By The Way, I Do Think She Can Win This

Having had a while to rest, and get away from blogworld, I'd like to come back and answer a question: yes, I do think Hillary Clinton can get the nomination, and yes, I do think she can beat John McCain.

Interestingly, since that tense discussion Saturday, Ezra himself has acknowledged that there are reasons why this isn't over; more interestingly, the comments to that post are in many ways in polar opposition to the previous one.

But I still think someone needs to make a few points, calmly (and perhaps slowly, for the more adamant Obama-philes who do go on so about a math problem they still don't completely get), about why a Clinton supporter might not be throwing in the towel:

• The Current Winning Hand. Clinton is, at this point, likely to win Pennsylvania, possibly by as much as 15 to 20 points, probably by 10; even if the Obama people get their "lowered expectations" call of less than 10, they are back where they were, having not won the biggest states in open primaries. Once she wins PA, the questions go back to Obama: Is the Wright mess sticking? Why can't he appeal to working class voters? Why can't he win big open primaries?
• The Long Term Winning Hand: From there, Clinton seems poised to prevail in a number of the contests that follow PA: Indiana (hi Nick!), West Virginia and Kentucky most likely.  And then there's North Carolina: while many - me included - saw an Obama romp just a few weeks ago, the polling has tightened, and those who say "it's like Virginia" may be using the wrong frame: it's like Virginia, except after Jeremiah Wright. Though North Carolina, like it's neighbor north, and South (Georgia, where Obama also won), has adapted to the new economy with it's "research triangle" area around Raleigh/Durham and Charlotte, it remains a fairly polarized southern state. Like Tennessee, Clinton could win everything except urban areas and college towns and manage a win; or like Missouri, Obama could barely cross the line in a similar scenario.  Neither one helps him. And all those losses - even if he wins Oregon and Montana, which isn't a given, either - will not help his argument (and at some point, the "he's winning the popular vote" argument will be lost as well)
• Supers, Be Not Brave. In all the talk of "why don't the superdelegates end this now," one thing that's been lost is remembering that we're talking about politicians.  These are not, by and large, a brave lot.  They are cautious; they play it safe. That is why they were made the "backstop" for popular sentiment, which might (we crazy liberals!) go for some weird, untested alternative.  Like, you know, Howard Dean.  But never mind; as Bill Richardson actually shows, these choices come down to personal interests and making a safe choice.  The fact that the "superdelegate surprise" that was hinted at after March 5th didn't materialize for Obama, the fact that John Edwards hasn't made an endorsement, the fact that Al Gore is silent... means in part that Obama hasn't made a successful case yet.  If he keeps losing working class voters, that case doesn't get better. And as Vandehei and Allen really suggested in their report, the only way news organizations could make Obama's case is to wildly distort what's going on. They could; but even that won't help Obama, while he's losing primaries.
• The New Math. In which case, Obama arrives at the convention with, yes, some small number of delegates ahead of Clinton, having lost a number of primaries, and possibly coming in off of a win in South Dakota... like Wyoming, yet another great way to base our decision making. Ha ha, just kidding. This is where the game of chicken over Michigan and Florida will come home to roost: by not revoting the two states, Obama has two dreadful choices: argue against seating them at all, or argue that he deserves some "magic number" (like half of Michigan's delegation, or giving Florida's delegation half their voting power).  Those argument may seem attractive now (hardly); but after a string of losses... not so much.  That's why we may yet see a revote in Michigan - one that, even the Obama folks have pretty much conceded would not go their way (their reliance on Republican crossover votes comes into play, as Michigan's Republicans... largely voted for MItt Romney at the time, and are not allowed to vote again. No, don't ask why anyone thought they should be allowed to vote again). In any case, what Clinton folks have said all along now becomes clear: Obama has a slight edge, that can't be overcome without superdelegates, who will not, in June, or July, throw the race to him, if he can't make the case clearly that he's soundly eliminated Clinton from contention. At which point, he either has to make deals, or face reality.
• Conventional Wisdom.  So at that point, all bets would be off: we either get a negotiated solution, or we take it to the floor.  It's not that I think there would be a negotiated settlement (like, you know, putting him at VP, which we all think would be the strongest solution anyway), though I'd say it's more likely; it's that if it does come to the floor, with the Supers not feeling especially brave, with Obama not holding all the cards on the popular vote, with his not carrying key voting blocs or union votes - like the teachers (or hadn't you noticed that the NEA hasn't endorsed) or much of AFSCME, or key elements (still) of the AFL-CIO... she can make the case for getting the superdelegates to her side. At which point, "come together for party unity" better hold up, or the fault for a divided party and a stinging loss would fall, squarely, on the "let's come together, triumph of hope" crowd.

Will these developments look pretty? Probably not; it will be hard for Obama folks (oh just imagine the roiling over at Kos) to face the facts if she's got the winning hand, and there will, surely, be calls to "leave the party" or protest heavily in Denver.  That's one reason, I think, why it's incumbent on Clinton folks to be graceful and reasonable: people need a chance to save face as they accept the result.  And by the way, yes, I'm being optimistic: if Obama wins PA, or turns it around strongly after that, or finally finds the way to attract lower income voters in larger numbers... then yes, he's got the popular votes, the delegates and probably the supers.  Moreover, one can't, completely, discount the media deciding, on a whim, to step in and as Vendehei and Allen suggest, simply call it for Obama (though it seems to me, they tried that on Friday, to little or no avail).  As I said, being a Clinton supporter means knowing it could go either way.  But either way really does mean yes, I can see her winning.

Now, about John McCain.

First, let's make a list of those who can probably beat John McCain in the fall:

1. Hillary Clinton
2. Barack Obama
3. My Mom
4. Your Mom
5. A Begonia

It's true, the begonia might need some experience on defense policy... but aside from that, one thing is clear: John McCain is eminently beatable.  He has the far weaker hand, both in terms of Republican unity and fundraising; even after "sewing up" the nomination (I prefer "browbeating the party into submission" myself), McCain has struggled to raise funds, look Presidential, and actually make a successful case.  And he doesn't even have Democrats settled on a nominee. Part of the reason we have the let's end it now" drumbeat isn't because we're afraid we look fractious, let's admit it: part of it is that we just want to take out the heavy artillery now and just wail on him. We know we can beat him... and we'd really like to get started.

Patience, people.

Here's why I think Hillary Clinton can beat him, even if we have to wait until August to settle on her: the Republican establishment decided long ago that the hill to fight this election on was Iraq.  They plan to run a variation on 2004 with scaring people about terrorism and Iraq and calling the Democrat - whoever she or he may be - weak on defense. What they didn't plan on was an economy in tatters: McCain is actually incredibly weak on economics, and his team, composed largely of "supply side" Reaganites has little to offer in terms of vision, or solutions.

Which means that, come the fall, when the recession is in full swing, when questions about housing policy, loan availability, and health insurance will loom quite large, they will have... pretty much nothing.  And a nation not especially interested in staying in Iraq, which thinks the war is a mistake and we need to get out now... is unlikely to do as they did last time when driven by fear.

A Clinton/McCain matchup is bound to be rough and mean and dirty.  There will be ugly charges, surely someone will bring up the history of the nineties, all of it. But it's not as if John McCain will look better because of it.  His own, flawed, long history of alienating people on his own side will also be on display.  And conservatives, who don't trust him to begin with, are never going to completely warm to the idea of him, even with her as the alternative. Conservatives, with their own natural pessimism, have been muttering to themselves for two years that the possibility of her actually winning, over their objections, is likely to happen no matter what they do.  And I think they're right.

Will disillusioned Democrats pick McCain over Clinton? It's hard to see how. The antiwar types will find no love for McCain's hawkishness, issue voters on abortion will have no use for his frankly antiabortion stance, those who care about the Supreme Court know damn well what "strict constructionists" means - more Scalias, Alitos and Robertses. There won't be a way,as there has been in the past, to repaint McCain as the "maverick" liberals can look at and see a liberalism that was never really there (while, at the same time, conservatives can see the "maverick" who will sell them out in a flash). The intellectual elite, however much they would have preferred Obama does not have a lot of choices here.

Do I think Obama can beat McCai? Absolutely; but I think it's a different race, just as ugly, if not more so.  The racial divide will deepen; the question of Obama's untested, inexperienced neophyte status will become a key part of the campaign. Working class voters, if they don't warm to him between now and August, are ripe targets for messaging about "America standing strong" and the like - messaging that would probably, ironically, push more women than ever to vote Democratic. An Obama race would be a nailbiter, though, because polling would be highly unreliable (lots of talk of the "Wilder/Bradley" effect of not being able to count on slim majorities who lie when race is involved), and states we would usually count on (like Pennsylvania) would be up in the air, probably down to the wire.

I think Democrats, burned in 2000 and 2004, are leery of getting our hopes up.  We fear that everything we see, that seems so obvious, will turn out yet again to be an illusion that vanishes under a GOP onslaught. "We're too fractious" we say of the primary, "we should settle this now." If we got behind someone - usually Obama in the example - we would be ready for them.  But of course, we won't be; we don't understand how Republicans can say what they say, think what they think.  We will always be surprised at how ugly it gets, how much we have to fight. But I maintain, and reiterate: we can win this.  We have the wind at our backs and time on our side. And I believe, seriously, that Hillary Clinton can go all the way. Still.

Confidence, people... Confidence.

Comments

[lisadawn82]

I don't know abut a Begonia being able to beat McCain. Maybe a Tiger Lilly.

BTW, nice post. I'm coming here by way of Riverdaughter and I'm so glad that I did. You have a very nice site.

[weboy]

Well, I try to dust... and keep the furniture neat. :)

Thanks!

[FitnessNerd]

Very well said, as usual.

I have to say I had a low point of doubt over the weekend about Hillary, but your post helped me get over it. I have to admit I am getting a little worn out by all this, but I think it is fundamental that this process be allowed to run its course without calling for a candidate to drop out.

I was talking with my family yesterday, and I told them that the current situation is best argument FOR a Superdelegate system, because we may be witnessing what happens when a candidacy starts strong and ends weak.

On a side note, Bill Clinton is in Logansport, Indiana today. That's my home town. We can't even get governor's to visit! If only that had been 1992, I would be in the front row!

[Tammy]

I think you're exactly right about the grace and reasonableness that'll be required of Clinton supporters (even if Obama's melodrama and passive-aggressiveness does drive me up a wall).

For one thing, the original reason for why I (and others) wanted a Clinton/Obama ticket is that I want SIXTEEN YEARS. Not just eight.

I think he'd be a great president once he gains some experience and consolidates his own power base (rather than being a tabula rasa for important Democratic Congresscritters). It's flattering when Kennedy and Pelosi like you best, but you have to consider that they might have their own reasons for that.

I wish he and his supporters would consider the long run. It really would be doing the best thing for the country, although it requires setting ego aside (temporarily).

[pegasi]

Obama's "melodrama? It's Hilary who's the drama queen here—psychodrama queen, that is! She certainly deserves some kind of crown for her Bosnia misspeak. Why does she have to resort to such BS? It's so beneath her. Trust is an issue people have with her, and this certainly doesn't help. Doesn't anyone in her circle have the balls to tell her to stop this crap. Go, Hilary!

[Regency]

Dude, chill. She didn't lie. People have corroborated that it was a hard landing. The only thing on video is the first leg of the trip. It was the second leg that was treacherous. On that part, she did misspeak. It was nearly 20 years ago. I don't remember ANYTHING from 20 years ago.