Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and the Big-State Argument
Hillary Clinton’s thematic inspiration may come from Walter Mondale and his “I am ready to be president now” campaign of 1984, but the uphill climb to the nomination she now faces actually mirrors the challenge confronted by a different Democratic candidate from days gone by: Ted Kennedy in 1980.
Kennedy, in challenging President Jimmy Carter, won enough giant industrial states to keep afloat during the months-long primary season, even as Carter commanded the edge in overall delegates and cumulative popular votes. Instead of surrendering after the last primary in early June, Kennedy soldiered on, intent on using the summer to sow doubts about Carter that might prompt delegates to turn on the president and hand Kennedy the nomination.
Likewise, despite her revival in Ohio and Texas (and Rhode Island), the only realistic scenario under which Clinton secures this year’s nomination will require her to engineer the kind of backdoor maneuver that Kennedy failed to pull off 28 years ago.
Given the number of Barack Obama-friendly states that have yet to weigh in (starting with Wyoming and Mississippi in the next week), Clinton will most probably finish the primary season trailing her opponents in both delegates and popular votes—although Obama should be short of the magic number of delegates needed for a first-ballot nomination. Clinton would then need to convince superdelegates to support her anyway, in effect overruling the primary season verdict.
Many of the obstacles that killed Kennedy’s effort suggest a similarly futile end to Clinton’s campaign this year.
Like the former first lady, Kennedy stared down several do-or-die primary tests, scoring game-saving victories just as the media was agitating for his exit from the race—most notably in the middle of April, when he notched back-to-back wins in the industrial behemoths of Pennsylvania and Michigan. But his margins in both states were narrow. After falling desperately behind in the delegate race early on, those victories did little to dent Carter’s overall advantage.
Kennedy hoped the Pennsylvania and Michigan results would spill over to the late contests of May and June, but the pattern that prevailed throughout the primary season largely held: Carter cleaned up in the small and mid-size states that voted in May (such as Maryland, North Carolina and Oregon) while Kennedy finished with a kick, prevailing in New Jersey (a clean sweep of every Congressional district) and California on June 3, the last day of voting.
The primary season wrapped with Carter leading the delegate race 1,964 to 1,239—with only 1,666 delegates needed to win the nomination. But Kennedy argued—à la Clinton—that his success in the biggest (and most Democratic) states on the map somehow counted for more. He also claimed the late momentum: He won 200,000 more votes than Carter in the June 3 contests.
“Tonight is the first night of the rest of the campaign,” Kennedy thundered on June 3. “The people have decided that this campaign must go on!”
There were no superdelegates in '80, so Kennedy’s summer strategy involved fighting for a rules change at the August convention, pleading with delegates to scrap the rule that bound them to the results of their states’ primaries and caucuses. He also demanded more debates with Carter and set about reinforcing every doubt he’d raised about the president, hoping to entice delegates to embrace the “open convention” plan.
For a while, it seemed like it might work. Polls showed Carter running far behind Ronald Reagan, and the short-term boost he’d received from the failed attempt to rescue hostages from Iran had worn off. A midsummer scandal involving Billy Carter, the president’s brother, and his ties to the Libyan government added new urgency to the open convention campaign, and 40 Democratic members of Congress, fearful that Carter might jeopardize their majority, signed on. Buttons reading “Win With Ted, Lose With Carter” were distributed.
But that’s as far as it went, for several reasons. For one, there were just as many doubts about Kennedy’s electability—and maybe more—as there were about Carter’s. Chappaquiddick was barely a decade old and polls found him to be the most polarizing politician in the country. And for all of the Kennedy nostalgia within the party, a sizable chunk of Democrats had strong personal distaste for Ted, because of the nature of the campaign he waged against Carter or because of his own personal issues. He also had a weak moral claim to the nomination, having lost the delegate and popular vote tallies during the primaries.
Very briefly, a movement emerged to open the convention but also to draft a fresh candidate into the race for Carter and Kennedy delegates to rally around. The names of Ed Muskie, Scoop Jackson, Mo Udall and even Walter Mondale, Carter’s vice president, were tossed around, but there were too many conflicting interests among the conspirators for the scheme to take flight. When Kennedy placed his proposed rules change before the convention on August 11, it failed on a 1,936.4 to 1,390.6 vote, and Carter was the nominee.
This year, Clinton won’t need to push for the same kind of rules change. Her hopes of overtaking Obama in the summer months will instead rest on superdelegates. But like Kennedy 28 years ago, she will face enormous skepticism in convincing delegates—in spite of consistent polling evidence to the contrary—that she is the more electable candidate. And, in the same way that the revered Kennedy name had its critics, the Clinton name has more than its share of influential detractors within the party.
The theoretical wild card in this is Florida and Michigan. If new primaries (or caucuses) are held in both states and Clinton somehow wins both overwhelmingly—assuming that she has by this point narrowed Obama’s delegate lead by winning a series of lopsided upset victories—she could conceivably overtake him in the delegate and popular-vote tallies. Under this scenario, she’d have an easy case to make over the summer.
That remote possibility aside, Clinton is likely to end up proving what Ted Kennedy showed 28 years ago: There’s no shortcut to the Democratic nomination.
On Painting
Gerhard Richter's Claudius is one of the largest and most overwhelming of his colourful Abstract Paintings. Dating from 1986, this picture towers over the viewer at a height of over ten feet, absorbing us, swallowing us into a vast and turbulent universe of colour.
Read More »Marilyn Revisited
By the end of the 1970s, Andy Warhol was everywhere.He was endemic, up there with Elvis, Jesus and Coca-Cola. His silkscreen aesthetic was instantly recognisable - the Warhol look had been used on album covers, in ads and on the cover of Time magazine. Read More »
Bacon By Freud
Lucian Freud first met Francis Bacon in 1945. He had heard about this mysterious and distinctive artist from Graham Sutherland.Within a short time, Sutherland had arranged for both artists to join him for a weekend at his home in the country, and they met at the station on the way there.
Read More »
It's true Hillary doesn't have the math on her side, but it's still fun to watch them tear each other apart. What about the talk of a dual ticket? I could see her picking him as the VP, not the other way around, he doesn't need that baggage.
On another note, it's typical that a Kennedy would want to to annul the primary votes of Americans. I guess he really wanted to get blown out of the water by Ronald Reagan even more than Jimmy Carter did.
Just saw that Rolling Stone endorsed Obama. Now there's one fine, respectable journal. Sure does influence my vote. (sarcasm)
The author of this articles ignores the following:
- The importance of OHIO in the general election that Hillary won
- The SOLID BLUE states that Hillary won that always go Democratic in the general election
-That Obama's wins have MOSTLY been red-states with very little DEm populations and overwhelming Repube voters, that ALWAYS go solid red.
- FL and MI
I'm sorry, but Hillary can not beat McCain in the general election. Obama has the best chance, and that will even be tested in the next 8 months. Hillary can't beat Obama in Ohio, she can't beat him anywhere in the Confederacy, she can't beat him in the mountain west, she might night even beat him in New Hampshire; nor Florida, or even Oregon! When Oregon goes red, you know the Democrats have picked the wrong candidate.
Exactimo kimmosabi the only potential Democratic winner is the man from illinois not he womyn
to anonymous on your statement of facts ignored by the author of this article, i would like to comment on the flawed reasoning of your arguments on the following points:
- The importance of OHIO in the general election that Hillary won
yes, hillary won ohio. do you actually think that if she is not the nominee that ohio democras will vote republican simply becuase she is not the democratic nominee?
- The SOLID BLUE states that Hillary won that always go Democratic in the general election
yes, hillary won in blue states, true. by your own statement, those states will remain blue regardless of the democratic nominee.
-That Obama's wins have MOSTLY been red-states with very little DEm populations and overwhelming Repube voters, that ALWAYS go solid red.
the fact that obama won a significant amount of red states with a sizeable number of "non-democratic" (ie, republican) voters says it all right there. obama has the ability to pull independents and republicans away from the republican nominee in ways that hillary cannot and will not. if these states "always go solid red" as you say, then why did obama win so decisively in these states?
if you think for one second that hillary will somehow over the next several months become this irresistible force and change the minds of independents, undecideds and republicans, you are sorely mistaken. in poll after poll after poll it is obama, not hillary, that is the only democratic candidate who can beat john mccain. he is the only democratic candidate who can draw significant numbers of independent, undecided, and republican voters away to bring the white house back to the democrats.
************************************************************
NO ONE CAN TOP THE CLINTONS AT BEING LIARS. BILL IS A CONVICTED LIAR, PERJURY A FELONY, AND HILLARY'S CLAIM-TO-EXPERIENCE IS REFUSING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR TO PROVIDE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS, LIKE HER 2006 TAX RETURNS AND HER WHITE HOUSE SCHEDULE RECORDS. HILLARY IS A MASTER OF DECEIT AS, KEN STARR CAN ATTEST TO. "NO TO HILLARY."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
to rocket science
the entire story who can beat mc cain is based on the presumption that all the independents and republicans who voted in the democratic primaries will vote democratic in the general election. we don't know how sizeable the tactical vote was. the above scenario seems quite unlikely. the whole argument then, that obama has better chances to win against mc cain rests on this very questionable argument.
and all the polls just show how many people bought into this flewed scenario, that all the "independents" and all the republicans in the red states will vote indeed for obama in november.
there goes the notion that due to Obama, the red states go blue.
Ohio is a swing state. Hillary is the candidate with the best chances to make a plausible argument to balance the budget and turn the economy around. Sofar, Obama has not made a case
that he will balance the budget. the amount of money he blows through his campaign and his rejection to commit to his pledge to take public financing does not invite trust in his fiscal resonsibility. I can imagine that Ohio people or any voters who worry about the economy may find McCain more trustworthy regarding fiscal responsibility than Obama.
another point in the comparison of Clinton with Kennedy:
the numbers of delegates given in the article (1800 - 1400 with 1600 needed to get the ticket) are not similar to the slight lead in delegates for Obama (<4%)and the virtual tie in the popular vote.
In this democratic race supporters in large numbers are very committed to one candidate. It is by no means clear that Obama would be able to get all the votes given to Hillary and vice versa.
Although the argument of large states being more important was raised in the past, the situation this year is quite different. one candidate appeals to core democratic voters who also happen to live in big blue states and swing states. while the other accumulates votes primarily in red states and smaller states, and only in a smaller proportion from core democrats.
The spin on super delegates is quite interesting. I view Senator's Kennedy & Obama as major league whiners! David Axelrod played an key role in the drafting of the rules of the DNC with regard to the nominating process and convention.
Several weeks ago the Obama campaign began it's spin that the super delegates shoulsd have to vote the way the state primary voters voted. Pressure has been placwed on Afican American super delegates to change their votes, however the same rule appasrently does not apply in the case of Massachusetts where senator Clinton won handily.
I am waiting for the fair and balanced press to highlight this issue. I am assuming that I should not hold my breath!
America is always championing democratic processes across the world, but when faced with doing the right thing here we have one missed opportunity after another one.
Hi all! The above "Hillary Funster" post isn't me! I leave sarcasm and using the names of others to post -- to the Clintons GAMING THE SYSTEM, any system -- anywhere!!! Poor things. I LOVE THE ROLLING STONE ARTICLE. Has more validity than The New York Times, who endorsed Hillary Clinton w/out vetting where she/hubby have gotten their wealth in 7 years, no Clinton Library donor records, no White House records to prove the "experience." And, getting the very profitable (maybe the only profitable industry left after Bush/Clinton/Bush) MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX to endorse Hillary, is bogus. We may look like a banana republic, but millions of Americans voting for Barack and funding his campaign, believe otherwise. Sorry Cheney/Clintons!
The New York Observer ALSO endorsed Barack Obama! Hillary "funsters" should stop reading periodicals they clearly don't respect! :-) Bye, until tomorrow!
You should expect this from the Clintons. Remember the flap about NAFTA that probably contributed to Obama losing Ohio. Check out this link that reveals that it was the Clinton campaign that actually reached out to the Conservative Canadian government:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.2008 0305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home?cid=al_gam_mos tview
Where is the AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED PRESS??? The New York Times should be ASHAMED of itself.
Every Repub I know voted for Obama, some sent money, all because they hate the Clintons, we will not vote for Obama in the general election
WELL TED KENNEDY, UR JUST A LOSER TO BE NOMINATED FOR PRES. AGAINST CARTER, AND YOU AND HILLARY CLINTON ARE 2 DIFFERENT CHARACTER. AND I PREFER HILLARY MORE THAN YOU, SO DONT COMPARE YOUR PRESIDENTIAL RACE 28 YRS AGO TO HILLARY OF TODAY'S GENERATION. HILLARY IS PASSIONATE AND ELOQUENT , SO INSPIRING AND THE POLITICIAN I ADMIRE MOST, SHE DESERVE TO BE NOMINATED FOR THIS PRESIDENTIAL RACE. I HOPED THE FOLKS OF THE RESTS OF THE STATES THAT HASNT VOTED YET AS OF AFTER MARCH 4TH WHEN HILL WON TX,OH, BIG STATES N R.I AND OBAMA WON VT ; AND HILL WON MOSTLY THE BIGGER DEMOCRATIC STATES UNLIKE OBAMA WINNING THE RED STATES AND THAT WONT WIN US IN THE GEN ELECTION. SO THE SUPERDELEGATES HERE SHLD N MUST USE THEIR COMMON SENSE TO ENDORSE HILLARY COZ SHE'S THE ONE WHO WON THE BIG DEMOCRATIC STATES OF CA,NY,NJ,NV,NM,OH,TN, AR,RI, N SOME SWING STATES OK, AND BIG RED STATE TX, SO, HOPEFULLY THESE SUPERDELEGATES WILL USE THEIR MINDS WHO WON THE STATES THAT WILL BRING DEM TO GEN ELECTION WIN FOR PRESIDENT. HILLARY IS THE CANDIDATE HERE WHO DESERVE THE BIGGER SUPPORT OF THE SUPERDEL. COZ SHE WON BIGGER STATES THATS DEMOCRATIC STATES!! HELLO? ARE YOU THERE AND LISTENING SUPERDELEGATES????
anita d. cruz:
Announcing that Clinton won Texas was premature:
Obama Ahead in Texas Caucuses
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=87961802
'The state Democratic Party estimates that Obama will come out ahead: 37 pledged delegated to Clinton's 30 delegates.'
It's in the math:
Clinton: 65 + 30 = 95
Obama: 61 + 37 = 98
Obama ahead by 3 delegates - Obama WON Texas!
That is a very dumb thing to say.
In a primary, guess what, maybe the voters are Democrats!
And maybe the people voting for Obama are basically people
who would not vote Republican anyway, even for McCain!
Just because Hillary winds Democrats, does not mean
Indendents will vote for McCain.
I saw the Ohio debate in its entirety. They were very
unfair to Hillary.
And she still defended herself and still did good
under pressure.
I wonder if Republicans took the gloves off, how
would Obama do?
Are you suggesting that Obama will not win the "SOLID BLUE" states "that always go Democratic in the general election"? -that somehow the democratic voters in these states will be so disillusioned about the loss of Hillary that they won't vote at all? or, that the Hillary voters will find McCain a more palatable alternative than Obama, if Clinton is not on the ticket?
Given that Clinton and Obama are much more closely aligned on all of the important issues than are Clinton and McCain, I think we have some real underlying issues that must be addressed if the "SOLID BLUE states...that always go Democratic in the general election" don't go democratic in the 2008 general election!