The Deadlock That May Not Be a Deadlock
Editor’s Note: Political insiders are beginning to agree the Hillary Clinton has no realistic chance of winning the nomination. Super-delegates are seen as quite unlikely to vote against the person who has won the most votes, delegates and states. Obama currently leads in pledged delegates 1,406 (53%) to 1,249 (47%) and that edge cannot be overcome with the few primaries remaining. Democrats have 794 super-delegates currently divided 250 (54%)for Hillary and 212 (46%) for Obama leaving only 332 undeclared. To win the nomination, Hillary must add ten full percentage points to her performance from 48% to 58%. This is not likely. A more realistic scenario is that they will split them roughly even. That produces the nomination of Barack Obama as Democratic candidate for President.
One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.
Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic super-delegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.
Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.
People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.
As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.
In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.
The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.
Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.
One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media — including Politico — have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces.
Avoiding predictions based on polls even before voters cast their ballots is wise policy. But that’s not the same as drawing sober and well-grounded conclusions about the current state of a race after millions of voters have registered their preferences.
The antidote to last winter’s flawed predictions is not to promote a misleading narrative based on the desired but unlikely story line of one candidate.
There are other forces also working to preserve the notion of a contest that is still up for grabs.
One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business. Click here to read the rest of this article in The Politico.