“If she wins in Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee,” he said. “If you don’t deliver for her then I don’t think she can. It’s all on you.”
That means this could all be over in two weeks. Hurrah!
Bill Clinton’s declaration that if HRC doesn’t win both Ohio and Texas she can’t win the nomination is the best news since South Carolina. It means that the Clintons won’t mount a scorched-earth, last-ditch resistance.
Tactically, of course, it may be intended to rally the troops. That’s fine. But now that Bill has laid down that marker, it looks a lot like a commitment: and a reason for HRC supporters to peel off if, as seems highly likely, either state, or both, goes to Obama.
The motivational factor works both ways, of course. From the Obama viewpoint, this means that victories in two weeks means that the damned thing is over and we get to turn to McCain. So while the candidate and the rest of us need to play nice, we also need to work like hell.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
View all posts by Mark Kleiman