Quote:
Originally Posted by Solecismic
It was considerably more difficult. If Clinton had fought, she would have argued that the Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated (Obama withdrew from Michigan entirely, Clinton didn't). And it wasn't until near the end of May that the math on state delegates without Florida/Michigan was in Obama's favor.
Whatever happened, it was close enough that the superdelegates would or could have decided the race if Clinton hadn't dropped out. On June 2, the superdelegate total was about even. Obama received about 150 pledges in the next four days, including about 50 who had previously pledged to Clinton.
Until then, the convention would have been all about Florida and Michigan, both sides having arguments for inclusion or non-inclusion. The deal was made that first week of June, and Hillary dropped out on June 8.
Because the winner of the pledged total would have been different, based on Florida/Michigan, and because, especially in Michigan, that would have been difficult to resolve to everyone's satisfaction, there was huge incentive to work this out with Clinton.
It was definitely in the DNC's interest to resolve this before the convention. And in order to do that, one of the two had to drop out. It made no sense for Obama to make that sacrifice - he was the rising star, and to make the math work the DNC would have had to reverse its decision on Florida and Michigan and argue that Obama shouldn't have listened to their recommendation and gone to Michigan anyway.
|
The Democrats created super delegates to make sure they never had a contested convention again. In the event that no candidate has a majority of pledged delegates, the super delegates would then essentially decide the nomination.
Clinton's final critical mistake was assuming that super delegates pledged to her would support her even if she ha fewer pledged delegates than Obama. The pressure was tremendous on super delegates not to overturn the will of the pledged delegates. Even if the Michigan and Florida delegations had been fully restored, Clinton still would have trailed in pledged delegates.
Clinton had two choices: push the super delegates hard to give her the nomination and possibly weaken Obama and the party to the point that they lose in 2008, or be the "gracious loser" and keep the door open for the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solecismic
So the Democrats did the right thing. But Clinton's sacrifice was not a small one. And she understandably wants every advantage possible in 2016.
|
The Clintons have been piling up the IOUs over the last eight years. Bill was tremendously valuable to Obama's re-elect, campaigning in key states in 2012. Hillary has done the same thing, raising money for candidates and campaigning in key places during the midterms. The Clintons were smart, they knew a Democratic butt-kicking was coming during the midterms and didn't stake their reputations on the outcome.
I think the only challengers to Clinton will be people with no place to go (Biden) and people who want to be VP (could see a few governors throwing their hat in the ring).