Trippi: Race won't be resolved before convention, Clinton-Obama ticket likely

[Herman Munster]

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/john_heilemann_and_joe_trippi.html

JH: What is the likelihood that the Dems will have a nominee before the convention starts?

JT: As of right now the odds are nil, but there are two or three states that would obviously change that. If Obama won Pennsylvania it would be pretty much over. If Clinton, on the other hand, can win Pennsylvania and then carry North Carolina (a state that I think is becoming increasingly important), then her case would get much stronger.

JH: Wow. "Nil" is a pretty low number — and a pretty grim view of the future. So what's your position in the debate over whether a drawn-out Democratic race (i.e., one that, by your reckoning, is without resolution until late August) is good, neutral, bad, or disastrous for the party's prospects in the general?

JT: Well, I don't see the Clintons walking off the field if Hillary has the popular-vote lead, which is a realistic possibility. And I don't see Obama walking away from a lead among pledged delegates. That is why I think it is likely that, however this is resolved, the two of them run on a ticket together, and here is why: In 1976 and 1980 we had fights that went to the convention. In 1976 it was Ford and Reagan fighting it out and Jimmy Carter became president. In 1980 it was Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter and Reagan became president. History says you don't want to campaign into the convention, even if McCain will be carrying George Bush's baggage. So I think there will be tremendous pressure on the eventual nominee to pull the party together by picking the other.

JH: If you were advising Clinton, what would you be telling her now?

JT: Clinton has to win Pennsylvania, but then she has a small chance of defeating Obama in North Carolina — and that might shock the superdelegates into rethinking Obama further. The red-phone ad worked, so they need to keep doing that to raise doubts in people's heads. But the problem she has is very real. They won't be defeating just Obama anymore; they are going to have to crush all those young people, African-Americans, and progressives in the party that have embraced Obama's candidacy. That is one of the reasons that she keeps mentioning what a great vice-president Obama would be, even as she makes the case that he isn't ready to be president. In the end, Clinton may need a self-inflicted mistake by Obama to get the nomination

JH: Which of them do you think would be a stronger candidate in the general? Do you buy the notion that he would put a bunch of states in play that she cannot?

JT: No, I don't really buy that argument. Most of Obama's wins in states like Idaho and Colorado and Kansas were caucus victories among the most energized party faithful. They say nothing about his ability to win those states in a general election. And if there was one state we needed to win in 2004, it was Ohio, and Clinton just won that state. I think Obama has a strong chance of winning the general with any number of possible vice-presidential nominees — Mark Warner, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton and a host of others. I think Clinton, if she somehow gets by Obama, has almost no chance of winning the general now unless she picks Obama. She seems to get this already. If Obama has more pledged delegates going into the convention, it will be very hard for his supporters to accept Hillary Clinton somehow winning the nomination.