Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
SUPER TUESDAY, PART DEUX.
My worth-very-little guess is that the most likely outcome of today is that (with Clinton winning OH and RI, and Obama carrying VT) Obama wins the delegates in Texas and Clinton squeaks out a popular vote victory there. Should that come to pass, I think most of what Atrios says here is relevant:I think candidates can stay in the race as long as they want, though I do think they all have an increasing obligation to keep criticisms responsible for the sake of the general, but I'm not sure I understand this particular line in the sand. If, say, Clinton wins Ohio, wins Texas by 1 point, but loses Texas in the delegates, is this really different from the same situation except with her losing Texas by one point? It doesn't really seem to make any difference. I'm not trying to encourage her to drop out, I'm just not sure why that particular hurdle (if true) is meaningful.An Obama win in Texas effectively ends the race. But I wouldn't (so long as the campaign is minimally responsible) think to tell Clinton to drop out; it's her decision when she wants to end the campaign, and I don't think keeping some attention on the Democratic candidates is a bad thing. It's also worth noting that if Clinton narrowly wins the vote in Texas while losing the delegates it doesn't mean anything. Not only because the nomination is decided by delegates not total votes, but because the strategic context affects the vote outcome. Acquiring delegates, after all, is the goal being pursued by the candidates, and under different rules Obama might have campaigned in a way that would have maximized his vote rather than delegate count. You can't assume that a small vote advantage would have held up under a different set of rules, and under the rules we have whoever wins the delegates wins the state, period.
--Scott Lemieux
COMMENTS (6)
Obama should be the one to drop out. He's compromised to an unbelievable extent by the Rezko affair. See:
http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-obama-should-withdraw-now.html
for more details
Posted by: Rock | March 4, 2008 10:57 AM
I think she should stay in, I thought Edwards should've stayed in, as long as she stays positive. Watching the Clinton campaign pimp (used very advisedly) the Reszko story has been especially sickening. Guilt by association, innuendo and an admittedly shady but ultimately meaningless real estate deal? I'm guessing Clinton doesn't much believe in karma.
Posted by: Jim | March 4, 2008 11:04 AM
So you are saying that the popular vote in 2000 should not even be mentioned when discussing Bush v Gore.
I always thought that Gore supporters did a disservice to their argument by making such a big deal about the popular vote.
The only thing that mattered was who actually got the most votes in Florida.
Posted by: neil wilson | March 4, 2008 11:07 AM
So you are saying that the popular vote in 2000 should not even be mentioned when discussing Bush v Gore.
It the popular vote had any meaning it might be worth mentioning. However, it doesn't. To believe otherwise is to simply not understand the system.
We are a union of states. People don't vote for president. States DO!
Posted by: El Viajero | March 4, 2008 11:46 AM
So Obama has some dirty friends in Chicago? Who doesn't? The whole town, the whole state of Illinois, is overflowing with crooked politicians and their crooked friends. Of course, if the media (or the GOP) would do a little mor digging, they might just turn up some real dirt that would stick to Barack or to Michelle, since she worked for Crook No. 1, Richie Daley.
Posted by: Phelan | March 4, 2008 1:38 PM
There are basically two possible outcomes today: Obama defies late polls (making his by-now-standard Election Day gains in the booth) and knocks Hillary solidly to the ground; or Hillary wins OH, RI and ties TX, which will lead to a longer war of attrition that favors Obama. The difference is basically between a win by KO in the 10th round, or a win by decision at the end of the fight. Either way, I think Obama's the nominee.
That said, I don't get the whole "Hillary must disappear or the party will collapse" premise; I can only conclude it's coming from people whose knowledge of primary battles goes back no further than the 90s. Prior to that, it was routine for candidates to fight on, even when nominations had been effectively won -- Carter was the de facto Dem nominee after PA in '76, but faced off against Brown, Church et al. throughout the Spring -- and lost numerous contests -- until officially clinching in OH in June. Reagan was clearly the GOP choice by March 1980, but Bush Senior fought on, and actually won both primaries on the day Reagan mathematically closed the deal.
Paul Tsongas was the one who changed this tradition. He dropped out after losing MI and IL to Clinton in March '92, even though he had plenty of support and Clinton hadn't nearly enough delegates to ensure nomination. Tsongas' intent may have been to smooth Clinton's path -- and I assume that's people's intent today, vis a vis Obama/Clinton -- but it was a horrible disaster: voters (and the press) felt their options had been closed off too quickly, setting off a buyers' remorse period wherein Jerry Brown was able to say just about anything that popped into his head. Clinton, who'd started the stretch running ahead of Poppy Bush, was double-digits behind by late Spring.
But in the end, it didn't matter, just as Bush plowing ahead against Reagan in '80 didn't -- because the incumbent was spectacularly unpopular, and by election day, voters were back to that first principle. Whether Clinton concedes tonight or 8 weeks from now, the race is still between a party representing a despised status quo and one offering change, and all presidential history suggests that means a solid Dem win.
So, quit worrying about today's headlines, which will evaporate by Fall. Let the process play itself out. It really can't hurt as much as you imagine.
Posted by: demtom | March 4, 2008 1:47 PM