Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton may still have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination. But it’s probably smaller than the chance that a continued slugfest will hand the White House to John McCain.
Consider what it would take for Senator Clinton to win.
For starters, she would have to pull ahead in the popular vote, to balance her second-place spot in number of states won and in pledged delegates. As Bill Clinton put it on March 17: “If Senator Obama wins the popular vote then the choice will be easier. But if Hillary wins the popular vote but can’t quite catch up with the delegate votes, then you have to just ask yourself which is more important and who is more likely to win in November.”
Even Mr. Clinton seemed to concede the nomination to Mr. Obama unless Mrs. Clinton wins the popular vote; without that, she doesn’t even have an argument. Unfortunately for the Clintons, almost nobody who has done the math thinks that she can win the popular vote without re-votes in Florida and Michigan.
Mrs. Clinton is more than 700,000 votes behind in the popular vote. With 10 states and territories still to vote, perhaps another six million votes could be cast if turnout is very high, by the count of Ben Smith at Politico.com.
To get the lead, she would need to win at least 56 percent of all the remaining votes — or well more than 60 percent of the votes outside of North Carolina and other states she is expected to lose. So far, though, Mrs. Clinton hasn’t won 60 percent in any state except Arkansas, where she had been the state’s first lady.
All this means that Mrs. Clinton’s chances of winning are negligible, barring some major development.
Meanwhile, the big winner of the Democratic fist-fighting is Senator McCain. A Gallup poll released Wednesday found that 19 percent of Mr. Obama’s supporters said they would vote for Mr. McCain in the general election if Mrs. Clinton were the nominee. More startling, 28 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters said they would defect to Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama were the nominee.
Exit polls show the same trend. In South Carolina in January, about 70 percent of each candidate’s supporters said they would be happy if the other person ended up winning the nomination. By the Ohio and Texas primaries in March, fewer than half of each candidate’s supporters said they would be content with the other person as nominee.
Granted, tempers may cool by November. But dragging out the contest only deepens wounds and reduces time for healing: In 9 of the last 10 presidential elections, the nominee chosen first ended up winning in November. And if the Democratic nominee has been crippled, that would hurt Democrats running for other offices as well.
“It’s amazing how bitter it’s getting, and it can only get worse in the months ahead,” said Gov. Philip Bredesen, a Democrat of Tennessee, who has not taken sides. “I’d love to have a Democratic president, but I’d also love to have a Democratic Congress. If you’ve got people mad and staying home, that can’t possibly help candidates running for the Senate, candidates running for House seats, and for the State Legislature.”
Mr. Bredesen is urging superdelegates (he’s one) to hold a primary in June, so that a winner would be chosen in time to begin a healing process before the convention.
Instead, the battle is getting bloodier. Mrs. Clinton spoke this week about the contest continuing for “the next three months” — and those would surely be a toxic three months. There’s already grumbling that Mrs. Clinton’s real strategy is to destroy Mr. Obama’s chances of winning the general election so that she can compete in 2012.
Senator Clinton, who has done so much fine work on health and children’s issues for so many years and who more recently has been an outstanding senator, deserves better. Likewise, Mr. Clinton, who tackled AIDS and poverty so passionately since leaving the White House, risks tarnishing his own legacy. His poll approval ratings have dropped steadily, and he now has higher unfavorable ratings than favorable.
If Mrs. Clinton can run a high-minded, civil campaign and rein in her proxies, then she has every right to continue through the next few primaries, and the Democrats might even benefit from the bolstered attention and turnout. But if the brawl continues, then she and her husband may be remembered by many people who long admired them as having the same effect on Mr. Obama this November that Ralph Nader had on Al Gore in 2000.
Do the Clintons really want to risk becoming the Naders of 2008?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment