TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 8:00 PM
January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM
January 08, 2009 | 5:59 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
05.05.2008
Hillary's Wins Could Help Her Lose

I agree with Mike that a North Carolina loss would be a disaster for Obama. But we're also starting to see a weird phenomenon taking shape: that as Hillary moves up in various polls, keeps winning important states, etc, superdelegate sentiment actually drifts towards Obama. I noted last week that, even as his poll numbers among whites plummeted, Obama had finally caught up to Hillary in Hill supers. And now, via Ben Smith, the LA Times reports some superdelegate wavering within the Clinton camp: 

Christopher Stampolis of Santa Clara, a superdelegate who endorsed Clinton after the Iowa caucuses, said that he remained in the New York senator's camp but that his commitment expired with the end of the primaries.

"When it's done, all of us, whether we're committed or not, we're going to take a look" at the final eight contests, said Stampolis, who until recently worked in external relations for a Bay Area environmental firm. "Our job is to represent the constituents who trusted us to win the White House."

Clinton, obviously, is hoping the flow will go in the other direction after the end of the primaries. In fact, her whole strategy rests on the idea that if she closes the vote gap with Obama, the superdelegates will rush her way. But the way in which she's closing that gap -- inveighing against "this mindset where elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans" -- may well make the opposite happen. I bet her new anti-economist shtick turns off some superdelegates (who, remember, are explicitly the "elite" within the Democratic party) even if it wins primary votes. Members of Congress have already treated her gas tax idea with total disdain and disgust. I can easily see a situation in which she does heroic work to narrow the pledged-delegate and, especially, the popular-vote gap with Obama by June, but the supers then refuse to play the role she has written for them.

I keep thinking of the line from Mark, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" What does it profit Hillary to win all these votes and narrow her gap with Obama if she loses the superdelegates' favor?

--Eve Fairbanks

Posted: Monday, May 05, 2008 9:57 AM with 13 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Rhubarbs said:

I wonder about the effects of her gas-tax legislation in Congress. She's overtly playing the Republican game of ginning up a fake vote on a "tax cut" in order to force Democrats to choose between acting responsibly and avoiding cheap campaign attack-ads. And she's doing it on behalf of the Republican presidential nominee's proposal. The first significant legislation she's pretty much ever introduced, and it smells like something Dick Armey would have cooked up in 1998.

I can't imagine very many congressional Democrats are amused by this behavior.

So perhaps the upside is that Hillary has just torpedoed any hope she might have had to vie for Senate leadership in the future. Good news for the republic if true.

May 5, 2008 10:44 AM

The Stump said:

One more thought on the somewhat inverse relationship between votes and superdelegates in the Democratic

May 5, 2008 10:50 AM

aeromonas said:

Isn't it fairly obvious why this is playing out this way?  The supers can count.  They know that no matter what happens on Tuesday, Obama remains in a commanding position numerically speaking.  And as the NYTimes reported, within the Congress at least, most of the "undecided" supers are actually just "unannounced."  They've been holding back hoping the electorate will itself shut the door on Clinton's candidacy so that they won't have to.  Much less risky merely to endorse a decision made by the voting public than to make the decision yourself.  But they also know that the party risks general election disaster if this nomination contest drags on too much longer, so to the degree that the voters infuse new life into Clinton's candidacy, it behooves the supers to do everything they can to suck that life away.

After reading that Times article, I have become convinced that Clinton has known for weeks that she had already lost the battle for the superdelegates.  If so, it places an even darker, Chaitian spin on her continued primary run.  If she truly had already lost the superdelegate fight and if she knew it, then her staying in the race is at best an act of purely selfish face-saving and at worst an act of vengeful vandalism.

May 5, 2008 10:50 AM

roidubouloi said:

How about purely selfish face saving AND an act of vengeful vandalism?

May 5, 2008 11:00 AM

icarusr said:

And Robert Bolt: "Master Rich, it profits not a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul; but for Wales?"  She won't even have that.  I'd go for vengeful vandalism.

May 5, 2008 11:04 AM

virginiacentrist said:

Good points. "Uncommitted" superdelegates Mark Udall, Steny Hoyer, and Nancy Pelosi think her gas tax plan is idiotic. So...while it may give her 2-3 points in the polls, the long term effects are disastrous.

May 5, 2008 11:10 AM

blackton said:

I just can't wait for tomorrow to be over. I am so tired of this.

May 5, 2008 11:28 AM

liberal reformer said:

The Clinton Machine is relentless and I think that this alone is putting off superdelegates. Look what happened with Bill Richardson. He was close to endorsing Hillary but he was on the recieving end of a barrage of phone calls form HillCentral and a visit by Big Bill who was far too aggressive in his pitch. Further, the superdelegates can read the polls and see HRC's mounting unfavorable numbers. God knows she started with a high enough disapproval base at the outset of this campaign but she has managed to substantially augment her negative numbers. I am barely hanging on as a supporter of hers because I think that Obama is inexperienced and though a great rhetorician, I can see him getting savaged in the fish tank that will be the general election.

May 5, 2008 11:55 AM

timteeter said:

Hey, that's SAINT Mark to you, liberal elitist latte sipper.

May 5, 2008 12:42 PM

timteeter said:

I have come to the conclusion (and I'm not unique) that, while HRC still hopes for a miracle, she is really running for 2012, either against a 75 year old McCain or in a primary challenge to Obama.  I hope I'm wrong, because she's an idiot if she even thinks that way for a minute.

May 5, 2008 12:44 PM

johnbr55a said:

There are reports today that Billary has committed to blowing up the convention to try to seat the FL and MI delegates. She apparently has a majority on the Rules Committee of Hillary Hacks. If that happens, if the party lets her get away with it, that's it for the Dems. And good riddance. It'll mean that everything the Reps have been saying about spinelessness is true.

"President McCain today announced 100,000 more troops will be sent to Iraq. This follows his executive order to reinstate the draft and claims it is in his power as Commander in Chief."

Thanks Billary. And I used to support these people!

One lifelong Dem tettering on the edge.

May 5, 2008 2:12 PM

roidubouloi said:

johnbr,

I that piece too.  I think it was on Huffington.  But apparently there is a higher committee, in which Obama will have the edge, that would have to concur. The balance of power there is supposedly controlled by Dean.  I don't think Dean will allow MI to be seated except as 50-50 -- anything else is ridiculous.  As for FL, it will depend on whether, or to what extent, they can be seated without changing the outcome.  There is not a chance in hell that FL will be allowed to change the outcome of the nomination, and it will likely be very clear that it can't well before this comes up.  Even as is, it is only good for about 30 delegates in Hillary's favor.  Once it is clearly OVER, there may be a FL compromise.

May 5, 2008 4:10 PM

hayleykelse said:

The superdelegates want to cast their vote for Obama before voters can choose Clinton. This is the very undemocratic role Obama supporters decry when they talk about Clinton "stealing" the election with superdelegate support.  But they'd have no problem if Obama wins this way.  Hypocrites.

May 6, 2008 3:12 PM