Impossible Odds for Clinton
Just how uphill is Hillary Clinton's battle at this point? Dave Musgrove does the arithmetic.
Four days after the twentieth and final scheduled debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and with four days remaining until decisive primaries in Ohio and Texas, what was unthinkable one month ago and still improbable two weeks ago is rapidly hardening into conventional wisdom on the campaign trail: Hillary Clinton will very likely be forced from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination within a fortnight.
Conventional wisdom, usually tipping more towards “convention” than “wisdom,” is often wrong. But in this case, it is bolstered by mathematical evidence derived from disciplines as varied as exotic physics on the one hand and simple arithmetic on the other.
Let’s get the physics part out of the way first: the issue here is critical mass, and at what point either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama might achieve it. Critical mass is, by nature, a zero-sum phenomenon: at the point of its occurrence, it cannot be reversed nor can its properties be transferred beyond its origin. That is, in political terms, once one candidate achieves critical mass, another candidate cannot also hope to achieve it for themselves. It’s game over; there is no going back. In the quantum nightmare of proportional delegate allocation that is this year’s Democratic primary campaign, critical mass will not be observable in a single, blinding flash of clarity; rather, it will come about in the mundane accretion of popular votes, pledged delegates and unpledged super delegates, all of which, like quirky little subatomic particles, zip along their indeterminate paths, influencing each other as they mingle, until their individual trajectories unite in a single direction and they are collectively propelled toward the point of greatest attraction. The outcome becomes clear through a series of discreet impacts, of accumulated drops in one bucket or another that ultimately combine to over flow.
And mercifully, here’s where simple arithmetic comes in. The results of the Democratic nominating contests held to date are as follows:
Contests Won
Hillary Clinton: 13
Barack Obama: 24
Popular Votes Won
Hillary Clinton: 9,379,822
Barack Obama: 10,305,403
Average Margin of Victory
Hillary Clinton: 10.8%
Barack Obama: 31.2%
Clinton or Obama will secure the nomination once they accumulate a total of 2,025 delegates. Definitive delegate counts are maddeningly elusive, but as of this writing all projections show Barack Obama with the upper hand. The Associated Press estimates published in the Washington Post show Obama leading Clinton by 1343-1240, the New York Times gives Obama a 1303.5-1222 advantage, and Real Clear Politics shows Obama up by 1377-1279.
What this adds up to is a very tough climb for Hillary Clinton, rapidly veering toward insurmountable. Given Clinton’s shortfall in pledged delegates at the moment, and the fact that her margin of victory in the states she has won so far is roughly one third that of Barack Obama’s average margin, it is nearly impossible to envision Hillary stringing together a consecutive series of wins on a scale sufficient to put her back in the lead of pledged delegate counts.
Even so, Clinton might still prevail should she rally a large majority of the 795 super delegates to her corner. The role of the super delegate in the nominating process is a hotly debated topic at the moment: should they bow to the popular voice of the plurality of voters in the nominating contests, or should they vote however they please, even if that means disregarding the decision of the party rank and file?
Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, himself a super delegate, addressed this topic back on February 19. According to the Honolulu Star Bulletin, when “asked if he thought the super delegates should follow the lead of the popular presidential vote, Inouye said no.”
“If that is the case,” Inouye retorted, “they shouldn’t have super delegates. Why should they give us the vote if we are not given the right to exercise it?”
Which sounds to me like sufficient cause to resolve the question by doing away with super delegates altogether, but let me side against myself and concede the point to Senator Inouye. In that event, another question arises: if super delegates are to be inherently free to decide the nominee without regard to votes cast in caucuses and primaries, why bother holding caucuses and primaries? Wrestle with that at your leisure.
But here we get back to critical mass. Would a majority of super delegates likely be persuaded that the nomination is rightfully Hillary Clinton’s, even though she will probably end up decisively the loser to Barack Obama in the tally of popular votes and pledged delegates? Undoubtedly some super delegates will ultimately come to that conclusion. But would enough of their fellow super delegates join them to put Hillary over the top? Again, given the sheer tonnage of events flowing in Obama’s direction, this seems extremely unlikely. The notion of swimming upstream against the current of popular decision in order to hand the nomination to an establishment candidate against an insurgent outsider will, I think, strike most super delegates as a bit too counterintuitive to carry the day.
The weight of all these considerations leads to the inescapable conclusion that Hillary Clinton now has no clear path to winning the Democratic nomination. Lacking a clear path, would Hillary Clinton continue her campaign regardless? I doubt it. Despite a tenacious history of never giving up during the many public battles she has waged, and the overabundant zeal of stalwart Clinton partisans like Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson who would argue that she should fight on right through to the convention, Hillary Clinton is, at the end of the day, a realist. She understands that in politics, ultimately somebody wins and somebody loses. Running for president is a tough business, and often complicated, but it’s not rocket science.
Dave Musgrove is a Democratic voter and blogger. Dave’s own political blog can be found at http://ipol-2008.blogspot.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
13 Comments
1. crat3:Impossible odds for Clinton is pro-Obama biased media seeking to suppress support for Hillary Clinton and sway votes to cult leader Obama. Such pro-Obama biased media against Hillary Clinton deliberately undermines the Democratic nomination process.
Mar 1, 2008 - 12:48 am 2. Jason:crat3, Hillary will lose because of voters, not the “pro-Obama biased media seeking to suppress support for Hillary Clinton and sway votes to cult leader Obama”
She got a free ride for 4 years and didn’t have to earn her position as the Inevitable Nominee.
She wasn’t tested.
She wasn’t ready.
She isn’t now.
Don’t like it? Blame the voters.
Mar 1, 2008 - 8:23 am 3. Sandy in New Mexico:It amazes me the way critics of Obama post such disparaging comments regarding Obama’s candidacy – words like ‘cult,’ ‘racist,’ etc. I am not a Clinton supporter, but I do not resort to name-calling and labels to put her down. Regardless who will be nominated the party still has to work to gain entry to the White House. If bloggers cannot post constructive comments, quit wasting everyone else’s time. I want facts, not mindless rhetoric.
Mar 1, 2008 - 10:21 am 4. 1st Amendment:Sandy,
Let me see if I understand you correctly. If someone leaves a comment you agree with, then they are exercising their 1st Amendment right and that’s okay with you.
But if someone leaves what YOU perceive to be “disparaging comments” that YOU do not agree with, or in your mind are not “constructive comments,” then its just “mindless rhetoric” and is wasting everybody’s time.
Did I get that right?
Mar 1, 2008 - 12:07 pm 5. Steve-o:1st Amendment wrote:
“Did I get that right?”
Not quite. What Sandy is saying is:
“No fair being mean to my Bambi!”
Mar 1, 2008 - 9:40 pm 6. josephine:The mere fact Obama goes to this church,TUCC and his spiritual adviser gave honor to Farrakhan that shows he is the embodiment of what the church stood for, racism. He doesn’t deserved our vote to be the president of our country.
Mar 2, 2008 - 12:54 am 7. typo_R_us:Dude, you left out the ONLY numbers that count. Delegates. Go back and re-crunch those numbers again, this time use the ones that count.
Mar 2, 2008 - 6:42 am 8. jacksmith:You must be a liberal. Number of voters DOESN’T matter. States won don’t count. You are counting chickens and what matters are the eggs.
Right now BO (Barak Obama) has a slight lead in Delegates going into the top of the 8th, but Billery has another inning and an ace closer in her 700 Plus Super Delegates.
Super Delegates have no rules to follow. They vote for anybody they bloody well want to.
The Democratic Primary system is designed to produce a bland, boring candidate with almost no chance of winning the general election. Historically, it has accomplished that mission. 2008 won’t be any different.
Neither BO nor Billery can win the general election. My fear is that the convention is brokered and algore winds up as the nominee, with BO in the VP slot. That would be a tough combo for McCain to deal with.
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose
husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose
husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose
husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose
husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot!
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton.
Best regards
jacksmith…
Mar 2, 2008 - 8:48 am 9. Susan McGeachy:Experience is what we need. But the experience of the same ole’ same ole’ white house is not what we need.
Mar 2, 2008 - 12:34 pm 10. Sooze from Reality:The experience of organizing the people of this Nation to work together and return it to the greatest Nation on earth. As a coummunity acitivist/ leader Obama knows and can teach the skills we need. Look how professional his campain has been run. His campain finances are in order and he was to only canidate so far to release his income tax.
Out with the old and in with the new.
Poor Jack Smith is an idiot!
Mar 2, 2008 - 12:38 pm 11. Kim:Hillary is far from being over.Obama can stop copying ever thing off of her.I think her ad is a good one.Hillary truly cares about all people.you that vote for obama better wake up and read you would see he is the last person that sould be our President. Hillary is our only hope for America.Al Qaeda tell’s us obama is actually of Persian-Iranian origin.they said ‘Iranian agent’secretly sent to take over America.*****WAKE UP*****
Mar 2, 2008 - 10:57 pm 12. Hotpatch 6:You can say what you want about Hillary’s political savvy, fund raising ability, knowledge, and experience, but she lacks the one thing that will ultimately deny her the presidency -likeability. Even the bulk of her own party do not “like” her. Why? Because she is un-likeable! Game over.
Mar 3, 2008 - 1:37 pm 13. Steve Marshall:It isn’t about like-ability, it’s about delegates. Hillary Clinton has NO chance of overtaking Barack Obama in committed delegates. And he now has the lead in super-delegates and that lead is rapidly growing. The voters have spoken. The super delegates are lining up behind Obama. It’s over folks.
May 12, 2008 - 9:40 pm