So I'm wondering...

[flewellyn]

I've been thinking about the hoopla around the Democratic primary, and I've got a question.

It seems everyone and his dog is calling for Hillary Clinton to quit the race. Despite the fact that, as of today, Obama has a narrow lead of 128 delegates, and that Clinton is projected to win big in Pennsylvania, which has 158 delegates, and Indiana with 72, and the fact that the superdelegates have not yet made up their minds, somehow, Obama is "inevitably" the nominee, and Clinton should step aside. There's talk of this contest "damaging the party" and that Clinton is "being selfish" by continuing to run.

Why? Why is it so damaging to have two candidates who are both quite popular and quite formidable fight it out to decide who will run? Is it because it's actually a problem, or because the media want to make it one?

Why, if it's so "inevitable" that Obama will win, is everyone in his camp so desperate to convince (or bully) Clinton to quit? He should be able to just clinch it with no problem, if it's really inevitable. It sounds to me more like "Quit, because we're afraid you might beat our guy!" It sounds to me like Clinton's still got a strong chance.

Why is it that, of two evenly-matched, both quite popular candidates, it's somehow incumbent upon the female candidate to step aside? Never mind that she's the first woman in history who has run for president and had a credible chance of succeeding; apparently, when this makes the process slightly harder for the male candidates, it's once again "Back of the bus, ladies! Wait your turn!"

This is an historic race, in which the Democratic nominee will be either a black man or a woman. Under no circumstances should either one of them simply step aside, because if they do, it will be used as "proof" that black or female candidates just aren't viable. Clinton has the added burden of being the target of media bullying; if she backs out, it will look like she bowed to bullies, rather than making a calculated decision on her own.

So whoever you support, the party and the cause of progressive politics will only be served if neither candidate quits until it's decided at the convention.

Comments

[markgritter.livejournal.com]

Clinton can certainly win it yet--- I agree that she shouldn't drop out--- but she has to win like 70% of the vote in all the remaining states to close the pledged delegate lead. It's pretty much mathematically impossible for her to come out ahead, before superdelegates. Slate.com has an online calculator where you can plug in %'s for the states yet to vote and see what the delegate count will be.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

It's pretty much mathematically impossible for her to come out ahead, before superdelegates.

Same with the popular vote and the number of states won. Every measure of democratic support favors Obama, strongly. And if you think superdelegates are just dandy for democracy purposes (as Clinton supporters seem to now, clinging to their last hope), well, they've been breaking about 4 to 1 for Obama.

I'm not asking Clinton to drop out, either (I'd personally like her to, but many of those insisting on it reek of sexism), but it's not exactly hard to see why Obama is seen as nigh on inevitable. It's because he's winning. By a lot.

And... it's important to remember that the primary race doesn't exactly normally go on until the convention. And that's not because it becomes mathematically impossible for the runner-up to take the lead. It's because even though they could theoretically still win, the runners-up realize that the odds are stacked against them and bow out. This is for a variety of reasons, but a significant one is that it's understood that a protracted primary battle could damage the nominee's chances in the general by giving him less time to campaign against the Republican and by making some of the runner-up's supporters hate their Democratic opponent more than the Republican. This is the same thing. While obviously pretty much any media meme about Clinton will have significant sexist elements, the hope for her to drop out is not inherently sexist.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Here's the problem: if she fights to the end, and they get to the convention, and the numbers just plain and simple favor Obama...he'll have won after a hard-fought campaign. As a Clinton supporter, I could not argue with that. And neither, I expect, would most other Clinton supporters. So if that happens, Obama can expect Clinton's supporters to support him; she fought hard, she lost fairly, and he won fair and square.

On the other hand, if she's pressured to drop out? That doesn't feel like "winning" on Obama's part, so much as "stealing". Clinton's supporters, I think, would not tolerate that.

So really, as far as party division goes, the only responsible thing to do to prevent it is for Clinton to stay in the race, and for Obama, if he wins, to win when all the votes are counted.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

I agree that the pressure for her to drop out makes it less fair. But Obama wouldn't be "stealing" anything if she dropped out because he hasn't pressured her to. He's actually defended her right to stay in the race. If you want to argue that the media or the party higher-ups forced her out of the race, fine, but don't place the blame on him. (And incidentally, if we're going to scrutinize word choice for sexism against Clinton, maybe we should consider the racial implications of using a loaded term like "stealing" in reference to a black man?)

I know most Clinton supporters will support Obama when he becomes the nominee, and I'll give them credit for that. The problem is that the longer the race goes on, and the more Clinton elevates McCain above Obama (though AFAIK she hasn't done this in a while, and hopefully this trend continues), the smaller that "most" proportion will get. That's not set in stone, but it should be a consideration, especially since poll numbers have backed it up so far.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

He's actually defended her right to stay in the race. If you want to argue that the media or the party higher-ups forced her out of the race, fine, but don't place the blame on him.

I'm not. But the problem is, if the DLC people pressure her to bow out (which some have been), it's quite possible that many Clinton supporters will quit the party in disgust.

(And incidentally, if we're going to scrutinize word choice for sexism against Clinton, maybe we should consider the racial implications of using a loaded term like "stealing" in reference to a black man?)

That's reaching just a bit.

[cacahuate.livejournal.com]

And it's not reaching to suggest that any desire for Clinton to withdraw from the race is indelibly tainted with sexism?

How much background do you have in antiracism?

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

"Any desire"? That wasn't under discussion: what I'm talking about is the widespread meme of "Clinton should quit because ZOHMIG, it's hurting the party!" You're moving the goalposts here. I don't appreciate that.

Look, my point is that the media has been hounding Clinton so much that she cannot withdraw honorably. They have treated her with incredible sexism. And Obama, whether he wants to or not, has benefitted from that. I don't claim that Obama himself is necessarily engaging in it (very often), but to call it racist to say that, if Clinton's bullied into withdrawing, many Clinton supporters may well feel that she wasn't given a fair shake...that's hardly reasonable at all.

[eemfibble.livejournal.com]

I think she was responding to what you said in your initial post:

Why is it that, of two evenly-matched, both quite popular candidates, it's somehow incumbent upon the female candidate to step aside? Never mind that she's the first woman in history who has run for president and had a credible chance of succeeding; apparently, when this makes the process slightly harder for the male candidates, it's once again "Back of the bus, ladies! Wait your turn!"

Overall, I agree, the media has made it difficult for her to withdraw without it looking like she caved under the pressure. That's one of the things I dislike about parties, or at least what makes it worse when we only have two main parties. People are going to vote not for the candidate they like best but who they feel will beat the other party.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

The great irony, I think, is that Clinton's a better bet to beat McCain. Obama, I don't know how well he'd do under serious fire.

We do know Clinton can withstand heavy fire, though. She's losing at the moment, but by a narrow margin, and she's carried the big states most likely to go Blue in the general. She's done this with the media entirely against her, whereas they have (for the moment) treated Obama gently. If Obama wins the nomination, the media WILL turn on him, no question. And when they do, will he be able to hold up as well as Clinton has?

I honestly don't know.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

So if that happens, Obama can expect Clinton's supporters to support him; she fought hard, she lost fairly, and he won fair and square.

Ah, hahahaha. Hoo. Oh dear.

If only American politics worked that way. Instead of a substantial fraction of people not getting their way storming off in a huff.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Well, Clinton has said that if she loses, she expects her supporters to back Obama. And as long as Obama keeps the fight fair, I can't see most of them refusing to do so.