They Hold Conventions, Don't They?

Matt, riffing on this Mark Schmitt post about the Clinton camp's ability to get the press to pretend that their candidate still has a chance at the nomination when she almost certainly doesn't:

The strangest thing about the twilight campaign of the past several weeks is that under any other circumstances, it just wouldn't be happening. Or, rather, it would be like the last few races that Mike Huckabee ran -- covered as an amusing sideshow. But because of the fact that Bill and Hillary Clinton and their close associates have been the leaders of the Democratic Party for so long at this point, they've been able to take a remarkably slender thread of hope and spin it into a full-fledged horse race. At this point, though, they're perpetrating something of a fraud on their many grassroots supporters who continue to invest money, time, and energy in an already-failed enterprise.

The bottom line, however, is that before the March primaries, Clinton looked doomed unless she could make up major ground in March. With all the March results in, Clinton hasn't made up any ground at all. That means she's doomed. The popular vote victory in the Texas primary is a nice moral victory for Clinton to console herself with, but the overall results just didn't create the kind of delegate count she needed to be viable.

But she isn't viable only if you assume the narrative that the Obama campaign has been pushing, in which the candidate with the most delegates at the end of the primary campaign wins the race regardless of whether he's reached the magic number of 2,025. Now, this narrative has a certain plausibility, but it's by no means the only narrative out there; indeed, if you'd asked me a few months ago what would happen if neither Obama nor Clinton reached 2,025 pledged delegates but both were within hailing distance of that number, I would have said "brokered convention," because that's what used to happen in these kind of circumstances. I'm a little murky on the exact details of the 1976 race (paging Michael Barone ...), but it's my impression that Gerald Ford was ahead in the delegate count going into the Republican convention, and that he had won many more primary votes than Ronald Reagan, who accumulated a lot of his delegates in less-than-democratic caucuses. But Ford wasn't far enough ahead to have clinched the nomination under party rules, and Reagan still made a play for the nomination at the convention, and nearly pulled it off. Which is how the primaries-plus-convention system is designed to work: If you don't accumulate a clear majority, you don't get to win on the first ballot, even if you have more delegates than everyone else. Thus Mike Huckabee's continued candidacy was a sideshow because John McCain was more or less guaranteed a first-ballot victory after Romney dropped out; if McCain's ability to reach the magic number had been in serious doubt after Super Tuesday, there would have been every reason to take Huck seriously, and Romney would have been a fool to quit the race in the first place.

Now obviously the Ford-Reagan race took place in a transitional period from the smoke-filled rooms of yore to the more democratic system of today, and it's entirely possible that if you re-ran the 1976 contest in our era, it would have been a Ford coronation at the convention, rather than a nip-and-tuck battle. But the nominating process still isn't perfectly democratic by any stretch, what with the caucuses in some states and the primaries in others, the arcane delegate-assignment rules, and of course the presence of the superdelegates. And it seems perfectly reasonable for the Clinton campaign to treat the race the way it would have been treated back in the day: As a contest that won't be settled until Denver, regardless of whether Barack Obama has won more votes and delegates than they have.

Photograph Courtesy of Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library

Comments

"Reagan's Revolution" by Craig Shirley offers a detailed account of the 1976 Ford-Reagan race, Ross.

Posted by Thomas | March 15, 2008 2:07 PM

"Perfectly reasonable" if you're a Republican. I think most Democrats realize that there's no way the party will survive something like that happening. If Obama continues to hold onto his big lead in the popular vote and pledged delegate count, there is almost no chance the superdelegates will go against him.

Posted by Mike | March 15, 2008 2:09 PM

But she isn't viable only if you assume the narrative that the Obama campaign has been pushing, in which the candidate with the most delegates at the end of the primary campaign wins the race regardless of whether he's reached the magic number of 2,025.

Exactly right, Ross. First to the seventeen yard line isn't what gets you the prize. What gets you the prize if first to the endzone (2025 delegates -- probably more than that if one or two states revote).

Obama's obviously the heavy favorite. But I'd say he's a heavy favorite more in the 80-20 sense, than in the 98-2 sense. I think one possibility that has to be considered -- especially if both candidacies look wounded by June -- is a failure to nominate on the first ballot, and the drafting of Al Gore.

Posted by Jasper | March 15, 2008 2:18 PM

Al Gore and Barack Obama...now there's a dream ticket for just about everybody except diehard Clinton supporters, who must be wondering if they are battling just to keep from losing, or if they really want a person willing to kitchen sink anyone, to win.

Posted by James Lawrence | March 15, 2008 2:40 PM

Mike Huckabee was wise beyond "conventional wisdom" to stay in this race. he got the national exposure, proved that millions of people wanted him as president, not just southern states. Mike Huckabee also garnered 20,000 Hucks Army volunteers who worked just as hard for him at the end as the beginning. These people believe in Mike so much we made as many as 50,000 calls a day into Wisconsin after all told us he could never win. Those are the connections Huckabee needed to make because, fortunately for Americans, he does not have the big money ties, or commitments that those getting big bucks from Washington establisment elites do. We will remember this in 2012 or 2016. We won't make the mistake of letting Huckabee get away again!!!

Posted by Linda Rayborn | March 15, 2008 3:09 PM

If Obama continues to hold onto his big lead in the popular vote and pledged delegate count, there is almost no chance the superdelegates will go against him.

Nope. Not true and never has been. It would only be true if Obama went to the convention with halo and movement intact.

If Clinton is ahead in the opinion polls, both nationally and in battleground states, and is coming off big, recent wins in important states, then she could win the super-delegates. That scenario was always a possibility. Now I think we can say that Obama hasn't had a good week in a good while. More than a few observers are wondering if the Wright revelations haven't mortally wounded him, and Rezko problems have just gotten a bit worse, too.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 15, 2008 4:25 PM

Ross, I think there's is one very important point here that often goes unmentioned, Obama is black. So, the narrative that somehow sees the Dem. Party allowing Hillary to backroom some kind of deal where she becomes the nominee over the first African American candidate, who incidentally, has the most votes, states and pledged delegates isn't really viable.

There is no way that Super Del. would do that because as Party insiders they no better than anyone what such a move would mean-the likely disentegration of the Party. And I don't think that's overstating things.

The truth, that no one seems to mention, is that the nomination is worthless in Clinton's hands because of what it would take for her to get it. If the 1st African American candiate is denied the nomination because of some backroom deal, the Democratic Party wouldn't win the WH for 50 years. That's the biggest unreported aspect of this. The Clinton narrative requires a leap of faith that could imagine the Party-after Florida in 2000-doing something that damaging to its base-African Americans. It's just not going to happen and the media portraying it as a real or plausible possiblity is deceiving.

Posted by Harlan | March 15, 2008 5:59 PM

The Clinton narrative requires a leap of faith that could imagine the Party-after Florida in 2000-doing something that damaging to its base-African Americans. It's just not going to happen and the media portraying it as a real or plausible possiblity is deceiving.

Ah yes. The threat of rioting black folks. It worked for Nixon, there's no reason it won't work for Obama.

Posted by dry_fish | March 15, 2008 10:06 PM

In the 1976 convention, Ford held a narrow delegate lead and did indeed proceed to win the nomination. But the damage of Reagan's challenge to Ford had been done; Ford lost to Carter.

And had the convention chose Reagan, there's no telling how hard it would have been for him to win, after the damage done to him, and the perception that the choice of the minority in the elections had been chosen as the party nominee.

It's always hard to generalize from a past election year to this one, and the 1976 analogy does not hold up.

What does hold up is the fact Hillary Clinton is pursuing a pathway that is absolutely destructive to the Democratic party. If she had any class she would drop out, but this is Hillary we are talking about.

Posted by cm | March 16, 2008 3:36 PM

The threat of rioting black folks.

What an obnoxious comment.

More the threat of black folks staying at home during the general election and perhaps leaving the Democratic party permanently. At the very least, being disaffected for a long, long time.

There have been exactly zero black nominees for president (from a major party) and just a handful of black senators.
The idea that it would somehow be unreasonable for blacks to feel cheated if Superdelegates somehow swung the nomination to Clinton is a-historic and ridiculous.

I agree with Harlan that the superdelegate or brokered convention scenario for a Clinton nomination is hugely implausible.

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 16, 2008 3:43 PM

IIRC, Mr. Reagan actually won a plurality of ballots in the primary contests held that year (though not necessarily a plurality of the sum of primary and caucus ballots).

The delegate count was close, with Mr. Ford eventually winning 52% of the ballots at the convention. However, nearly all of these delegates were elected as pledged delegates or had announced their preferences beforehand, and Mr. Reagan's loss had been anticipated for weeks. The Reagan campaign threw the dice and attempted to shake loose delegates in northeastern states by announcing that he would choose Richard Schweiker as his running mate, which proved an unsuccessful gambit.

Mr. Ford's loss in the general election was as narrow as John Kerry's and there were a number of factors that might have been decisive, not just the Reagan challenge.

Posted by Art Deco | March 16, 2008 4:37 PM

There have been exactly zero black nominees for president (from a major party)....The idea that it would somehow be unreasonable for blacks to feel cheated if Superdelegates somehow swung the nomination to Clinton is a-historic and ridiculous.

People's visceral reactions to events may be predictable and apprehensible in some way but are not necessarily just.

The superdelegates were chosen according to party rules which have been in place since 1981. Some of them might wish to pose the question as to what principle of fairness accords them less discretion over their choices than is accorded any other delegate.

There have been only a modest number of blacks who had the sort of preparation common to presidential candidates - a period of time as the incumbent president, a term as a state governor, a run of at least a dozen years in the federal Congress, or a run of years in the cabinet or as a military chief of staff. Only a small minority of people who fit that description make presentable presidential candidates. The last time either party nominated someone with a resume as thin as Mr. Obama's was in 1944.

Posted by Art Deco | March 16, 2008 5:04 PM

DON'T BE DUPED!!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. “Carpe diem” (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see’s a beautiful world of plenty, and comfort for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it’s time America. Do this for your-self, and your children’s future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-self.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket now! Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton’s offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama’s place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history. But the time to act is soon.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

“This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by jacksmith | March 16, 2008 9:22 PM

Jacksmith-

Wow. Your comments are unbelievably insulting and crass. When all else fails - insult your opponent, question their legitimacy, question the rules, act the victim.

1) Obama supporters are not being "duped" - they are not idiots, automatons, drones, etc and to suggest that they are is the basest form of attack. Give it a rest with that crap.

2) Hillary and Bill have been in politics for many years and they've had ample opportunity to voice concerns and question the validity of the Democratic Party's primary process (open primarys, caucuses, etc.) As far as I remember, the process worked ok for Bill in 1992. Hillary is where she is today - and that's that. No one (neither Republican or Democrat) is cheating her or subverting the system.

At this point, Hillary Clinton may be your nominee, but she is certainly not mine, nor is she the preferred candidate of the current majority of Democratic Party voters. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that she is trailing among every crucial benchmark (pledged delegates, popular vote, etc.)? And do you honestly believe that Hillary has been cheated by the system or that the Republicans have somehow conspired to throw the election to Obama? Really?

I suggest that you (and all other Hillary supporters) give it a break with this nonsense. Stop complaining about how the system's been unfair to Hillary and how Obama and his supporters should snap out of their Kool-Aid induced funk.

If you actually want to convince voters to switch sides, it would be preferable to treat them with a modicum of respect and to present (at the very least) a few viable reasons why your candidate (Hillary) is the better option.

At the end of the day, if you can't come up with anything better than insults and unsubstantiated claims - I would suggest that it would be preferable that you not say anything at all.

Posted by Daniel | March 17, 2008 11:34 AM

Ross, with due respect, calling two views narratives does not make them both plausible, and does not justify your (apparent) conclusion that it is perfectly reasonable to think Clinton remains viable, a conclusion supported by shaky historical extrapolation but little recognition of just how tremendous are Clinton's obstacles. The most rigorous, sophisticated look at Clinton's delegate woes, resolving many uncertainties in her favor, finds that she will need, at minimum, to win 66% of the remaining unpledged non-ad-on superdelegates, and perhaps up to 75% of them, in order to tie. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/16/4538/35934/187/477813

Then consider the recent NYTimes survey of superdelegates that suggests slightly more than half feel they should support the delegate or popular vote winner (Clinton can't catch up there either, see ibid.). Clinton has not received a single new superdelegate endorsemenet since February 5 -- she has only experienced defections. Obama has gained new endorsements since then on a near daily basis. The cherry on top is Pelosi's recent statement that superdelegates breaking against the delegate winner would be a bad situation.

Hangin' by a thread is what.

Posted by Nick | March 18, 2008 3:33 AM