Bruce Benidt
Jon Austin
tcarideo
Ellen Mrja
Mike KeliherI wondered when I might see the first reference to it and I saw it this morning.
Polling data from Rassmussen Reports released today:
“… if Clinton does not win the Democratic Party nomination, 29% of Democrats say she should run an Independent campaign for the White House.”
And only 38 percent of Democrats (not just Clinton supporters, mind you, Democrats) think she should drop out of the race. I think that first figure is surprisingly high and the second suprisingly low at this stage of the game.
Most look to Clinton’s now-failed inevitability positioning as something of a miscalculation, but a million years ago (July) my ever-prescient friend Austin rightly and clinically characterized it as one of her only options to somehow surmount the 50 percent negatives problem.
But what if you don’t need 50 percent to win? Like in a three-way race? Like 1912, when 41.8 percent did the trick for Woodrow Wilson against Roosevelt and Taft?
Massive, goofy longshot, sure. But do you suppose within campaign circles there’s at least a little ”I’m not sayin’ but I’m just sayin’” talk going on about that other “I” word?
– Hornseth
Filed under: PR, Politics | Tagged: democrats, Hillary Clinton, independent, Woodrow Wilson
Obama is to far left to win the white working Americans or the independent voters, all he has is the left of Hillary to the very far reaching left of old Teddy boy in Congress. Yes Obama has the Moveon.org far left group! I can not see a far left liberal winning the White House over John McCain! Hillary would of had the best chance!
Regarding the “think she should drop out” number: I think that percentage is, obviously, abnormally high among vocal political pundits and reporters, but regular folks — the Dems surveyed — seem far less likely to fret over the “damage to the party” argument that arises from Hillary staying in the race.
And I’m more inclined to believe the “damage to the party” is caused not by the duration of this primary battle but the *nature* of the battle. It’s been bitchy and below-the-belt for MONTHS already.
As a junkie for this political gamesmanship, I would LOVE to see a five-way race: McCain (R), Obama (D), Clinton (I), Nader (?) and Barr (L).
Then, of course, the *ideal* outcome would be for Bob Barr to win with about 22 percent of the popular vote.
Good catch on this, Gary. I wondered when the subject might come up as well. However, I tend to think Obama would be the more natural “independent” candidate.
For one, his overarching message is change, which is an easier message to deliver from an independent platform than within the two established parties where change can only go as far as the base will allow it.
Also, it would be difficult for Clinton to pull off an argument for running as an independent. She and Bill have a long history in the Democratic party nationally, and running for president outside of it would look like a blatant “anything to get elected” strategy (as if she hasn’t conveyed that message strongly enough already).
On the other hand, should Obama maintain his lead in pledged delegates, but be denied the nomination either through the DNC changing its rules on FL/MI or through the superdelegates swinging to Clinton, Obama would have the perfect opportunity to run as an independent. He could say that he won more states, more votes, more pledged delegates, and yet the Democrats still wouldn’t give him the nomination. Thus, he plans to take all his supporters and all his money into the general election in November, and take his chances. He has nothing to lose, because if he isn’t “electable” (to borrow Hillary’s word) this year, I’m not sure when he ever would be.
I’d love to see Obama/Clinton/McCain all fight it out in November, although it might require some serious modifications to John King’s magic wall. It could be an incredibly close three-way race.
DJ
Gary, you enjoy your early 20th century presidential history way too much … Ms. Clinton may be more familiar with the 1992 election, when Ross Perot picked up 18% of the popular vote, sweeping William J. Clinton into office with 43%… ‘course Bill and Woodrow were the official Democratic nominees…
But I’m sure it’s crossed her mind a time or five…
True, Kadet. I just thought it would be so much cooler to cite Wilson.
But while we’re at it, let’s spare a thought to the four-way cage-match of 1824 when John Quincy Adams got only 30.9% of the popular vote to Andrew Jackson’s 41.3 percent and STILL got to be POTUS #6.
If one is interested in the “how,” one may get one’s fill of 1824 electoral/constitutional whimsy here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1824