Hillary should step down
Diminishing chances indicate campaign is over
By Chris Walker
E-mail
Print- Share on Facebook
-
Seed Newsvine
- Text size:
We’ve already seen one “stolen” election in our lifetime – Clinton shouldn’t be party to a second one.
Last week, Hillary Clinton’s dire campaign won three out of four contests, effectively keeping her chances at the Democratic campaign for president alive for now. But should this be?
Barack Obama is still ahead, despite the three-state loss, by a substantial number of delegates. According to some television experts, Clinton would need to receive a 20 percent margin of victory in the remaining states to even have a shot at the national convention’s nomination. That’s something Hillary has only been able to do once this election year (contrasted with Obama’s 13 contests won by 20 percent or more), and that was in the state of Arkansas, her former home.
There’s more to add to Hillary’s list of woes for the remainder of the campaign. First off, Obama didn’t lose as bad as she had hoped last Tuesday. According to calculations done by his campaign, the expectation is that Hillary came out of those contests with a net gain of only four delegates (other Web sites have made estimates that give her a net of 10 delegates).
That’s a victory? Hardly. It still keeps Obama ahead of Clinton by a long shot.
Additionally, Clinton’s victory isn’t much to be proud about considering how many losses she already has. Prior to last Tuesday, Clinton had lost 10 races in a row. Her last victory came on Super Tuesday, which was a great night to be an Obama supporter. Taking that fact into consideration, the last time Obama had a “bad night” was January 19, when he lost the Nevada caucuses. That’s almost two months of Obama beating Clinton.
So how can she effectively claim to have momentum, especially so late in the race? The fact is, Obama raises more money than her, has brought more to the polls out to support him and has shown he has a better chance at defeating now-Republican nominee John McCain (due to the fact that Obama draws more independents into the race than Clinton).
But should Clinton step down? I’d very much like her to do so.
With each week that passes, John McCain will gain more support due to the fact that he no longer has any Republican competition to worry about. This leaves him with a few months of time to make himself look good to independents, especially when contrasted with the bitter campaign that is going on between Clinton and Obama.
Clinton faces more than an uphill battle for the remainder of the campaign season – she faces almost insurmountable odds. Assuming she does win most of the states that haven’t voted yet, and assuming that Obama still puts up a fight within those states, she’d have to rely upon the superdelegates (who are unpledged representatives in the nominating process) to win the race.
This begs the question: Can she honestly believe that she’ll energize the liberal base by winning the nomination in such a way that renders the voting public obsolete? We’ve already seen one “stolen” election in our lifetime – she shouldn’t be party to a second one.
With Barack Obama having such a lead, and with recent polls suggesting he has a better shot at taking down McCain come November, it should be obvious to the Clinton campaign that staying in the race will only hurt the Democrats more.
She lost the nomination. She should exit gracefully.
> Comments
Not So Fast. on Mar 10, 2008 at 12:57 AM:
Well Chris,
You article was well stated and well thought out, however I simply disagree. You are correct; Hillary will never pass Obama in pledged delegates. This is true. However, the pledged delegate system is disproportionate. When Hilary beat Obama in the Nevada Caucuses (in popular vote) she received fewer delegates.
Also, your statement that she has been beaten by Obama for over two months is incorrect. In fact she received more popular votes and pledged delegates than Obama did on Super Tuesday. Super Tuesday was in fact NOT a good night to be an Obama supporter.
However, I feel the decision should be made this way. When all the Democratic Primary voting is done in June, if Obama still has more popular votes than Hillary, she should then drop out. However, if she pulls ahead in POPULAR VOTE (she is projected to win in upcoming states such as Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana, and possibly Michigan and Florida.) the Super Delegates have the option of voting in block for her. This would carry her mantel. I don't see why this would be so outrageous if she was the winner of the national popular vote in the Democratic Primary process. The Super Delegates voting in block and the popular vote are just as much part of the process as the pledged delegate allocation system. This is completely reasonable. After all we don't want to re-live the Florida 2000 election again.
There are also serious problems with your contention that Obama is a stronger General Election Candidate. In Swing State primaries she has out preformed Obama by huge margins. For example in Ohio, Obama won only 5 of 88 counties. He particularly lost badly in the southern region of the state, an area where any Democrat needs to be competitive to win the state in the General Election. A recent poll also shows Obama trailing behind Hillary by 15 points in Pennsylvania, another Democratic must win state in November. These are areas dealing with serious economic problems and they are looking for tangible solutions. Not the talking points, platitudes, and hype offered by Obama.
Further, the hypothetical match ups between Obama and McCain v. Hillary and McCain may look good for Obama now, but let’s see how things look in September after months of Republicans branding him as "inexperienced" and as the "candidate of HYPE." If you think Hillary has been nasty, just wait for the GOP.
The Democratic Primary process exists for a reason. Let have each of the remaining states vote and then see where the popular vote totals stand. If she wins the popular vote, then she should be entitled to the nomination. If not, I will agree that Obama should be given his chance. Obama had his opportunity to seal the deal last Tuesday. He could not get it done. Probably because after a second look, voters in Texas and Ohio found that Mrs. Clinton was the stronger candidate. Perhaps the remaining states Democratic Primary voters will do the same. Lets HOPE so!
Daniel V. Bahr
Chris Walker on Mar 12, 2008 at 05:33 AM:
You make good points, Dan, about what should happen come convention time. Your feelings on the subject are just as valid as mine, and your ideas on how the nomination should go towards the end of the process are good ones.
However, your assertion that Hillary won more delegates on Super Tuesday is simply untrue; Obama won 12 more delegates than his counterpart. Considering that she was (as she had in other contests) resting her campaign on a huge win that night, losing more delegates than winning them was definitely a blow to her campaign.
I don’t have the time to calculate the popular vote differences between the candidates (I may do so later), but even if Obama lost that, the fact that his campaign had got even close to overcoming Clinton on Super Tuesday is monumental, considering how strong a presence the Clinton campaign once was -- remember, she was poised to take the nomination from day one. Since Nevada, she didn’t “win” a night (even on Super Tuesday, when she lost more delegates) until last week when she took Texas and Ohio.
And while it may be true that Clinton won the “bigger” Democratic states of California, New York, etc., her wins there mean nothing to the overall election -- those states are “safe” for any Democrat who receives the nomination. Conversely, Obama has won by overwhelming numbers (even when compared to Republican primary voters) states that traditionally go “red” -- states that could go blue this November if he receives the nomination.
Is it wrong to put this importance on smaller states over larger states? Perhaps it is. However, the Electoral College, still in place, should make us consider a candidate who can win these smaller states, and perhaps favor him over his colleague who wins the “safer” states hands down but has trouble in the “swing” states. I’d take a swing-state candidate over a safe-state candidate any day of the week.
Daniel V. Bahr on Mar 12, 2008 at 08:31 PM:
Chris,
I will double check on the Super Tuesday delegate numbers. However, I do stand by my claim that whoever wins the overall popular vote at the end of the day should win the Democratic Party nomination. It that is Obama, no problem. I am not against Obama or any candidate, I just prefer Hillary. I will concede that based on early expectations, Obama was stronger than expected on Super Tuesday and in many other contests. While it is tough having this inter-party fight, Democrats should be pleased with the talent in their party.
Daniel V. Bahr
Daniel V. Bahr on Mar 12, 2008 at 08:31 PM:
Chris,
I will double check on the Super Tuesday delegate numbers. However, I do stand by my claim that whoever wins the overall popular vote at the end of the day should win the Democratic Party nomination. It that is Obama, no problem. I am not against Obama or any candidate, I just prefer Hillary. I will concede that based on early expectations, Obama was stronger than expected on Super Tuesday and in many other contests. While it is tough having this inter-party fight, Democrats should be pleased with the talent in their party.
Daniel V. Bahr