EDIT, 5/14: had to add this pic.Now that that's settled... Everyone seems to be saying Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race, that she can't win, that she's mathematically eliminated, that she's hurting Obama's chances at the nomination, that she's hurting the party, that she's ruining her own political future, that she's too egotistical to drop out, etc., etc.
I've been thinking about it a lot, and you know what?
They're all wrong. Hillary should stick around.
Part I. Why Hillary Clinton should remain in the race
Like it or not, the Democrats have superdelegates. What does this mean? Well, it means that in the event of multiple candidates coming out of the primary season with a good-sized share of delegates, the party bigwigs can basically pick who they want. When people talk about this system going against "the will of the people", they forget that the Democratic Party is not our government. It's a political party, and those who control it can do whatever they want, and if citizen Democrats don't like it, they can lobby for change, or leave the party. The Democratic Party isn't obligated to choose as its nominee the person who wins the most delegates in the primaries. I know it seems unfair because it seems like whoever gets the most votes should win, like in the government, but it's perhaps more aptly compared to Ben and Jerry's running a promotion in which you vote on what ice cream flavor you'd like to see made permanent. Then Ben and Jerry might look over the results and see that 55% want Fig Newton, 40% want Nutter Butter, and 5% want Oatmeal. This gives them some good evidence that Fig Newton may be the optimal choice, but they may take into account some other factors and decide that Nutter Butter is more likely to post better sales numbers across the board - for example, maybe they figure that even though Fig Newton fares better than Nutter Butter among their customers who care enough to submit a vote, Nutter Butter will outsell Fig Newton against the newest Häagen-Dazs flavor.
The facts of the matter are these: though Sen. Obama has an insurmountable lead in delegates awarded via primary, they are neck-and-neck in pledged superdelegates. If Sen. Clinton can convince enough superdelegates that she's the best choice for the party - an argument she is making with all of her might - then she'll be the rightful nominee. The scenario is not really that far-fetched, especially since Clinton is about to demolish Obama in a few primaries. And, though many have frothed at the mouth about how a superdelegate coup would "destroy the party" - it wouldn't. It would be forgotten about as quickly as the Supreme Court coup in the general election was forgotten in 2000.
Part II. Why Barack Obama is the better choice
However, if I was a superdelegate, I'd carefully look at Clinton and Obama and quickly realize that Obama's general election chances are superior to Clinton's. The crux of her argument that she would fare better against McCain is that she is more popular among white voters; therefore, since there are so many more white voters than black, she's the better pick. And, yes, it's sad that we're reducing this to racial terms in 2008, but that's another story. Anyway, the Senator from New York is conveniently one important fact:
Republicans loathe Hillary Clinton.
That's right, my friends: they hate her. And as I've said before, whether they should or shouldn't feel that way is irrelevant - what's relevant is that they won't vote for her. Clinton has more support among white Democrats, but it's likely that the Democrats will coalesce around the candidate (especially when the nomination loser asks his/her supporters to do so). That leaves Republican crossover votes. Who is more likely to bring Republicans over to his/her side? Obama. Who is more likely to inspire Democrats to go vote who might not otherwise do so? Obama. If Obama is nominated, it'll take a lot more work by McCain & Co. to get Republicans to come out and vote against him; he simply hasn't been in the national spotlight long enough to be as roundly disliked by the right as Hillary has. She's the one person who can make the Republicans - who are still pretty iffy about ol' Big Mac - come out in droves to support him. It would be a colossal misstep by the Democrats to nominate Hillary. Plus, setting aside everything I said earlier about superdelegates, McCain would immediately set to work as the candidate of the bigwigs, the "one who couldn't even get a legit win in her own party." It'd work; that kind of thing sells well.
So stick around, Hillary; tough this thing out for a while longer. Make your pitch to the party elite; The Clintons, for all their faults, are tenacious and have a history of winning. She's earned the right to be in the race. Let's have a thrilling convention.
8 comments:
I agree---I think Hillary should stay in the race.
And I don't know that the Democrat race is truly decided; afterall, Mitt Romney was winning tons of polls and then that fell flat...so even though it looks like first one Democrat candidate is ahead, and then the other, we may all be surprised come actual Election Day.
And I think young people like Obama, but older republicans might actually prefer Hillary over Obama simply because she is a known variable, whereas he is unknown.
I really don't care if Hillary stays in the race. I don't care for either Dem. candidate but I would like us to get past the racial divide, so nuts like Sharpton, Wright and Jackson will have no more dirt to cry about once Obama is elected.
Mike, your analogy kind of works but not really. You see, the superdelegates (all politicians for that matter) have an agenda, and it's not necessarily to "sell the most icecream". They don't care about the party, they care about their own success. The whole election system them Dems use is pretty sad. To say that the people's voice doesn't matter in the end, but that rich pathetic politicians voices do is truly sad. Just one more reason besides the policies not to belong to the Democratic party.
FWIW, the Republican nomination process also features a pretty convoluted delegate scheme. See here. The Republican system awards extra delegates to states that elect more Republicans to Congress, gives automatic seats to state party chairs, etc. Neither party uses the straightforward populist approach Matt seems to favor. And there's nothing particularly unfair about it, since any Democrat or Republican who doesn't like it is free to apply for positions within their party organization and work to change the rules. Seems to me the "superdelegate" system gives added clout to those who care more about their party and work harder on its behalf. What's wrong with that?
--David
Nice cartoon, but misleading! Instead of a single basketball game, a better analogy would the annual college football polls. The coaches could rank Hillary State University with 1545 votes second behind University of Obama with 1699 votes, and every talking sports head on the tube would be saying the same sorts of things the cartoon has Hillary saying: "I don't care if UO has won more games--it's had a soft schedule. HSU beat Penn State and Kentucky and West Virginia...."
--David
Glory, glory hallelujah, the truth goes marching on.
--David
Whatever - neither political party is all sweetness and light or has the moral high ground on the other, in my humble opinion, and if anyone has convinced him or herself that "their" party is the "good" one then they need a swift kick in the butt.
That said, I think Hillary should stick it out. She's earned it. It really is very close, and if everyone dropped out when they were told by the media they had no chance, John McCain wouldn't be the "presumptive" Republican nominee right now. (Remember when he was declared toast because of the immigration mess? No? Neither does anyone else, it seems). He hung on and here he is.
This race is *not* over, plain and simple, and I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to stay in the game until the fat lady sings. She's put in her time, her money, a lot of people have voted for her, and as we've seen in recent elections, anything can and does happen.
And seriously - just because one person of one race is elected to one public office, do you think Al Sharpton is going to go away? Is it finally time for "them" to all "get over it" then?
The Republican party is screwed up but what It is supposed to stand for is what I stand for. The lesser of two evils at the moment.
No, Al and the boys aren't going anywhere if Obama is elected, They just wont be able to say "The black man is being held down by the white man!"
You know, Mike, this post changed my opinions. Thank you. I was on the bandwagon that she should pull out, but after your thought provoking post, I have investigated and changed my mind. Besides, the dammage is done. I think the party will pull some strings, and in the end, it will be united somehow. I hate parties, and wish we could do away with the two party system. But I also wish we could do away with big business and oil dependancy, so what do I know?
Post a Comment