Pyrrhic Victories

Upon defeating a Roman army in a particularly bloody battle, the Greek general Pyrrhus was congratulated upon his triumph. Pyrrhus's reply: More such victories, and we are ruined.

Last night was a disaster for the Democratic Party. Clinton's victories in Ohio and Texas will extend the nomination contest for at least another six weeks, and likely until the convention in late August. Now this is no comment on Hillary Clinton's candidacy or qualifications per se - if the situations were reversed, I would writing a very similar post about Barack Obama.

Thus far, the Democratic contest has been relatively cordial. Democrats liked both candidates, and the prolonged contest was in many respects strengthening the Democratic Party by assisting in grass-roots organizing and popular attention. However, last week the Clinton campaign, narrowly behind in Texas and narrowly ahead in Ohio, realizing that defeat in those primaries spelled the end, chose to wage a so-called "kitchen sink" negative campaign. They threw up lots of stuff hoping something, anything, would stick. They also cleverly bashed the press for favoring Obama, which resulted in somewhat more negative coverage of Barack.

Obama is now faced with a major dilemma. He can respond in kind, making his own negative attacks on Clinton. This would drive up his negatives, weaken him among independents in the general election, and risk the specter of the "angry black man" that would doom his candidacy in the long term. Or he can continue to run a positive campaign making only subtle jabs at Clinton, and risk Pennsylvania turning into another Ohio. There are no good choices. The Clinton campaign, recognizing that a purely negative campaign worked in Ohio and Texas, will likely heighten the intensity of attacks. The results? Two badly wounded candidates, with sharper divisions among their supporters and a party struggling to unite in August.

Last night was the worst possible scenario - a Clinton campaign with sufficient momentum to continue the campaign, but insufficient delegates to win the nomination. The fact is that there simply aren't enough delegates left for Clinton to pass Obama in pledged delegates. Obama is strongly favored in Mississippi, South Dakota, Montana, and has a better than even chance in North Carolina and Oregon. Clinton is favored in Kentucky and West Virginia. Indiana and Pennsylvania are, as far as I can tell, toss-ups. To win the nomination, she has to do more than win a majority of the popular vote in most of the remaining contests, particularly Indiana and Pennsylvania. She has to do well enough to win a floor fight to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, and THEN persuade enough superdelegates to give her the nomination.

If she succeeds through negative campaigning, support from party officials, and by changing the primary rules (by seating Florida and Michigan), she will hopelessly alienate Obama's supporters (who would view her nomination as illegitimate) and reinforce the worst stereotypes about her personality. The party would be crippled going into the general election, with only 8 weeks to restore the damage. McCain would likely cruise to victory.

Remember, this is Clinton's best case scenario, and it is extremely unlikely. She might lose Pennsylvania, which would likely end the campaign. If she wins though, then Obama and Clinton will probably win the contests where each is favored, i.e. trading victories through the Convention. Obama would retain a 100 or so lead in pledged delegates, enough to control the credentials committee. Clinton will make a major push to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations as is, lose at the credentials committee, and take it to the floor - where she loses again. The Superdelegates, realizing that Obama has the advantage, support him. Obama wins the nomination, but with an angry Clinton bloc, months of negative attacks against him, and unhappy state parties in two swing states.

It's possible to mitigate the bloodletting, I suppose. Perhaps there will be a compromise over Florida and Michigan, but I doubt it. Why? Because Clinton's hopes for victory rest with the large margins she won in those 2 states. A do-over, or a reduction in the size of their delegations, would deprive of her of much of that margin. And selecting her as Obama's running mate isn't going to magically alleviate a year of bad feelings. How much influence do you really think she'd have in an Obama administration, anyway? Would she really be willing to wait another 8 years to try for the Presidency (when she's 68)?

I've come to the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that Hillary Clinton will become President. She'll either lose the nomination, or take it under conditions that would make it impossible for her to defeat McCain. I can't blame her for doing everything necessary to achieve her life's ambition. I might do the same thing. But I'm afraid this contest is beginning to resemble a prisoner's dilemma, where Clinton's personal interest is undermining the general interest. It's sad, but we are where we are.