Historical Perspective: when to quit the campaign

[Evergreen Emerald]

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200804300001?f=h_column

Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party's nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.

"Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."

Johnson says he was astonished to read some early calls in March from the media for Clinton to get out of the race. He was stunned by "the pomposity and the arrogance of it."

Indeed, a very strange leap has been made this year by lots of media commentators who argue against Clinton's candidacy. Rather than simply detailing her deficiencies and accentuating the strengths of her opponent, which political observers have done for generations, time and again we saw pundits take the unprecedented step of announcing not only that voters should not support Clinton, but that she should also quit. She should stop competing.

[islandmkl]

1. i've read this three times: who the f*** is 'Johnson'?

ohh...do I have to go to the article to know who is putting forth the thought?

i'm lazy, but don't make me work to find out who you are quoting...

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. I had to edit the piece--we are only allowed four paragraphs

I guess you will have to break down and read the whole dang article!

[gbrenna]

7. Lyndon Johnson

He took it to the convention and forced Kennedy to ask him to be VP. Kennedy believed Johnson would not accept, but Johnson did accept. Of course back then, all elections went to the convention so it's a little misleading. If you look at modern primary elections, Reagan went to the convention in 1976, Ford lost. Kennedy went to the convention in 1980, Carter lost. It's never a good idea to take the fight to the convention in modern times.

[Gore1FL]

13. Not the Johnson in this article

The Johnson in this article is alive (or at least was in march) to react to the calls for Clinton to pull out.

[gbrenna]

40. I see

I was talking about contentious primaries...1960 was one of the most contentious. Thanks!

[Gore1FL]

42. You are absdolutely right about that!

That was 5-6 years before my time, but the more I've read about it the more surprised I am that they ended up on the same ticket.

[unblock]

16. haynes johnson

"A Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Johnson has covered more than a dozen presidential campaigns and is currently working on a book about the unfolding 2008 contest."

[Yurovsky]

35. There's only one Johnson that matters ...

MAGIC!!!

[rug]

38. Not necessarily.

[Yurovsky]

39. Well I think your candidate will have trouble ...

finding his FIRST lady ... (rim shot!)

That was probably 10,000 "co-stars" ago. Man, talk about an active "social life". That guy has been making pornos since I was a young man. Funny thing, he'd make a far better POTUS than the current piece of shit in the White House.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. this is such an interesting perspective

I wonder why no one cares?

[AllentownJake]

5. I care

see below.

[AllentownJake]

4. Argument against this

In 1976 the GOP lost.

In 1980 Carter lost

In 1988 Dukakis lost

In 1992 the Clinton people didn't even let Brown into the convention to speak...so if it was ok to do to Brown...can we do the same to Hillary in 2008?

Also I'd like to thank Clinton for that convention for creating the Casey Controversy by denying my governor the opportunity to address the convention which led to 12 years of Rick Santorum in PA.

[spooky3]

8. according to the linked article, Brown continued, yet W. Clinton won the general in 1992

so the cause effect you are implying isn't supported by the data.

And Brown had far fewer delegates, lower popular vote %, than does H. Clinton.

[misanthrope]

10. What about the Perot factor in the GE?**nm

**

[spooky3]

21. not sure what you're suggesting? If you're arguing that Brown's continuing until

the election would have hurt the Democrats a lot more if Perot had not been in the race, I think that's a pretty convoluted argument to make, and there is no evidence to support it.

Even for only a part of the argument - that Perot kept Bush from winning the popular vote and/or the electoral college vote - the data aren't supportive. No one knows for certain whether most of the Perot voters would have stayed home (thus giving both remaining candidates higher %s of the popular vote but not changing Clinton's margin of victory over Bush), or whether most of them would have voted for Bush rather than Clinton (it's just as logical to suggest many of them would have voted for Clinton - but I think the stay-at-home argument is more likely) if Perot weren't on the ballot. There is no way empirically to establish a hypothetical result.

And all of this is beside the point. The point of the Mediamatters.org article is that this is the first time that there has been such a loud demand that a candidate with so many delegates drop out of the race before the race is over, and their documentation supports it. W. Clinton had > 3000 delegates; Brown had fewer than 1/5 of that. Yet there was no insistence that Brown drop out before the convention. And W. Clinton won.

[dsc]

22. The reason neither Casey, nor Brown spoke

is because neither one would endorse the nominee, something you would know if you bothered to do any research whatsoever instead of parroting right wing talking points.

[Aloha Spirit]

32. Brown did speak, and he endorsed Clinton, who had pretty much won by mid-April.

Brown received less than 600 delegates, total.

[Aloha Spirit]

33. +1

[gbrenna]

6. Guess what

The Party which had a convention fight...lost the election so even if one can go to the convention, maybe one should not!

[nomorewhopper]

9. BUT WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT FOR HER TO WANT TO STAY IN??

plenty of people claiming that she shouldn't have to quit the race

but why should she stay in?

wasting other people's money.
destroying the nominee.
ruining her reputation.

the above are all reasons she might want to drop out. but why does she want to stay in? why should this continue?

[gbrenna]

41. I want her to drop out...

I thought Hillary should have dropped out after Wisconsin. It was really over then, in my opinion. My point is that Hillary can not take this primary fight to the convention or we will lose. Also, I agree-its a terrible waste of money for Obama to have to campaign in a primary. He should be working the general election-waste of time and money.

[ProSense]

11. That's lame spin: "held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history"

Hillary is now a victim in historical context? This piece is simply an excuse for Hillary. It mentions Jerry Brown, but his case doesn't support the argument.

The June Myth

[dsc]

24. your article doesn't speak to what this thread does

Brown stayed in until June. I know he did because I lived in that era and actually remember history. Apparently you are too young and won't crack open a history book. Brown did stay in until the bitter end and he wasn't faced with repeated calls to get out, exactly and precisely what the OP said.

[ProSense]

28. Yes it does. Clinton had wrapped up the nomination:

April 12, 1992 -- House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, endorses Clinton. "Bill Clinton will be the kind of president the United States needs to recapture our economic strength and leadership in the post-Cold War world," Gephardt says.

House Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash: "All the dominoes are falling in favor of Clinton. He is going to be the nominee."

At the California Democratic convention, Brown says Clinton is likely to be the Democratic presidential nominee, and says he will back Clinton if he is nominated.

Austin American-Statesman: "Brown strongly indicated that, having lost the New York primary Tuesday, he will campaign as a crusader for political change rather than as a serious contender for nomination. Ron Brown, national party chairman, said the comments were 'very positive' and hinted that the contest has entered a new phase. The two met privately earlier in the day."

[anonymous171]

12. And the nominees from those contested conventions lost.

[Gore1FL]

14. There were calls for all of those mentioned to drop out.

This is neither new nor unprecedented.

[SoCalDem]

15. I do not recall any of the ones named, running a racially divisive campaign

Even when Jesse ran, people "knew" he would not win, but I remember him being pretty much ignored by the other candidates..

This is different because Barack COULD WIN and IS WINNING..

when an also-ran is only in it to trash the frontrunner..well that's another thing..

[dsc]

25. I lived in 1992 and remember Browns campaign

it was sexist and slimy.

[SoCalDem]

26. I remember them calling him moonbeam

but truthfully, back then I was not all thet "into" politics

[dsc]

36. He was the first politician to discuss Whitewater

among other things.

[bunnies]

17. Im sorry but... when even John Conyers is saying he's worried about her damaging the party...

its time to go. Pronto.

[Tellurian]

18. and who is John Conyers supporting?

[bunnies]

19. I thought he was undeclared, honestly. nt

[tammywammy]

20. He's supporting Obama

But since he's from Michigan, he doesn't have a vote as a super delegate.

[bunnies]

31. Well... that explains my confusion.

:banghead: Thanks!

[VolcanoJen]

23. Quitting is so sexist

Good gawd. At least I now know where this meme started. It was all over DU yesterday.

Analysis: Under Clinton Rules, Obama Still Wins

If he gives in on Florida and Michigan, on her terms, will you be satisfied?

[sandnsea]

27. Why We Went To Front-Loaded Primary

To prevent these long drawn out seasons that leave the nominee battered. Something McAuliffe implemented. We also don't have California at the end anymore so there's no big jackpot of delegates. Now is Now.

[NashVegas]

29. To Stop Issues-Based, Populist Candidates In Their Tracks

No more Jimmy Carters. Ever.

[MikeDJohn]

30. Were there 24/7 news networks, cell phones, and Ipods in 1972, 1980.......??

No!

The world is different now. The time to exit a race is sooner than it was in 1972.

Get a grip........Hillary is doing NO one any good, not even herself or her husband's reputation.

She should be smarter than to raise the race-bait questions in people's minds...particularly since Obama's positions on ALL issues are essentially the SAME as her own!

[rodeodance]

34. thanks

[Straight Shooter]

37. Media Matters publishes articles that they consider credible.

I don't know why so many people have their knickers in a twist because Hillary Clinton continues to campaign. Jeez, there's some kind of major cyborg group think happening. Everybody fall in line.

When Mr. PN (presumptive nominee) becomes official, the money will come pouring in to fight McCain. Right? Right. So, no problem. He clearly has no problem insulting McCain's mental stability, so, again, no problem. Anyone who can let loose with thinly-veiled insults like someone is "losing their bearings" should have no problem connecting with American voters. And I'm not saying that like it's a good thing.

[Onlooker]

43. Interesting, sort of exposes the mysogyny

We've certainly seen a lot of sexism even here in DU, and this article even lends more credence to how fucked up some of the so-called liberals are. If the race as between Edwards and Obama, I wonder if the demands for Edwards to withdraw would be as strong. Would people be calling him every name in the book? I don't think so. I think the one thing this primary has exposed is the sexism of the left.

Let's not forget that the left was homophobic for many years, decrying homosexuality as proof of capitalist decadence, so it's no surprise that the dogmatic elements of the left (many of whom frequent DU) are reactionary as well.

Of course, in all fairness, the primary has also exposed a rather strong streak of racism in the Democratic Party, too.