The inconvenient fiction of the Democratic presidential race

Consider a hypothetical. Let’s say that right now, Barack Obama trailed Hillary Clinton among delegates, statewide victories, and popular votes. The margins are such where it’s extremely unlikely he’d catch up before the convention. She’d raised more money than him, and had won 14 of the last 17 Democratic contests, almost all by wide margins.

Would there be intense pressure for Obama to face facts, consider the good of the party, drop out of the race? I think any fair reading of the political landscape suggests the answer is yes.

But, this is, of course, the exact circumstances we have today, except it’s Clinton trailing, not leading. I’ve seen the argument elsewhere, but Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen do a very nice job today of summarizing a provocative point: the Democratic race is over, but no one wants to admit it.

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 superdelegates 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.

Indeed, Vandehei and Allen note that Clinton campaign aides live right here on Earth, and one key Clinton advisor conceded that her chance of winning the nomination is no better than 10%, “an appraisal that was echoed by other [Clinton] operatives.”

And yet, I get the sense no one — not campaign reporters, not the candidates, no one in the party — is supposed to admit any of this. Instead, the conventional wisdom is that the race for the nomination is “practically tied,” and will go “down to the wire.” Vandehei’s and Allen’s broader question is a good one: why this fiction is taken so seriously.



Oddly enough, Vandehei and Allen make a very compelling case that it’s the media’s fault.

Journalists, for instance, 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. […] 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. The media are also enamored of the almost mystical ability of the Clintons to work their way out of tight jams, as they have done for 16 years at the national level. That explains why some reporters are inclined to believe the Clinton campaign when it talks about how she’s going to win on the third ballot at the Democratic National Convention in August. That’s certainly possible — and, to be clear, we’d love to see the race last that long — but it’s folly to write about this as if it is likely.

In this sense — and really, only this sense — the traditional media is actually guilty of a pro-Clinton bias. As Atrios noted, “[W]hile it would be absurd to claim that Clinton is treated well by the press – she’s treated horribly in general – it’s also the case that anyone else would be subjected to a louder and increasingly derisive drumbeat for her to get out of the race.”

I think that’s right on both counts. When it comes to Clinton personally, the media has been vicious on far too many occasions, as demonstrated this week with reports about her presence in the White House during her husband’s dalliances with Monica Lewinsky. (The reports had no news value at all, but were given huge play.) But when it comes to Clinton’s chances, it’s practically the polar opposite — the media, in general, treats her as a candidate right in the thick of things, who has an entirely plausible rationale for staying in the race.

Put it this way: when was the last time a reporter from a major outlet pressed Clinton on when she will drop out of the race? If the shoe were on the other foot, and Obama’s campaign thought it had no better than a 10% chance of getting the party’s nod, would he hear the question a lot more often?

But, Clinton supporters argue, there are 10 contests left and 260 or so uncommitted superdelegates. Doesn’t that mean anything can still happen? Vandehei and Allen run the numbers and explain that the odds are just too remote and unrealistic.

In my heart of hearts, I don’t really expect campaign reporters to start covering the race this way — it’s in their interest to promote (and even create, if necessary) a prolonged fight — but Vandehei and Allen make a case that’s hard to deny.