How Important Is Tonight's Debate?
Posted on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:51:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
By Big Tent Democrat
Speaking for me only.
With the polling showing Hillary Clinton with a comfortable lead in Ohio and falling behind in Texas (Clinton and Obama also seem poised to split RI and VT), how important is tonight's debate? I think it is important. The last debate seemed to hold Clinton's position in Ohio, a double digit lead, while she continued to slip badly in Texas.
I am of the view that if Clinton loses Texas (I assume an Ohio victory), she should suspend her campaign. And of course she CAN win in Texas. But let's assume for the sake of argument, she does not. What then? First of all, the decision is entirely Clinton's and she has every right to continue should she choose to press on. But I would recommend dropping out IF she can not pull out Texas because she will likely be significantly behind in the pledged delegate and popular vote counts. Because of this, it seems to me her chances for the nomination become slim to none. She would have lost the important narrative she could argue to super delegates, that Obama has not shown an ability to win contested big states and that a slim lead among pledged delegates and a virtual tie in the popular vote signals a tie. (Yes, I understand Texas will not be a battleground in November.)
NOTE - Comments are now closed.
More . . .
One argument for continuing for Clinton would be to continue to challenge Obama on the issue which provides the sharpest contrast between the candidates - health care. If Clinton were to make her campaign primarily about universal health care after a loss in Texas, I think she would do the Democratic Party a great service.
I admit to deep ignorance on the issue. But I know it is important. It would be good if Clinton challenged Obama from the Left on a number of issues irrespective of the horserace. She did so at the last debate on health care. She should do so again tonight.
If she does, that could be the most important aspect of tonight's debate. Perhaps then the debate analysis can go beyond discussing how interesting it is that the candidates had a real debate about a substantive difference (as opposed to the the typical Media focus on gaffes and punches.) This exchange between Olbermann and Gene Robinson is illustrative:
OLBERMANN: Do you think perhaps when that moment where it got away from the moderators and that it was essentially, the two of them just talking to each other and damn the commercials and damn the topics, we’re going to talk about— . . . we’re going to finish off this differences in healthcare, stuff.
ROBINSON: . . . You know, the other episode in the debate that I found really interesting was that debate on healthcare when they just completely ignored the moderators and talk about mandate versus no mandate, and it was almost like a dorm room discussion. It was like they were trying to convince each other and, you know, no, Barack, you’re wrong. Well, Hillary, you know, you can’t make people do this and that. It was an interesting moment, too. It was a debate, an actual debate.
OLBERMANN: Right, like a debate caste or a debate club or debates that we’ve hear of previously. They’ve gotten this thing down after 19...
ROBINSON: As if they were actually trying to convince each other of their position, which I thought is very unusual for a presidential debate.
OLBERMANN: And again, illustrative and also valuable to hear policy being discussed on national television in such nuanced form and at such length. A rarity these days.
ROBINSON: Who’d have thunk it?
Maybe Keith could have Paul Krugman and say, Brad Delong (who agrees with Obama on healthcare) to discuss the substance after tonight's debate. Nah, that would make too much sense.
| < New Texas SUSA Poll: Obama Up Four Points | The Rules Are What They Are: That Does Not Make Them Right > |
