Is this concept as stupid as I think it is?

[milo]

Eleanor Clift is proposing Gore as a compromise candidate:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119851

The decision will then fall to the superdelegates, elected officials and party people often demonized in the media as hacks or backroom operators. A majority of them will swing behind one or the other candidate—likely Hillary Clinton—boosting her over the top even if she lags behind Barack Obama in the pledged delegate count.

Interesting that she's assuming the super delegates will swing for Clinton. But here's my favorite part:

he two contested nominations of the modern era—Kennedy-Carter in '80 and Reagan-Ford in '76—offer clues as to what may lie ahead. In each case, the candidate with the most pledged delegates going into the convention won the nomination. Each then went on to lose the general election. Clinton backers point to the Reagan model. Governor Reagan stayed in the fight all the way to the convention. He had a hundred delegates fewer than Ford, roughly the same deficit Clinton has today. Reagan helped insure his party's defeat but nailed the nomination four years later.

So, let me get this straight: The Clinton campaign is comparing themselves to Reagan and Obama to Gerald Ford in this equation? Words fail me.

[Sarkus]

I wouldn't mind it personally, but I don't see it happening unless things get so contentious that its generally felt both Hillary and Obama have been horribly damaged. Something along the lines of both being exposed in big time ways.

But, it depends on how close it is come convention time. I disagree with Clift's contention that the super's are going to favor Hillary even if Obama has the majority of pledged delegates. That only happens if Obama is somehow seriously damaged between now and then by some revelation or major miscue.

[Rimbo]

So, let me get this straight: The Clinton campaign is comparing themselves to Reagan and Obama to Gerald Ford in this equation? Words fail me.

Oh, that's just a typo.

[Lum]

I could see the superdelegates going either way at this point. If Clinton convincingly makes the case that Obama's victories have mostly been in smaller "red states" that the Democrats won't carry in the general election, they may see her as the more electable candidate. They would be wrong, but the Democratic party has a long and storied history of firing bullets square into their feet. Of course, the next question would be why Democrats even bother to hold primaries in all 50 states, in that case.

Alternately, another narrative percolating below the surface is that most of the party elder superdelegates despise Clinton to the core but fear her political dominance, and are waiting for the right minute to knife her in the back. The Clinton style of politics - bludgeon anyone that might disagree with you or threaten you into cowed submission - makes enemies.

But yeah, Clinton operatives threatening to destroy the party's chances in 2008 if their candidate doesn't win simply explicitly states what their campaign has been doing implicitly the past week, with the constant references to McCain being more of a qualified leader than Obama.

[MarchHare]

I could see the superdelegates going either way at this point. If Clinton convincingly makes the case that Obama's victories have mostly been in smaller "red states" that the Democrats won't carry in the general election, they may see her as the more electable candidate.


I've heard that argument, but I don't buy the logic. Is anyone really suggesting that only Hillary can beat McCain in California, New York, etc., but Obama would lose those states? Seriously?

The fact that Obama has beaten Clinton in the smaller "red states" should be an indication that he's the more electable candidate. The safe "blue states" are going to go to the DNC candidate regardless of who it is. Who has a better chance of winning over independants and moderate Republicans in the swing states?

[Mister Widget]

I've heard that argument, but I don't buy the logic. Is anyone really suggesting that only Hillary can beat McCain in California, New York, etc., but Obama would lose those states? Seriously?

The fact that Obama has beaten Clinton in the smaller "red states" should be an indication that he's the more electable candidate. The safe "blue states" are going to go to the DNC candidate regardless of who it is. Who has a better chance of winning over independants and moderate Republicans in the swing states?
Exactly. The big blue states that Clinton has won matter far less than the states Obama has won, if your goal is to figure out who is most electable in November. Jesus H Christ, people... the Democrats could nominate the long-dead corpse of Hubert Humphrey and they'd still win California, New York and Massachusetts.

[JeffL]

The person who can win over the independents is going to win this presidential election. Who will take the most independents and moderates? Hillary, McCain, or Obama?

[Ben Sones]

I've heard that argument, but I don't buy the logic. Is anyone really suggesting that only Hillary can beat McCain in California, New York, etc., but Obama would lose those states? Seriously?

Yeah, that's the elephant in the room that the Clinton campaign is frantically trying to hide. I mean, California was a relatively close race even in the primaries. Clinton's lead there was in the single digits. She carried New York by more, but that's her (political) home state. And I absolutely guarantee that NY is not going to vote for McCain in the general, no matter who the Democratic nominee is.