States that Count (Democratic Edition)
So Mark Penn implies that if Obama doesn't win "states that count" then even if he has more elected delegates he should not be nominated at the convention.
By "states that count" Penn apparently means mostly states that Clinton won or that have not yet voted.
But either Democratic nominee, or for that matter any of Edwards, Dodd, Richardson or Biden, will win in November in states like California, New York, and New Jersey. These are are not the states that anyone should worry about if the goal if, as it should be, to nominate not only a fine President but someone who is most likely to win this fall and do well nationally so as to bring in a large Congressional majority. Of course they "count" but they aren't where Democrats should look to see who would best lead the party this November.
Those states, of those that have voted so far, include
Virginia, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Washington. Perhaps there are others that ought to be on this list, but as to these seven, Senator Clinton has won two, Senator Obama five.
Of the critical states that haven't yet voted, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin clearly belong on this list too. These three also are contestable for the party's nominee, to the point of being nearly must-win's in November. (Florida should have been on this list, but no meaningful vote was cast there.)
The candidate who attracts the most new first-time voters and most independents in these states is the candidate who has really shown what "counts" for the purpose of leading Democrats in the fall. So far, that is Barack Obama, and quite convincingly. There are three reasons for the huge turn-out for Democrats (and not for Republicans): a desire to throw out George Bush's party, excitement over this scintillating campaign, and Barack Obama's appeal to those who have not ever or often voted Democratic (an appeal that somewhat resembles, ironically, Bill Clinton's in 1992).
For the purpose of picking the ideal person to put at the top of the ticket, these "battleground" states really matter.
And since almost every prediction and poll has been wrong, we surely don't know what will happen in the remaining states. But let's forget Penn and superdelegates, and let our attention be riveted on these key states, where this most fascinating election of the last 40 years will be determined in November.
Let's follow that logic trail a little ways.
Clinton won Tennessee so it counts.
Penn implies that Tennessee will go Democratic in November because Clinton won there.
Dream on. Rebel flags, racism, fundy nuts all make Tennessee red. All this "expert" political strategist needs do is look at recent national election results. Even the Dems from there vote with Republicans more often than not. Does he expect the new DLC chair, Mr. Ford to single handedly deliver Tennessee? Ha! Pay me $5 million and I'll feed you better BS than this.
February 15, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Illinois not mentioned. Perhaps because home-state advantage discounts the win?
But 1) Illinois used to be a bellwether for the winning presidential candidate, and 2) the margin there was huge.
February 15, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on the money, Reed!
And... Bad move for any campaign to hint that some voters don't count. What are they thinking? Oh, yeah! They are not thinking; they are panicking...
All their “intelligent” spinning is only spiraling them into the ground. Because it is exactly this that people don’t want more of: “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is;” or ‘Let’s not call them Super Delegates, let’s called them Automatic Delegates’ or ‘We will decide what States count’ or...
Much of the talk coming from the HRC campaign is centered on bringing Obama down, instead of in highlighting her goods. Bad choice.
February 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The single most mystifying aspect of this campaign to me has been Clinton's irrational devotion to Mark Penn.
The guy lied to the campaign about pre-Iowa polling; there have been persistent reports of his conflicts with other campaign staffers; he publicly criticized Obama for his relation to an energy company which at the very time was paying Penn's lobbying firm for services rendered; on the very day Wolfson announces the Clinton campaign is counting on the super delegates, Penn insults the super delegates of about 44 states by referring to their states as insignificant; and his "significant state" strategy has failed, just as it did in 2002 and 2004.
Then, of course, there is his sneering, porcine countenance.
Will someone please tell me how all of that is worth millions and why he wasn't thrown under the bus a month ago?
Clinton, of course, is ultimately responsible for her largely inept campaign.
February 15, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Virginia, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Washington. Perhaps there are others that ought to be on this list, but as to these seven, Senator Clinton has won two, Senator Obama five.
Mr. Hunt,
The real picture of swing-state strength, if that is what we are talking about here, is a good deal more complex than this list would suggest:
1. Washington should probably not be on this list at all, as it is unlikely to swing Red unless the Democrat is also in danger in big states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.
2. Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire are all genuine swing states. Of these, Obama won three and Clinton two.
3. Virginia is a Red state that is nevertheless a possible Democratic get this cycle. That's one for Obama. There are two more like it that have voted so far: Arkansas and Tennessee, both won by Clinton.
In short, both candidates are showing good strength in swing states.
February 15, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't we also expected to believe that voters on the left don't count, since S Carolina blacks don't count, white men don't count, the college educated don't count, young people don't count, independents don't count...
February 15, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was amazed to hear Hillary say how important it was for Democrats to take Massachusetts (the first one on her list). Any Democrat will take Massachusetts this November -- it's a 100% certainty. If Hillary thinks that her candidacy will somehow make the difference here, she's been in some bubble too long.
February 16, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okie Dokie
Mark Penn: "Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries.”
(JMM)
The Clintons can't seem to talk about PRIMARIES..just the ones that shouldn't count but are or those which don't count but should
February 16, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama’s supporters gleefully reminding voters of Hillary’s high negatives should reflect on who has been doing those “polls”.
They should also reflect on why Obama won so many caucuses in Red States and so few primaries in Blue States.
Is this a "conspiracy you can believe in", or are there just a few too many grains of truth in it?:
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html
February 16, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about MI and FL? And of course NV and AZ, as well as possibly AK? And LA? I support Obama and consider that ONE reason many Democrats in "red states" that the Democrats are VERY unlikely to carry in November, from Alaska to Idaho to Nebraska, North Dakota and Kansas, support Obama is because they KNOW what the name Hillary Clinton means downticket for OTHER Democrats who might otherwise have a chance at winning within those states.
It is a fallacy to think that Obama's wins in places like Utah don't matter. Indeed, his strength in places like that (or at least the absence of HRC's powerful "negative coattails") could mean more for Democrats in November than Hillary's strength in places like MA (where I live).
February 17, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like lots of people are missing the point of this whole debate.
I do think it's worth considering how a potential nominee will do in swing states, but looking at it on a state-by-state level based on primary results is a fool's errand. Not only does winning the primary not guarantee a GE win, but losing it doesn't guarantee a GE loss. They're completely different elections, with different electorates and much lower turnout.
Consider New Hampshire 2000: Gore received 77,000 votes and won the primary by 4 points. Bush received 72,000 and lost by 19. In November, they each got nearly four times that amount, and Bush won narrowly, with 273,000 votes. (Furthermore, we could see the exact same thing happen this year if it's Obama-McCain.)
So it's silly to say that because Obama won Missouri, or Clinton won Arizona, it tells us anything about how they'd do in November. And yes, the Democrats will almost certainly not win Idaho.
That doesn't mean, however, that we should completely ignore Obama's success in some of these states. For one thing, there are down-ballot races to consider. Remember, in 2004 Kerry completely gave up on red states to focus on OH/FL, and as a result Democratic Senate candidates got wiped out across the South.
Second, the whole "red/blue" divide is not some immutable political reality, it's a function of the last two elections. In fact, it has been extremely rare in American history to have an electoral map look as similar for two straight elections as it did in '00 and '04. Bill Clinton won what are now considered solidly red states like Montana, Kentucky and Lousiana, and it was a big surprise when Gore lost W Va in '00, since that had been a solidly Democratic state for years. This year, Virginia, which hasn't voted for a Democrat since the '60s, is poised to turn blue.
But IMO, the most important benefit to Obama's primary strategy is the mindset it represents. The past two elections, Democrats ran narrowly targeted, tactical campaigns that focused on eking out wins in a few key states. Gore pulled it off but lost anyway, and Kerry fell short, but both campaigns were tired, uninspiring affairs that left me (and a lot of other Dems) cold. By pursuing a 50-state strategy, Obama signals to me that he will run a national campaign that. And even if it doesn't lead to victories in Idaho this year, I have no doubt that it will pay dividends down the road.
And that the Clinton campaign would downplay this strategy tells me that either a) they're stuck in the same mindset that lost us the last two elections, or b) they're spinning so desperately that they're really not thinking about the logical conclusion to what they're arguing. Either way, it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.
February 17, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What doesn't inspire a lot of confidence is putting somebody next to McCain who has hardly anything in the way of accomplishments to show for himself. Except perhaps great oratory skills, until we learn that much of that was plagarized:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27037
So even if Obama makes inroads in his red state strategy where McGovern tried and failed, it will all come to naught when all the dirt the media has scrupulously swept under the rug comes out.
February 18, 2008 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink