Why They Want Hillary Out
May 15th, 2008 at 05:44am Mark Noonan
Byron York over at NRO takes note:
Her landslide 67-26 victory over Obama in West Virginia — she won by 147,410 votes — won’t change that situation. The oft-repeated fact that no Democrat since 1916 has won the White House without winning West Virginia won’t change it, either. But together, those two facts show just how far Democrats have ventured into uncharted territory this year. If Obama is to win the White House, he’ll have to do it in a brand-new way, winning states that Democrats haven’t won lately with diminished support in states that have been important to Democratic victories in the past. Clinton’s campaign reminds Democrats of that, and it makes some of them nervous…
…Clinton repeated her insistence that delegates from Florida and Michigan — “all of their delegates” — be seated. “I believe we should honor the votes cast by 2.3 million people in those states,” she said. Her demand was pooh-poohed in some circles of the commentariat, but the question for Democrats is: Why is that such a radioactive proposition? This is the party that got rather excited over 537 votes in Florida in 2000, the party that would like to pass something called the Count Every Vote Act, the party that has consistently favored greater enfranchisement over stricter enforcement of the rules (and sometimes the law). Sure, Clinton wants to change the agreement that existed going in to Florida and Michigan, but circumstances have changed, too. Since when have Democrats been such sticklers for unbending rules? Why do so many in the party insist that millions of votes in two key states be counted only if they don’t matter — that is, if the result is a fait accompli — and not be counted if they do?
If they were counted now — even if some of them were counted now — things might be quite different. According to the Real Clear Politics total, when one includes estimated vote totals in caucus states (a factor which favors Obama) plus results from Florida (which favor Clinton), but nothing from Michigan, where Obama’s name was not on the ballot, Obama’s lead in the national popular vote is 411,915. That figure is less than Obama’s margin of victory in his home of Cook County, Illinois, where, according to the Illinois Board of Elections, Obama won by 429,052 votes. By other counts, Obama’s lead is far less than his winning margin in Cook County. In other words, take away Cook County and Obama is the loser in the national popular vote race. He’s the president of Chicago.
Nevertheless, the Obama steamroller goes on. “This race, I believe, is over,” former Democratic party chairman — and Clinton supporter — Roy Romer told reporters on an Obama conference call Tuesday morning. “It is time for the party to unify, to get beyond the primary season, and to begin the general election.” His words echo those of dozens of top party figures in recent weeks. But they haven’t quite answered Hillary Clinton’s fundamental question: Why?
Whether or not Clinton’s argument is strong - and I believe it is - the plain fact of the matter is that in some of the Democrats’ core constituencies, Obama is not the desired candidate. It is true enough that Obama might be able to sway them back to his standard by November, but he may not - and any time he has to spend shoring up his base is that much less time he has for the vital work of poaching in GOP territory to cobble together 270 electoral votes. Polling indicates that Obama is the weaker Democrat, but perhaps the better overall candidate - Hillary is the stronger Democrat, but may be the weaker overall candidate…its kind of a wash; either of them can beat McCain, and either of them can be beaten by McCain. So, why the Democrat angst?
Down ballot; at least, so it seems to me.
The Democratic leadership understands that a failure to nominate Obama might greatly depress black American turnout in November - its not so much a worry that they’ll vote GOP (a few might, most won’t), but that they won’t vote at all…and while a large black turnout in the South probably won’t move any States towards the Democrats in the electoral college, it does ensure that a lot of Southern Democrats retain/gain office. A depressed black vote, on the other hands, means that a lot of Southern Democrats who count on a high turnout of black voters going 90% Democrat are at risk of defeat. Winning the White House is a very much desired goal - but retaining the power they’ve already got is much, much more important for the Democratic powers that be. They want Hillary out because in no conceivable case can they allow her to gain the nomination - and the quicker they get her out, the better Obama’s chances at uniting the entire Democratic coalition.
It is more the worry of losing a dozen House seats and a couple Senate seats which gets Democrats worried right now - not so much worry about beating McCain; that and the potential loss in State legislative seats right in front of the 2010 census. Politics is an interesting thing, and the funny thing about 2008 may be the Democrats nominating the weaker candidate in order to secure what they’ve got.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Congress, Democrats
4 Comments
1. OhioOrrin | May 15th, 2008 at 9:59 am
white w virginians voted white per exit polls.
what do we call blacks voting black, by even higher percentages?
hummmm….lemme think…
2. gotbrains? | May 15th, 2008 at 11:08 am
“It is more the worry of losing a dozen House seats and a couple Senate seats which gets Democrats worried right now - not so much worry about beating McCain; that and the potential loss in State legislative seats right in front of the 2010 census.”
What state do you live in? Obvisously, the State of Denial.
The only worrying about House and Senate seats is amongst the Republicans, who have suffered stunning losses in one special election after another in recent months. Most spectacular among these was the loss of Dennis Hastert’s old seat, and now a Mississippi seat in one of the most solidly Republican dictricts in the country.
MS-01 voted 62-37 for Bush in 04, and ended up giving Democrat Childers a convincing 8 point victory on Tues. This despite the NRCC dumping almost than $2 million into the race, and repeated fly-ins from Mike Huckabee, Thad Cochran, Trent Lott, Haley Barbour, Roger Wicker, and even Dick Cheney. The Republican candidate was a standard wingnut with no negative baggage - and yet he was soundly rejected by the voters.
If Republicans can’t win in one of their most solid districts in Mississippi after an enormous investment, where *can* the Republicans win?
Come this Fall, you’re toast. Toast in House seats, toast in the Senate, and totally fried at the top of the ticket.
Care to start betting on how many House and Senate seats Repubs will lose in Nov? I say 25 more House seats, and 6 more Senate seats…
3. Mark Noonan | May 16th, 2008 at 12:17 am
got,
Then why do you think they want Hillary out so bad. Leave off the mindless repetition of DNC talking points and think for a bit….
4. test » Blog Archive&hellip | May 17th, 2008 at 4:46 am
[…] Will Reynolds wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThat figure is less than Obama’s margin of victory in his home of Cook County, Illinois, where, according to the Illinois Board of Elections, Obama won by 429052 votes. By other counts, Obama’s lead is far less than his winning margin … Read the rest of this great post here […]