Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Of Insurmountable Leads
Josh asks:
[T]he gist of it was that both sides agree that it's highly unlikely that Clinton can end up with more pledged delegates than Barack Obama. And the issue now is how close she can keep the margin. If she can keep it within a couple dozen delegates, he argued, it would be credible to try to make up the margin with super delegates....Folks paying close attention are as likely to accurately predict the outcomes as the folks in the campaign. So is this true? Is a pledged delegate win for Clinton no longer a realistic possibility?
Now, sometimes I make mistakes. We all do. On Monday afternoon, I wrote:
The race for pledged delegates is effectively over, and Obama has won. Now, they're only fighting over the margin of victory. They'll also squabble about the legitimacy of caucuses. I give the national media until Wednesday before these become the new story lines.Looks like Fineman figured it out with 45 minutes left in Tuesday - I give him tons of credit.
The short answer is yes, Obama's lead in pledged delegates is now effectively insurmountable. One reason this very plain fact has been obscured is the way that networks have been counting pledged delegates - with a surfeit of caution, so that they won't have to retract their counts. Most years, that makes a lot of sense. This year, it's had the perverse effect of distorting the picture; we know within a few delegates what Obama's actual lead must be, but because we can't pin it down precisely in a bunch of states, the networks haven't been citing it. CBS, the best of the bunch, puts the current pledged delegate lead at 142, but that's a little high. (My best guess is that he'll emerge from tonight with a lead of around 44 more than he had, so his campaign will likely claim a lead of about 131).
Looking ahead at the remaining contests, we find that there are 1,075 pledged delegates yet to be awarded. To tie Obama, Hillary would have to win about 603 of them, or roughly 56%. But her task is actually a little steeper than that - current polls show her trailing in Hawaii, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Let's award those states to Obama by a modest 55-45 margin, less than the polls predict. Now there are just 866 delegates up for grabs, Obama's lead is up to 152, and Hillary has to win 59% of the remaining delegates to tie him. But it's worse than it sounds. Even winning 60% of the popular vote the rest of the way won't do the trick, because of Obama's strength in majority-black districts. To win 59% of the delegates, she's got to take every state but the three named above (NC, HI, WI) by an average margin of better than 60-40. That includes contests like Texas, with its hybrid caucus-primary, and also states like Mississippi, Oregon, South Dakota and Wyoming. Can this happen? Not bloody likely. She'll be lucky, frankly, to win more than a few states outright - the remaining calendar is not terribly favorable.
In that way, I think Fineman is underestimating the challenge she faces. It would take a comeback of truly epic proportions, and monumental routs in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, among other states, just to pull Hillary within a few dozen delegates. She'd have to start winning by Obama-like margins. But is there any reason to believe Obama won't take most of Mississippi's 33? Or that, having won every single county in neighboring Washington, he won't win in Oregon? The pledged delegate lead isn't going away, and it's going to be substantial - at least 50, and that's if everything starts to break Hillary's way.
That brings us to legitimacy. There's another argument Hillary's been deploying, to sway superdelegates to her side - she likes to say that she's ahead in the popular vote. On the afternoon following Super Tuesday, Hillary's popular vote lead in those contests stood at some 58,000 votes. In the two primaries held before then, Obama's net margin was 146,000. In five contests held since then, he's accumulated 619,000 more votes than Clinton. (I'm excluding caucuses in ME, NV, and IA, which would only add to Obama's margin.) So, overall, Obama now leads by some 707,000 popular votes. Clinton had been boasting about her popular vote lead by counting the two primaries that no one else does: in Michigan, she racked up 328,000 votes; in Florida, 288,000 more than her rival. The remarkable thing is that, after tonight, even that count falls short of Obama's total, and it's a lead she's not likely to regain.
So what's left? Well, there's her fraigle lead among the superdelegates. But even some prominent Hillary endorsers have, over the past week, indicated that they won't vote against a clear-cut lead in pledged delegates.Elaine Kamarck is the most prominent of the bunch; she made headlines by opining that superdelegates are, essentially, cowards, and will follow the will of the people. So Hillary's much-vaunted lead among the supers turns out to be contingent on her maintaining a lead or a very tight race among the pledged delegates - without that, she starts losing even the superdelegates she already has.
Let me add to that my suspicion that we're going to see a steady drumbeat of superdelegate endorsements for Obama between now and the March 4 primaries. As I've written before, the Obama campaign likes to deploy its endorsements strategically. Most of those we've seen over the past week have been clustered in the states due up next on the calendar. The Obama campaign has claimed to have 170 endorsements lined up, but no one else can count that high - a sign that he's been stockpiling again. Rolling out the endorsements now will add to his aura of inevitability, and help drive the news cycle during the weeks without elections. Hillary's lead here currently stands at roughly 90, but as supers wake up to the new math, she's unlikely to be able to persuade too many fence-sitters to cast their lot with her. Plus, every time Obama wins a state by a huge margin, the supers residing in that state feel substantial pressure to endorse.
A final thought on those supers. There are only between 300-350 left to endorse a candidate, depending on whose count you're using (the other 76 are UADs). If Hillary trails by at least 50 pledged delegates, and probably by 12-20 UADs, she'll have to win the votes of 150-175 of the remaining supers. Does anyone think she can do that?
So is it all over? Not quite. Here are three ways Hillary could pull this out:
1) Seat Michigan and Florida at the convention, or push for new caucuses in those states and win them really, really big.
2) Win on March 4 by such stunning margins that the Obama campaign crumples.
3) Persuade almost all the remaining superdelegates to endorse her.
If you find any of those scenarios even vaguely plausible, then you've got yourself a race. But if you're not persuaded, don't expect the remaining superdelegates to be, either. After March 4, when the last bit of uncertainty has been removed, look for the superdelegates to coalesce behind the presumptive nominee and end this thing.
Advertisement
Comments (55)
At this point the only hope for the Clintons is to go dirty--really dirty--or to employ superdelegate shenanigans. The superdelegate game relies on those superdelegates playing along to the detriment of themselves and the party. I'm afriad if the Clintons stay in this they'll slime Obama--damaging themselves in the process. The worst case scenario is they childishly decide "if we can't have it nobody can!" They didn't mind Kerry losing in 2004 (it opened the door for Hillary) and I don't think they'd mind Obama losing in 2008 (they'd see it as a vindication of their own losing primary campaign). Hopefully they're smart enough to know when to call it a campaign and pack it in.
February 13, 2008 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the excellent analysis. Here is another question for you:
You say that the superdelegates will start to coalesce around Obama after holds Clinton to a small margin of victory. So how will this happen?
If Obama wins TX and OH 60-40, it seems clear that the leap will be immediate and Clinton is out on March 5. Similarly, if Clinton wins both states 75-25 the story will be that this race is still tight and we're on to the Pennsylvania and the death match over the MI/FL problem. Somewhere between those very unlikely outcomes lies the tipping point that ends this after March 4, as you predict. What is your guess as to when and how it will end?
February 13, 2008 5:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I was suggesting, Al, is that neither superdelegates nor the media are terribly good with math. (Or, to put that a little more charitably, neither has much experience projecting outcomes at this point in a race.)
About half the remaining delegates will be taken off the board by March 4, leaving just 537 up for grabs. That should simplify the calculation considerably. Let's say that Obama wins Wisconsin and Hawaii before then, as polls predict. So his lead will be 130-150 pledged delegates, depending on his margins. Now let's use a scenario that's highly favorable to Clinton - she somehow overcomes Obama's momentum, and sweeps the March 4 contests. Only, things turn out to be more complicated than they appear. The arcane details of the Texas contest make it likely that even if Clinton wins the popular vote by a fair margin, Obame will still win the delegate tally. But let's project a blowout Clinton win in the Lonestar State - it's still unlikely to net her more than a margin of a dozen or so pledged delegates. If she also takes Ohio 60-40 (almost impossible in a state where 1 in 4 voters is an independent, and which contains a substantial black community) she could run the tally up by another 25. All in all, the best March 4 imaginable lets Clinton knock 50 delegates off Obama's lead. Leaving him with 80-100, and a month to go.
So superdelegates waking up on March 5 are going to be confronted with a difficult scene. Even if Clinton has mopped the floor with Obama, his lead among pledged delegates will remain as insurmountable as ever. And we'll be close enough to the end for them to see that. And if Obama has kept the contests close, or even pulled out a win or two, his victory will look ever more inevitable. I expect the superdelegates to coalesce remarkably quickly after March 4.
A final thought: Michael Crowley at TNR has suggested that Hillary, who can certainly do the math as well as I can, may be playing a different game. He wonders if, given the improbability of her even cutting Obama's pledged delegate lead on March 4 significantly, she's not pinning her hopes on an argument about electability and her strength in the popular vote. Perhaps so. But her only hope to lead in the popular vote rests on counting at least Florida, and probably Michigan, too - and that gives Obama at least as strong a claim. And it's too late to play the electability game. Even if they think Hillary's more likely to win in November - and it's not clear how her primary success in core Democratic states actually translates to general election electability - superdelegates are still going to bow to the clear will of the majority of pledged delegates. Unlike Crowley, I'm not sure that Clinton has some secret strategy at work here.
I think that after positioning herself for the last eight years to run for president, she's just unable to call it a day until she's exhausted every possibility, however improbable. In some ways that's admirable; in other ways, more than a little sad. So like a chess game, we'll play this out, move by move, until everyone in the audience can see where we're going. And in the end, whether or not Clinton herself is prepared to withdraw, the superdelegates will force her hand. Which, after all, is what they are supposed to do.
February 13, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fear we're about to see the worst of the Clintons now. They won't lose without a fight. I hate dirty politics, but I'm getting ready to witness something really shameful from Bill and Hill.
February 13, 2008 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt it. They didn't lay off the Obama attacks last month b/c they were nice. They stopped b/c the attacks were backfiring. Dems don't like dirty politics within the party. The party leaders (the superdelegate vote) particularly don't like it.
Frankly, I think that Clinton is out of ideas about how to stop Obama's momentum. Her speech last night was the standard stump.
February 13, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think her speech last night did show a new angle. Her new stump is about pitting 'change' against 'solutions'. Not a bad argument, because Obama is going to have to counter the perception that he doesn't have concrete policy proposals. I personally like that his health care proposal is more market oriented and cost-reduction rather than mandate-based, but I suspect he is holding back on such things that will play better in the general than in the primary. This is probably how she will come at him in the next debate too (e.g. "where's the beef?"). He will have to respond adequately to 'seal the deal' with voters, but then its his.
February 13, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another great analysis, fly
February 13, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, I agree with Genghis. A very interesting and informative post, dear FotW.
February 13, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I fear we're about to see the worst of the Clintons now."
Pat Buchanan on MSNBC last night was harping on how, at this point, Clinton has no real choice except to go down in the mud and "hit him and hit him hard".
When another panelist said that she did that earlier in the campaign and it backfired, Buchanan responded that of course it's not likely to work, but it's the only remaining chance she has.
Now, say what you will about Pat Buchanan. I, for one, disagree with him strongly on a wide variety of issues. But I completely trust his judgment on when a politician has no options left other than to attack.
Senator Clinton is, like Buchanan, astute in the mechanics of politics. And, as the other panelist noted, she has already shown her willingness to get in the mud. So, I suspect that you're probably right.
I hope she'll have the decency to prove you wrong, though.
February 13, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton campaign has already gone negative w/ ad re debates in Wisconsin...not very nasty, but wonder if it's a harbinger?
February 13, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't wait for your post this am, Fly! I've joined your fan club!
♪♪♪
February 13, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
This relevant quote is out from the AP:
"Two senior Clinton advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the race candidly, said the campaign feels the New York senator needs to quickly change the dynamic by forcing Obama into a poor debate performance, going negative or encouraging the media to attack Obama. They're grasping at straws, but the advisers said they can't see any other way that her campaign will be sustainable after losing 10 in a row."
That "10 in a row" is including assumed Clinton losses in the upcoming Hawaii and Wisconsin contests, which it seems like Clinton is not even seriously contesting, given the fact that she's already in Texas.
February 13, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great stuff fly but a couple of things. I don't think most uncommitted SDs are going to publicly endorse anyone before March 4. There's a lot of people on both sides now who don't want them deciding the nominee and outside of Edwards and a few more high profile senators and governors there's no upside for them to jump in. For those lower on the food chain their endorsement isn't likely to sway many voters and this is one instance where their leadership wouldn't be welcome by a large segment of Dems either way.
MI and FL either aren't going to seated before it's decided or they'll get a do over. Obama will win MI in that case and maybe FL too.
February 13, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis! I've gotta believe Hillary recognizes where she is at now. Understanding that her chances are slim even with some mud-slinging she will start thinking about the impact a battle for the MI and FL delegates will have on herself, the party, and the country. She'll come out swinging in the next debate and hope to reverse the tide. But, it's not gonna happen. I fully expect Obama will throw her a life line and pull her back into the fold making it easier for her to concede rather than holding her under water.
February 13, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to Genghis, TheraP, and my other regulars.
markg8: I'm not suggesting that most supers will endorse prior to March 4 - but there will be a number of endorsements in the next couple of weeks. Obama has clearly been stockpiling them, in part so that when he surged past Clinton, he could do so on the basis of primary results. With that accomplished, he'll release more endorsements over the next few days.
Zell: That's a good quote. But for my money, the real news in that Fournier/AP piece was the confirmation that many of Hillary's public endorsers among the superdelegates are ready to jump ship on the basis of the pledged delegate count.
February 13, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fly states:
"I think that after positioning herself for the last eight years to run for president, she's just unable to call it a day until she's exhausted every possibility, however improbable."
It's beginning to look to this observer as if she's literally exhausting "herself." She looks woefully tired. She's dragging. For the first time she has my "sympathy." Not the kind that would make anyone vote for her. But I truly hope she can get away and get some rest. At this point she may not be doing this for "herself." Maybe for bill. For the future they'd planned. But to me she does not look like someone with fire in the belly for this fight: She's going through the motions. She looks like someone who desperately needs a long vacation. And I'd urge her to do just that. Get away from everything. Make a graceful exit. Make her mark as a legislator in the Senate, where her skills fit perfectly. Her knowledge of policy. Her debating ability. (I've spoken to that before.)
I'm off to an Obama rally in an uncontested state this afternoon. Something I could not have dreamed of just a couple weeks ago. And I'm thrilled to take this analysis, along with my hopes, to a hero's welcome for our next president.
I know we still have many battles ahead of us. But it's beginning to look like a new day in America.... and what a feeling that is!
Thanks again, Fly! Don't desert us. We need your continuing analysis.
♪♪♪
February 13, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are all sorts of things not to like about the new format, but chief among the things that I do like is that Fly on the Wall is able to contribute whole posts to this blog, instead of mere comments on other posts. His entries are always every bit as worthwhile as the many fine offerings of Mssrs Sargent, Kleefeld and Marshall.
February 13, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the most encouraging think for Mr. Obama is the inroads he made with white women in VA yesterday. WI may tell us if that's an anamoly or not. I wonder if either campaign can afford to win this nomination by a delegate count that's not backed by a convincing majority of popular votes, including the popular vote in MI and FL.
February 13, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP says
I agree. Clinton's biggest challenge is not strategic. It's not a question of how negative to go or what issue to focus on. Variations of the same tired talking points by the same tired candidate will not interrupt the trend for Obama. Her campaign is in desperate need of reinvigoration. I see no sign of that yet.
February 13, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis said: Her campaign is in desperate need of reinvigoration. I see no sign of that yet.
Actually, if I'm reading Fly correctly (as opposed to putting words in his mouth), HRC needs more than a reinvigoration. She needs to change the entire primary election so it is no longer about voting.
I believe that her only real chances are to turn this into a public relations battle about procedural fairness -- caucuses aren't fair, not seating the MI and FL delegations isn't fair, Obama's refusal to debate isn't fair, etc.
This campaign has been going on forever, and if HRC can't make the case on policy, experience, electability, and everything else she's tried, I doubt it will start to take hold now.
February 13, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that reinvigoration is not sufficient. But if she doesn't start picking up more states by greater margins, MI and FL will be moot. (And for the sake of the party, please, let them be moot.)
I don't think an appeal to fairness will help her either. She may claim to argue for the voters, but it would be quite obvious that she means that it's not fair to her. More of the "you owe me" crap that gets her nowhere.
Frankly, I don't think the DNC cares about fairness in any case, but they do care about losing FL and MI in the general, so her implicit message would have to be that if the votes aren't counted, two big swing states will go down the red drain.
February 13, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Howard Dean is presently in the predicament of Odysseus, trying to steer between the Scylla of losing MI and FL in the GE and the charibdis of a party divided by a disputed nomination battle. If he sees a workable solution to get him out of this mess, he will be no more concerned about abstractions like "justice" than Pontius Pilate was about "truth." What is needed is for one or the other of these two to win enough delegates that FL and MI can be seated without making a difference. That is the end towards which the DNC is pressing and will press, "fairness" be hanged.
February 13, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen to that. But I'm not sure how I feel about Greek mythology and bible allusions in the same post.
February 13, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What can I say? I received a classical education at a liberal arts college, but I have no qualms about mixing mythologies. If there had been an aposite citation from Sumerian mythology or the Puranas, I would have been even less pure in my mix allusions. I have no pride in that respect.
February 13, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I'll let it slide this time. I look forward to Sumerian-Puranic metaphor combos in future posts.
February 13, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, it looks like they fixed the recommended reader posts section in TPM cafe to expire old posts. Either that or they just removed the old posts manually.
Election central still shows the old posts though.
February 13, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow - thanks. I hope this analysis is right. You've done your homework.
NOW please stop giving this excellent analysis before Obama volunteers/donors stop working with a sense of urgency!
Can someone explain the Texas hybrid primary-caucus system? How exactly does it benefit Obama?
February 13, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an explanation, but I sure can't figure out what it means for the candidates:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8UPL8G80.html
February 13, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting the link, Genghis.
There are two levels on which the Texas system is likely to give an edge to Obama disporportionate to his actual levels of popular support. The first is the caucus system, which awards the third of the delegates. That favors Obama because (a) he performs well in caucuses, due to the enthusiasm of his backers and his campaign's careful organization and (b) that third of the delegates would ordinarily be awarded in proportion to the statewide vote totals, where Obama is unlikely to do so well. The second is the convoluted apportionment of delegates among senatorial districts - bear in mind that the Texas gerrymandering has been to the Supreme Court and back again, and is as crazy as anywhere else in this great nation. The best rundown of this I've seen - albeit an entirely partisan, pro-Obama take on the situation - is at Texans for Obama. Whatever your alleigance, I encourage you to read through it. It provides a better explanation of the demographics than I ever could.
February 13, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a better explanation, though still confusing:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/houston-key-to-unlocking-_b_86357.html
What I get out of it is not that it helps Obama to win, but it minimizes big delegate differences in a 2-person race, which makes it difficult for Clinton to win by much of a margin. There are two reasons for this:
1) Most districts have 4 delegates, which generally split 2-2.
2) Caucus votes account for a third of the delegates, but caucus delegates are not awarded until the convention (and apparently nobody knows the count until then. Huh?). So that makes TX essentially worth 2/3 of its total delegate count. Seem to me that this might actually hurt Obama, since he does well in caucuses, but at any rate, it keeps Clinton from running up a big win, or at least keeps anyone from knowing whether she ran up a big win.
Anyway, it's weird. If anyone can make more sense of this, please post.
FYI The article also talks a lot about how Texas Latinos vote in smaller numbers.
February 13, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, In order to win the 4 delegate districts 3-1, one must keep their opponent under 37.5%.
February 13, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The TX latinos voting in smaller numbers is very important. The delegates are apportioned to each congressional district according to their democratic vote totals in 2004. Because majority black districts turned out in heavy numbers in 2004 (even though Bush easily beat Kerry statewide) while majority latino districts did not, majority black districts get a disproporionately large share of the delegates. As such, Obama has a certain built-in advantage in the delegate race, even if he loses the popular vote statewide.
February 13, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
FlyontheWall: I posted this question on Josh's Fineman thread, but no answer yet, so I will ask you. Here's a short version: Why doesn't the number of delegates needed for the nomination change depending on whether or not Michigan and Florida are included in the total delegate count? I am a humble religious studies prof, so these things are myterious to me, so I would be grateful for any assistance.
February 13, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm? I think that FlyOnTheWall claims that seating MI and FL does change the number needed. At least that is what I took away from it when he wrote:
February 13, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg: I am not communicating well, and/or perhaps am just dumb. I assume some mathematical logic goes into determining the total number of delegates needed to secure the nomination and that the final number is determined by the total number of delegates available to be won. My question is, why doesn't the number needed to secure the nomination change when you change the total number of delegates to be won? Since I do not know the assumptions that go into the current number (2025?), I do not know if it assumes that the Michigan and Florida delegates are included. If they are not included in the current calculations, then the number needed for the nomination should go up. If they are included, but nullified by the DNC, then the number needed for the nomination should go down. Again, apologies if this is somehow just clearly stupid.
February 13, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I see. I merely misunderstood your question. I see that FotW has answered your question and I learned something from his response, so I am obliged to you for asking it.
February 13, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh, ooh, I know this one!
You need 50% plus 1 of the total delegates to secure the nomination. Right now MI and FL do not count in the pool of total delegates. If they are added in, the total number of delegates goes up, and so does the number that equals 50% plus 1.
I think.
February 13, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to be clear, if Florida and Michigan delegates are not included in the current pool of total delegates to be won, and they then are somehow reinstated, then the number needed to secure the nomination should reflect this increase in the total number of delegates to be won by also increasing.
February 13, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe,
The short answer is that the current number (actually 2,024 at the moment, but let's not go there) assumes that Michigan and Florida won't be seated, because as things stand, they won't be. If those delegations are seated, the magic number becomes 2,207. The reason we're not focused on it is that they'll only be seated if the outcome is moot - that is, only if Hillary already controls a majority of delegates, or if Obama retains his majority even when they're added in. If they caucus, of course, that changes, and we'll all have to update our math to reflect the higher 2,207 delegate total. But to date, we haven't seen any indication from the state parties that they will.
February 13, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless there is a real break one way or another among the superdelegates, the issue will come down to MI and FL. The Clinton strategy will be to keep this boiling away until it is too late to hold a do-over primary, and then argue that the only "fair" thing to do is to seat both delegations.
February 13, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks - that's the best explanation I've read and I can see how it might Obama.
February 13, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not? Greek Mythology probably has more fact behind it than the greatest selling fiction book of all time.
February 13, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great analysis. I agree that this ends when the supers decide to end it. That will be, I assume, when their own math shows that Obama is the inevitable winner of the pledges delegates (though you argue convincingly that is already the case.)
So... basically the only thing that stops Obama at this point is a campaign collapse of epic proportions.
Given the precision with which they're operated thus far, the huge wins yesterday, and that they are in the "home stretch", I just don't see that happening.
February 13, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should speak volumes that MOST superdelegates have not endorsed. It stands to reason that these are folks who waited because they didn't want to endorse the wrong candidate - which which should mean that they'll endorse the winner of the pledged delegates. (And if you have not endorsed Clinton by now, why on earth would you unless you really owe her a favor?)
February 13, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
FlyOnTheWall: Thanks. Makes sense. I just had never heard anyone qualify their analysis of the delegate count when they discussed the issue of seating Florida and Michigan.
One more thought on the whole SD thang. It seems to me that the anti-democratic logic of relying on superdelegates will take a psychological toll on the Clinton campaign and her supporters. That is, one might try to defend it for a while, and one might even at first be sincere in such a defense, but ultimately it will be impossible to bear the weight of believing in a democracy that the voice of the few should override the voice of the many.
February 13, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has got to be the best blog I've read in a long time. Thanks, FlyOnTheWall, very much, for making it so clear. And thanks, TPM posters, for adding excellent questions -- and answers!
Awesome. And nice to see.
February 13, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there it is on Drudge, 11:13PM Wed.:
http://drudgereport.com/
February 13, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh...I basically wrote everything you said in the Fineman thread, only with much less clarity and eloquence. Well done, FotW. Good stuff.
Also worth noting that in order to achieve the necessary margins described in this post, Clinton would basically have to completely reverse the way pretty much every other contest has finished thus far. In general, almost across the board, it's been: when Clinton wins, she wins close, and when Obama wins, he wins big. Even though she's won the big states, when you look at delegate margins won in order of greatest to least, he cleans up. Illinois granted a larger margin of delegates than any other state, and he dominates the rest of the top 10 or 15. He wins SC by 30, she wins NH by 2 and NV by 6 and only ties in delegates in the former, and actually loses in delegates in the latter. Same thing on Super Tuesday...only states that gave her over 57% of the delegate share were OK, NY, AK, and MA. That's her home states, an uncontested state (OK), and MA. So really, she'd have to repeat her success in MA, arguably her very best performance thus far in any primary or caucus, in every state that's nominally favorable to her from here on out, just to come within a couple dozen of Obama's total pledged delegates. And that's assuming modest margins for Rock in the states favorable to him, even though this entire nomination contest suggests that he's pretty damn good at winning big (Iowa by 8 in a 3-way contest, SC more than doubling Clinton/Edwards combined, all the prairie and mountain-west and southern states super-tuesday, everything post-Super Tuesday)
So, yeah. It's over, but the beltway and supers just don't know it yet. Either that or they know it but are holding out just in case Hillary wins March 4 with 75-25 margins or something.
Something worth noting, though: no matter how obvious her impending loss becomes, I don't think she'll concede...I think Al Gore, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, et al will have to sit her down and be like, "this can end two ways: you can concede with dignity, or we can all get behind Obama and the supers will give him unbeatable margins and you'll have to sulk off as the candidate rejected by the voters and the Dem establishment. Your choice."
The voters will decide it, but the supers and party elders have to end it. Cause Hillary won't stop herself, I don't think.
February 14, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many seem to share this opinion, but Hillary is a pragmatist, she cares about the Democratic party, and she has a future political career to think about even if she doesn't win the nomination.
Of course, she's not going to acknowledge right now that conceding is an option. To do so would lend credibility to the Clinton-is-finished narrative. Moreover, she's positioned herself as a fighter, and fighters don't give up, right? And it's not just Clinton. Look at the other former candidates--Romney, Edwards, Giuliani. They were all "never give up" until just before their concession speeches. That's politics.
February 14, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point. I had been making that very point (that she's a pragmatist who wouldn't want to see her brand damaged) earlier today, but then I saw this on the frontpage and got nearly ill imagining her clawing tooth and nail long past the point of her viability. But the thought didn't occur to me that these stories would be part-and-parcel with the "Hillary is a fighter" brand that they're trying to exploit...which is probably especially true given Obama's recent tete-a-tetes with McCain lending a lot of credence to the thought that he can throw elbows with the best of them.
Real nice insight, Ghengis.
I mean, anyone who had doubts that Obama couldn't fight, they had to feel good after reading this, right?
"George Bush won’t be on the ballot this November, but his war and his tax cuts for the wealthy will."
That's a pretty snazzy, savvy, and substantive way to hang McCain on the noose that is George Bush
February 14, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Best bet is for the Obama camp is to keep methodically racking up delegates and staying 100% on the positive, and defuse the dust she's trying to kick up over FL/MI by acknowledging that FL/MI should have their votes counted.
The object should be to back her (rhetorically) into a corner. As the lead in pledged delegates widens and solidifies, she'll have nothing to do but spin about SuperAutomatic Delegates.. a very dry and uninspiring position.
February 14, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fly:
Thanks for posting some very solid research and analysis.I've been wondering what the bulk voting numbers have been, and this is the first place I've seen any data like this since before Super Tuesday.
I've also been wondering what the numbers have been looking like comparing both Republican and Democratic candidates. If Obama is beating Clinton, he must be cleaning McCain's clock by now.
February 14, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
A good post and response from the Field:
and
I largely agree with that analysis of Texas and likely thinking in the Clinton campaign
So, two questions:
1-Is that plan executable? Can she keep the pledged delegates reasonably close and can she win the popular vote?
2-Even if she does execute it, does that necessarily lead to a Clinton win? It seems like Obama's national numbers are rising and Clinton's falling...if there is a credible case to be made that many of the voters who went "Hillary" Feb 5th maybe got buyer's remorse based on recent polling, shouldn't we discount her popular vote lead?
I'd say I'm dubious she can keep the delegate totals close, less dubious but still doubtful that she can win the popular vote, and I think even if she somehow pulls it out, it's at best just 50-50 at the convention.
Those are, IMO, long odds. I guess it's the best play they got now that they're down 130+ delegates, but let's call it what is: a total hail mary.
I saw a pretty clear-eyed take on the people who keep insisting that this thing isn't over by a longshot, comparing it to the experience of watching Buster Douglas beat the crap out of Mike Tyson, an event so unfathomable in advance that people just refused to believe what was plainly going on right in front of their faces.
The fact is, there are only 561 delegates available after March 4th in 12 contests, and Obama has to be the favorite in at least 5 of those contests, worth a total of 198 delegates. That leaves only a pool of 363 delegates from which Hillary would be able to draw in order to make up ground on Obama, assuming they simply split those 198 that heavily favor him.
If he exits March 4th with, say, a 100 delegate lead (which would be roughly a 40-50 delegate gain by Hillary, a very nice day), she'd have to win 64% of the pledged delegates available outside his strong states. If he's to grab 55% of the delegates in those states (very doable, all things considered), that 64% would only serve to keep it within a couple dozen delegates...
Now, of course, people throw hail marys because sometimes, they work. I just don't think this type of hail mary could work, b/c at the first sign that it could work, I think the supers would simply anoint Obama. I mean, does anyone really want it to work right now? Is anyone actively pulling for a long, drawn-out fight that lead to a brokered convention, a nominee chosen behind closed doors and with questionable legitimacy? Which is why, barring Clinton pulling an Arkansas-like slaughter of Obama in TX and OH, come March 5th, the math will be painfully clear and this thing will end.
And I can go back to Florida and campaign for the general :D
February 14, 2008 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am all for an Obama Presidency, however, you cannot underestimate the Clintons, their cunningness, their willingness to do and say anything to Win. Never put your guard down with the Clintons. It would be foolish and premature to do so.
February 14, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Thank you for your commentary.
I think you may be giving the superdelegates, a bit too much credit. You're assuming they can do the math after March 4 no matter what. I doubt that that's true. If Clinton essentially ties in Wisconsin, and wins resoundingly in Ohio and Texas, I think the superdelegates (who are politicians, and therefore, as a group, probably dumb as posts) will assume she has the momentum, and we'll be in this at least till Pennsylvania, maybe longer. She'll also at that point have ammo against the folks who know better (Dean, Gore) telling them that the people have just given her big wins, she's not going to suspend now, etc. etc.
Basically, everyone in the party apparatus has to be praying Obama cleans her clock in Wisconsin and manages to edge her out in OH or TX. That'll be the definitive win, and she'll probably suspend without having the superdelegates do her in, which would be way, way better for the party....
I bet Edwards can do the math, though...which is why it seems pretty unlikely that he's going to endorse her....
Again, great post. You are following Al Giordano at the Field, right?
February 14, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment