Why doesn’t Clinton just drop out already?

Remember all of those calls eight years ago for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the Democratic nomination fight in the midst of the March primaries?  Remember all of those Brobama dudez screaming “the math!  The math!  Just look at The Math!”  And why was the b*tch insisting on peeing in the punchbowl when all of the kool kidz just wanted to party on down and let Barack Obama turn his attention to the general election?

Yeah, well:  I’m not going to return the favor.  But just for once, could we take a look at The Math in 2016, courtesy of Philip Bump?  It turns out that Clinton has a +206 earned delegate lead (that’s just counting the delegates she’s earned in the primaries and caucuses so far, not any of the superdelegates).  By comparison to this point in 2008, Obama had only a +90 delegate lead.

Bump notes that many of Sanders’ victories have come from states with open primaries.  That’s not a bad thing, but it certainly makes it clear that Democrats are more interested in supporting the Democratic candidate, not someone who only recently became a Democrat because he feared that remaining Independent would cut him off from money and media attention.  As Bump concludes, “The two parties’ nomination contests look very different over the long term, even though they’re close right now: Clinton’s lead is much less vulnerable than Donald Trump’s.”

Here’s the pretty picture that makes it all so clear:

15 thoughts on “Why doesn’t Clinton just drop out already?

  1. Yeah, I don’t get the media coverage this election season *cough*misogyny*cough*. Like that whole thing about Nancy Regan’s funeral. She said something nice she believed was right at a first lady’s funeral, then found out she was wrong, issued an immediate apology, then issued a longer apology. And the press are treating it like Watergate.

    Or how Michigan somehow proves Bernie is ahead, even though the delegate difference was pretty small and Clinton still came out ahead overall that night.

    But hey, if this means Clinton supporters vote in primaries instead of staying home, that’s all to the good. At the very least they’ll be able to test drive their voter registration before November.

    Like

    • Back when it was Clinton winning Ohio, Michigan, and West Virginia, and losing the states in the middle and deep South, we were told that it showed her fundamental weakness with African Americans, a key constituency for the Democrats. Now that she’s winning every Southern state and running even or slightly better in the industrial midwest, we’re told that her failure to connect with downscale whites is the problem.

      I don’t begrudge Sanders his run at the nomination. But when you give people a choice, they will make it. That doesn’t mean that Clinton is a weak candidate–after all, she’s winning by a mile, even without the superdelegates. But the media love to seize on any hint that Clinton isn’t invincible, and there are all too many people–including a lot of so-called progressives and leftists–who will oblige them.

      Like

  2. Yeah, Obama was trailing in primary popular votes even *after* the convention was over, but didn’t need a bush v. gore type of institutional decision to be awarded the playground trophy. Just the consensus of the noise. And we all know what the noise rhymes with. Looks like Pennsylvania might be relevant and have some fun after all.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I just bought Hillary memorabilia for my daughters and me, and donated to her campaign — partially because I want them to have knicknacks from Hillary’s runs for President and partially because I’m sick of all the misogyny.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I just hand-tallied the popular vote totals from 20 states via Real Clear Politics, and they show Clinton with almost five million primary votes (4,951,582) to Sanders slightly over three million (3,298, 536). But all I hear around here is how the “pols” are preparing to take it away from the “people” in Philadelphia. Let’s hope not.

    Like

  5. Funny how only the Rethugs are talking (ineffectively) about party unity now. During the last round of Democratic primaries we never heard the end of what a beautiful thing it would be. Ah, if only Hillary Clinton would drop out.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I’m so tired of liberal/progressive men in effect telling me: Don’t worry, little lady; our guy will take care of you. Only to have women’s concerns be the first thing bargained away if compromise is needed on any issue.

    When I read comments on YouTube or in the local papers from the self-proclaimed left, I hear a lot of: Whaah! Mommy isn’t perfect! As Joan Rivers said — oh, grow up! I remember when “the left” fell in love with hedge fund manager John Edwards because he mouthed the right words. But Hillary Clinton gets slammed for Bill Clinton’s failings, as well as for carrying out Obama’s policies as Secretary of State. Of course, if she hadn’t, she would have been blasted for undermining Obama.

    As for Michigan, there’s a long tradition here of cross-over voting to undermine the other party. Democrats and Republicans have participated. (Yeah, me, too, a couple of times.) It wouldn’t surprise me if some of those Sanders votes came from Republicans. Or to learn that some of Sanders’ “small contributors” were actually Republicans trying to bolster the perceived weaker candidate.

    I watched a CSPAN3 history lecture recently on Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglas. Though he attended the Seneca Falls convention, Douglas ultimately reneged on his support for women’s suffrage to support suffrage for freed slaves — despite the fact that it meant that the female half of those freed slaves would be denied the vote and the accompanying political power. I felt a lot of resonance to current electoral politics.

    Like

    • Yes, I see and hear a lot of the resentment of the maternal and the competent in the ressentiment of Clinton.

      But what other choice does she have? Would she have been taken seriously as a former State senator/first-term U.S. Senator in her 40s who gave a great speech at the Democratic National Convention? No. Not as a woman. Will she be taken seriously as a leftist former congressman and current U.S. Senator in her mid-70s, with unkempt hair and wearing the same suit day after day? No. Not as a woman.

      Women of her generation and age had to play the good girl, had to go to college on time and break professional school barriers on time. They had to marry and have a family and be professionally accomplished in their own rights. There’s no “revolutionary” path to the presidency for women, no history of obvious sexual experimentation such as Bernie Sanders enjoyed, having a child out of wedlock during the sexual revolution AND STILL going on to be taken seriously as a local and then a national politician. Now he’s praised for his lifelong commitment to leftist purity from his perch in the Green Mountains, and she’s the horrible, corrupt, corporate candidate. Please.

      Like

    • Oh, and as for Douglass: don’t blame him alone! He showed up to Seneca Falls and worked with feminism for years, when the safer path for his movement was to leave the feminists out of it entirely. Let’s focus on all of the white men who never took either feminism or abolitionism seriously, or who actively fought against both movements.

      Like

      • Just to make clear, I did and do admire Frederick Douglas. Sometimes you make what you feel is the least bad choice.

        But what is understandable in the instability and ever-present threat of violence post-Civil War isn’t so excusable today. Half of all the racial/ethnic minorities and economically disadvantaged classes that Sanders’ supporters say they want to help are female, after all. It’s an incomplete job to address problems they face as the former while turning a back to the challenges they face as the latter.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. I don’t get this “liking” politicians thing. The “I’d have a beer with him” standard sure didn’t get us a great president in 2000. Who cares if you like someone? We should care if they’d do the job well.

    On that note, as a young person feeling the effects of wage stagnation, increasing contingency in the workforce, and lack of a social safety net, I think that Sanders is more “on my team” in his policy priorities, and his campaign is sending a really important message about economic inequality. I’ve been glad to see him get as far in the primary as he has. (Now we need to actually follow up with it in down-ticket races and midterms.) But I think that Hillary Clinton has made a really convincing case, not only in this campaign but through her career, that she’s got the knowledge, experience, and her actual plans for implementing policy to be the better president of the two. Whether or not she’s likable, she is doing a fantastic job coming off as dignified, competent, and yes, “presidential.”

    In my mind, we are in the best case scenario we could be in 2016. We’ve had a competitive race, and I’ve been lucky to join and witness a lot of serious conversations about approaches to governance, the direction of the Democratic party, and yes, the role of sexism during this primary. It also provides counter-evidence for the claim that Clinton was “anointed” and doesn’t deserve to be president. Now we can enthusiastically get behind her in the general, and those who are serious about “revolution” can bring it to the state and local legislatures.

    Like

Let me have it!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s