Hillary Has Almost No Chance of Winning, Why Won't the Press Admit It Already?
March 21, 2008
Consider a hypothetical. Let’s say that right now, Barack Obama trailed Hillary Clinton among delegates, statewide victories, and popular votes. The margins are such where it’s extremely unlikely he’d catch up before the convention. She’d raised more money than him, and had won 14 of the last 17 Democratic contests, almost all by wide margins.
Would there be intense pressure for Obama to face facts, consider the good of the party, drop out of the race? I think any fair reading of the political landscape suggests the answer is yes.
But, this is, of course, the exact circumstances we have today, except it’s Clinton trailing, not leading. I’ve seen the argument elsewhere, but Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen do a very nice job today of summarizing a provocative point: the Democratic race is over, but no one wants to admit it.
Indeed, Vandehei and Allen note that Clinton campaign aides live right here on Earth, and one key Clinton advisor conceded that her chance of winning the nomination is no better than 10%, “an appraisal that was echoed by other [Clinton] operatives.”
And yet, I get the sense no one — not campaign reporters, not the candidates, no one in the party — is supposed to admit any of this. Instead, the conventional wisdom is that the race for the nomination is “practically tied,” and will go “down to the wire.” Vandehei’s and Allen’s broader question is a good one: why this fiction is taken so seriously.
Oddly enough, Vandehei and Allen make a very compelling case that it’s the media’s fault.
Consider a hypothetical. Let’s say that right now, Barack Obama trailed Hillary Clinton among delegates, statewide victories, and popular votes. The margins are such where it’s extremely unlikely he’d catch up before the convention. She’d raised more money than him, and had won 14 of the last 17 Democratic contests, almost all by wide margins.
Would there be intense pressure for Obama to face facts, consider the good of the party, drop out of the race? I think any fair reading of the political landscape suggests the answer is yes.
But, this is, of course, the exact circumstances we have today, except it’s Clinton trailing, not leading. I’ve seen the argument elsewhere, but Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen do a very nice job today of summarizing a provocative point: the Democratic race is over, but no one wants to admit it.
One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.
Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.
Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote -- which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle -- and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.
People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.
Indeed, Vandehei and Allen note that Clinton campaign aides live right here on Earth, and one key Clinton advisor conceded that her chance of winning the nomination is no better than 10%, “an appraisal that was echoed by other [Clinton] operatives.”
And yet, I get the sense no one — not campaign reporters, not the candidates, no one in the party — is supposed to admit any of this. Instead, the conventional wisdom is that the race for the nomination is “practically tied,” and will go “down to the wire.” Vandehei’s and Allen’s broader question is a good one: why this fiction is taken so seriously.
Oddly enough, Vandehei and Allen make a very compelling case that it’s the media’s fault.
