The polls, the finances and the conventional wisdom are all pointing in the same direction: it's almost impossible for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Presidential nomination.
First, the polls. The Wright controversy hurt Barack Obama, and it may in the long run be a problem. But he appears to have recovered from the dip in the polls that coincided with the height of negative attention over Obama's former pastor. He's recovered the lead over Clinton in the Gallup daily tracking poll that he lost during the Wright affair; the day of his Philadelphia speech, Clinton had opened up a 49% to 42% lead. Three days later, Obama has regained the lead, 48% to 45%.
The CBS/NYT poll (pdf) asked questions about Obama's Tuesday speech on race. 71% of voters following the story thought Obama did a good job of explaining Wright. 73% of Democrats polled agree with Obama's views on race relations in the US, against only 14% who disagreed. Among independents, it was 65% agreeing, and only 25% disagreeing. When asked if his speech would make voters more likely to vote for Obama, less likely, or wouldn't make a difference, the net movement was zero.
Obama would need to be severely damaged by the Wright controversy for it to benefit Hillary Clinton. The polls suggest that the damage, at least within the Democratic primary electorate, may be minimal.
Obama's strong standing in the polls and his likely insurmountable delegate lead is starting to shape conventional wisdom. What some of us have known for a month is finally dawning on the traditional media and the DC and NYC gatekeepers of traditional media narratives. Yesterday it was the Politico exposing the dirty little secret that traditional media hasn't been reporting that it's damn near impossible for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination because reporters love the drama and the media companies love the profits generated by the viewers and readers lured by their breathless misreporting.
We know there's reluctance to tell Hillary Clinton bad news, so today we have another gatekeeper and creator of media narratives, Time senior political analyst Mark Halperin, providing a list of painful things Hillary Clinton knowsor should know. Here are a few of his bullet-points:
She cant win the nomination without overturning the will of the elected delegates, which will alienate many Democrats.
She cant win the nomination without a bloody convention battle after which, even if she won, history and many Democrats would cast her as a villain.
Nancy Pelosi and other leading members of Congress dont think she can win and want her to give up. Same with superdelegate-to-the-stars Donna Brazile.
Many of her supporters and even some of her staffers would be relieved (and even delighted) if she quit the race; none of his supporters or staff feel that way. Some think she just might throw in the towel in June if it appears efforts to fight on would hurt Obamas general election chances.
The Rev. Wright story notwithstanding, the media still wants Obama to be the nominee and that has an impact every day.
Many of the remaining prominent superdelegates want to be for Obama and she (and Harold Ickes) are just barely keeping them from making public commitments to him.
This is a change election, and Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton can never truly be change.
Even though her campaign staff is having more fun than it has for a long time, theres hardly anyone there who, given half a chance, wouldnt slit Mark Penns throat and such internal dissension wont help her in the home stretch.
The NYT has two stories today about Clinton's fundraising. In the first, longer and more prominent story, much is made of her improved online fundraising in February. Clinton did see a dramatic up-tick in money coming in over the internet last month. But the harsh realities that the Clinton campaign has largely kept from the media until very recently are laid bare in the second article:
Of all the candidates, Democratic or Republican, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, is in the strongest financial shape. Of the $38.8 million in cash on hand, a total of $31.5 million is earmarked for the primary race, with only $7.3 million set aside for the general campaign. This primary war chest is more than Mrs. Clintons and Mr. McCains combined.
On top of that, Mr. Obamas campaign is almost debt-free. He ended the month owing only $625,059. Over all, Mr. Obama has raised $190 million since he began his campaign, and spent $158 million the most of any candidate.
Mrs. Clinton, of New York, spent less in February $31.8 million, or $1 million a day in the weeks leading up to her March 4 victories in Texas and Ohio, than Mr. Obama who spent $43 million, or nearly $1.5 million a day.
Still, at the end of February, Mrs. Clinton owed $8.7 million to campaign vendors. The month earlier, she had lent her campaign $5 million. While she has $33.2 million in cash on hand, only $11.7 million can be used for her primary effort, with the rest set aside, by federal regulations, for the general election.
Once the outstanding campaign debt of $8.7 million is factored in, Mrs. Clinton has only $3 million in free cash for the battles ahead one-tenth of the $31 million the Obama campaign has in primary cash.
This debt puts additional pressure on Mrs. Clinton: If she wins her partys nomination, this $8.7 million can be paid off with money raised for her general campaign. If not, she will either have to raise more money to pay off the bills for her primary effort or pay for it out of her own pocket.
Clinton has had a built-in advantage in just about every state except Illinois, in that polls regularly show she's started with an often substantial lead. It's less expensive to protect a lead than to overcome one. All things being equal, she doesn't need to spend as much as Obama. (Although all things aren't equal; for instance, her FEC report shows that she owes Mark Penn about $2.5 million.) However, she can't continue to get outspent and win races by the margins that would be required for her to even narrow the delegate gap between her and Obama.
Yesterday, when he endorsed Barack Obama, Bill Richardson danced close to calling on Clinton to step aside and acknowledge that Barack Obama will be our nominee. He pulled back from that position later in the day, but only a tiny bit:
"Im not going to advise any other candidate when to get in and out of the race," Mr. Richardson said after appearing in Portland with Mr. Obama. "Senator Clinton has a right to stay in the race, but eventually we dont want to go into the Democratic convention bloodied. This was another reason for my getting in and endorsing, the need to perhaps send a message that we need unity."
Richardson may not call directly for Clinton to step aside. But she's headed in that direction. The facts of delegate math are finally dawning on the traditional media. Donors aren't filling her coffers with money at a rate that she can be competitive with Obama. As the media narrative catches up with the delegate math, the donors will be even less likely to give to her, further exacerbating her financial problems. With the delegate numbers nearly insurmountable, with the media declaring her candidacy nearing its end, with money running tight, and with more and more prominent Democratic leaders likely to join Richardson in calling for Democrats to unify and turn attention to defeating John McCain, the question becomes more urgent: when will Hillary Clinton admit that Barack Obama will be our Presidential nominee?
I can't wait to see the final PA registration numbers this week or next week to see how many new Democrats registered to vote in the primary. I think that'll be a sign of how we will do in the primary.
