declared over before it ends. I think this may fit BooMan’s pov better? Especially when considering the “outcome of the nomination campaign is no longer in doubt”.
boxing refree
Ruby Goldstein
Interesting analysis. However, I think that, given the weight the Clinton team has placed on the PA primary, if she should lose it, even by a hair, it’s over for her no matter how she might try to spin it. At that point, I think a sudden jump by undecided superdelegates over to Obama would be perceived as an act of betrayal by only the most delusional Clinton supporters.
moxibustion treatment might be useful.
If the nomination battle continues to be seen as hotly contested and Obama ultimately wins, he will have gone a long way to defeat one of the primary perception problems his candidacy has versus John McCain: He’s smart, he’s capable, but he’s UNPROVEN and UN-VETTED. Welcome to Obama’s proving ground: the Democratic nomination process.
Hill is doing a good job of giving him a chance to work through his negatives before the Repug machine can do it. She’s allowing him to make the party’s points in his inevitably stronger style and win point after point. She’s playing to the old party devils, allowing Obama to separate himself and represent change even within the party. I doubt she’s doing this all on purpose, but there it is. Once it’s determined that the perception of Obama is that he is vetted and proven, Hillary should keep her campaign active and run tough negatives against McCain through the convention. Playing along like that could even get her back on the VP list.
After an endless nomination battle taken right up to the convention, Obama will sure appear ‘tested’ to most everyone. Let’s not forget it’s the Dem’s activists the paying most of attention right now, with more Indies and Repugs tuning in the later in the contest we get.
As the convention draws close, continuing Billary-inspired drama will attract more new viewers and therefore more potential converts. A coronation will not, and Obama wants ‘THEM’ to watch. How else can you convince the close-minded but to get them to listen?
Yeah, and maybe we shouldn’t attack McCain. it would only help him by your logic.
Umm.. actually, if I were in Obama’s shoes would treat McCain just like a Bob Dole. Hold his elbow and walk the great old gentleman onto the debate platform, back off and into retirement. So yeah, I don’t think Obama should attack McCain. The ELDER statesman McCain can easily be patronized right into oblivion. Notice the left-wing media hammering this point, over and over and over and over and over and over? I’m not the only one who feels this way.
If the old as the hills thing doesn’t stick? Then it’s on.