In case there was any doubt at all about Hillary Clinton’s intention to keep fighting for the Democratic nomination, as long as it takes, the senator made her objectives clear in an interview with Time’s Mark Halperin. When Halperin asked about her “most likely path to victory,” given the very high hurdles in front of her. Clinton said:
“Well, first I think that it’s important to point out that the premise of the whole discussion that some people are engaged in is off base because this is a very close race and neither of us will reach the magic number of delegates. We’re both going to be short, and when you think about the many millions of people who have already voted, we are separated by a relatively small percentage of votes. We’re separated by, you know, a little more than a hundred delegates. I’ve won states that Democrats need to win in the general election in order to win the White House and obviously the strategy on the other side is to try to shut this race down, but I don’t think voters want that.”
Some of these points strike me as more persuasive than others. When Clinton emphasizes that she and Obama are “separated by a relatively small percentage of votes,” she’s quite right. Obama will end the process with more pledged delegates, and almost certainly more popular votes, but the margins are going to be modest. As far as Clinton’s concerned, there’s a key difference between a 3-point margin and a 23-point margin. Fair enough.
When she emphasizes having won key general-election states, I’m far less impressed. The link between primary victories and general-election victories is very weak, and this whole line of thinking seems flawed.
As for Clinton’s Democratic rivals trying to “shut this race down,” I’m fairly certain the Obama campaign hasn’t ever said this, or even anything close, but is it really that bad to talk openly about ending the process? In January, Clinton talked about ending the race on Feb. 5. Obviously, things didn’t work out as she planned, but no one accused her at the time of wanting to “shut this race down.”
What’s more, voters don’t want the race to end? Are you sure? (That’s only half-way intended as a rhetorical question. I haven’t seen any recent polls indicating whether Dems would prefer this to be over, but if anyone has, let me know. My guess is most Dems just want it to be over, but I’d like some empirical data to back that up.)
This was an interesting exchange, too.
Halperin: Last question Senator. Some people look at the current state of the delegate counts and say the only way you can win the nomination is at the convention, with a convention where delegates move around perhaps, and you’ll make your case side by side. Are you comfortable if that’s the way you win the nomination, going all the way to Denver and winning it there? Is that a comfortable outcome for you?
Clinton: You know it’s the same thing for Senator Obama. Neither of us will reach the number of delegates needed. So I think that that is, you know, the reality for both of our campaigns. And all delegates have to assess who they think will be the strongest nominee against McCain and who they believe would do the best job in bringing along the down-ballot races and who they think would be the best President. And, from my perspective, those are all very legitimate questions, and as you know so well, Mark, every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose. We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment. And, you know, I’m just going to do the best I can in the next 10 contests to make my case to the voters in those elections and then we’ll see where we are.
First, it doesn’t sound like she’s going anywhere anytime soon.
Second, since when did anyone start calling them “so-called pledged delegates”?