THE ELECTABILITY ARGUMENT

I believe that the closing argument the campaign has been using is a good one, but far from incontrovertible.  This is the electability argument.  It is a good argument, but not nearly the strongest argument for Obama at this point.

The electabilty argument properly put does not say that Clinton is unelectable -- surely it's possible she could win, especially with the electorate leaning so demward-- rather it says that Obama is more electable: more likely to win and more likely to win big.  

The only hard evidence we have on this issue certainly does
lean to Obama.  Admittedly the maps drawn at that link are based on very early information about these match-ups, but in terms of the only poll evidence we have, Obama is in an overwhelmingly better position to run against John McCain at this point than is Hillary Clinton.

The soft arguments on electability also lean Obama's way in my opinion.  The Obama position is that Hillary cannot attract independents and he can; and that the Republican base will be unified and motivated against Hillary, but fractured and listless against Obama.  All of this seems right to me accept for the point about a listless GOP base.  The RNC will find a way to scare the GOP base into a pretty good imitation of its normal frothing self against either Hillary or Obama.

Hillary's argument is that Obama is untested against the Republican machine and that his poll numbers are soft.  This is possible, though looking at the RNC's five point plan for running against Obama, I would say Obama has shown he can deal with these issues without his negatives going up too sharply.  Only time will tell.  But it seems to me that Hillary's best electablity argument is that Obama will end up just as disliked as she is by the end of the campaign.  This is hardly inspiring.  Obama's best argument suggests she can sweep the swing states (except Florida) against McCain and win in a relative landslide while helping down ticket races in red and swing states.  I'm not sure which is more likely, but given the uncertainty I think anyone would agree that the expected value of an Obama nomination is significantly higher than that of a Clinton one.

That said, there's a lot of wiggle room and uncertainty in the electability argument.

THE EARLY FINISH ARGUMENT

No, the strongest argument is the following.

The informal argument: only Obama can win the nomination before April, and he can win it on March 4th.

More formally:

1. At this point, the sooner we have a democratic nominee the better.  Put more strongly, if the nomination goes to Pennsylvania or beyond it is a nightmare for either candidate in the GE.

2. Only Obama could effectively seal up the nomination by March 4th.

3. The earliest Hillary could wrap up the nomination is April 22nd, a full 7 weeks later.  It is more likely, given the math, that she could not wrap it up until after the primary season is over in June.

4. For this reason, Superdelegates, undecided voters and those Clinton supporters who find Barack Obama an acceptable candidate should all support Barack in Ohio and Texas (if they can), thereby ending the Democratic nomination fight on March 4th.

I will take each premise in turn.

1. I am not one of those that thinks contested primaries need weaken the winning candidate in the GE.  In fact I think  that a generally positive and close primary campaign is good for the winning candidate.  It excites the electorate, it toughens the campaign, it provides oodles of free media etc....  I believe up to this point, that is exactly what this primary season has done for the Democratic candidates, especially Obama.  I am an Obama supporter at this point (obviously), but I am very glad he lost New Hampshire.  His campaign is better for it and the state of the Democratic party -- in state after state after state -- is better for it.

Nonetheless, I believe any extension of the campaign after March 4th could significantly weaken the eventual candidate.  

The Nightmare

First, there is a seven week gap between Ohio/Texas and Pennsylvania with nothing major in between (other than Wyoming and Mississippi likely undramatic Obama victories).  This will reduce free media.  Both Hillary and Barack will have to camp out in Pennsylvania running for governor during that time while John McCain can campaign anywhere he likes and take potshots at either Dem candidate.

The likelihood that the campaign will go more negative will increase (as we've seen recently in Wisconsin).  This means that for six weeks the eventual nominee will be getting it from both sides, stuck on the ground in a single state that probably won't even settle the matter.

I have no problem with the candidates spending lots of money across the country during the primary season building the grass roots, making themselves known to the electorate etc... But how much money do you think will get spent in six weeks in -- a must win for both campaigns -- Pennsylvania?  Do we think that it will be a good use of that money?

On top of this, we can expect the DNC to have serious fundraising issues the longer we don't have an established nominee.

All in all, can we agree, that's a nightmare for either candidate?  Can we all agree, as Democrats, that we should do anything we can to avoid such a situation as long as we end up with an acceptable candidate?  We've had enough time and contests to evaluate our candidates.  Let's make a decision.

Chris Bowers gives a similar argument about the post march 4th contests.

3. Obama can effectively seal up the nomination on March 4th.  I see three scenarios in which this is the case: 1) Obama narrowly loses Texas and Ohio, 2) Obama wins one of Texas and Ohio, 3) Obama wins both Texas and Ohio.  I think any of the three scenarios make it effectively impossible for Hillary to win the nomination given her pledged delegate deficit, her delegate deficit and her popular vote deficit.

But you don't have to agree that all three of these scenarios end the campaign you just have to agree that there is one plausible scenario in which Obama can seal it up on March 4th.  That scenario is an Obama sweep of Ohio and Texas.  Given the Clinton campaign's arguments about Texas and Ohio and the general feelings of thepundit class, I think we can all agree that if the only thing she wins on March 4th is Rhode Island there is no longer a rationale for her campaign. There will be no reason to think she can win Pennsylvania by any significant margin. She will face insurmountable deficits in all important categories, will have lost 13 out of 14 states (or worse) since super Tuesday.  Superdelegates will flock to Obama, making his delegate lead even greater.  The the establishment will beg her to get out of the race.  

It is plausible that Obama can win both of those states: he is within the margin of error in Texas and closing in Ohio according to polls taken just before the primaries in Wisconsin and Hawaii.

4.  There is no plausible way Hillary can win the nomination on March 4th.  In fact, it's not even likely that she can take the lead in any important measures after March 4th.  The likelihood is that the Texas delegate count will be close whoever wins the popular vote and even a twenty point Hillary win doesn't get her close to overtaking Obama in pledged delegates.  The best she can hope for is victories in the four states on March 4th (a stretch because of vermont), and then, after two likely losses in WY and MS, a victory six weeks laterin Pennsylvania.  Even that is no guarantee of victory for her.

5. In order to the avoid the nightmare of what Bower's calls the 'Pennsylvania Interval' (and beyond), those undecided voters, superdelegates and Hillary supporters who think Obama would be a fine Democratic Nominee should support Obama in Ohio and Texas.

(By the way this is not the same as the electability argument because it says nothing about how would be more electable if the candidate was decided in Pennsylvania or after, though it dos of course say that there is a way Obama could win the nomination that would significantly increase the chances of a dem nominee in the GE.)