Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Ouy of the Weeds: 2024
The number 2024 is the most crucial fact in this race.
It seems that somewhere between the way our nominating system is designed, and the expressed intentions of voters to date, no one is going to earn that number in automatic delegates. I want to stress that point: Neither Obama nor Clinton is going to get there by earned delegates alone. People might differ about exactly how it will go, but my wildest possible estimate in Obama's favor gets him to maybe 2000, tops. To get even to there requires that he win essentially every remaining contest, with very large wins in several states.
Obviously, Sen. Clinton's prospects aren't even as good as that. The best I can ballpark for her is about 1800 in automatic delegates, by an equally unlikely scenario.
So what to do? Call the game at the end of the 3td quarter, since the trailing team can expect no better outcome than sudden-death overtime? Play it all the way out, no matter what?
Here's my best guess to settle it: Play on, and be prepared to adjust as circumstances warrant.
Our goal SHOULD be to field the best November candidate, in terms of the most current available data. That may or may not be the same candidate who looked better in March (and arguably may have gained a small lead under less informed conditions). Depending upon how things actually go, we may know all we need to know on April 22nd. If not, there are several key primaries between then and about May 20th.
It seems likely to me that by then, we will have settled the main remaining question: Has Sen. Obama's bubble sort of busted, and has prevailing sentiment among actual VOTERS in this race shifted, or not?
As the answer to that becomes more clear, what to do next becomes more clear as well. I think to say that we "have" to do this, or "must" do that, NOW, is premature.
Comments (12)
Sorry, your attempt to appear neutral was dimed out by your use of the Clinton-prepared spinwords "automatic delegates". No one else uses the term, and it is pure spin. There is no such thing as an "automatic delegate".
She is not going to win this. Accept it. There is genuinely no plausible scenario, barring literal tragedy, under which Clinton becomes the nominee.
As to the "sense of the voters" shifting, it seems to be doing just that, and if you look at the 15% swing (Clinton down 7%, Obama up 8% in the last week, according to Gallup), you're probably not going to like the direction of the shift.
March 29, 2008 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cut him some slack. He obviously hasn't been swallowing their campaign rhetoric too much, as he mistakenly used the term to refer to pledged delegates, whereas the Clinton campaign uses the term to refer to unpledged delegates (causing me a "ruh?"* moment when I read that first sentence of the 2nd paragraph).
No, short of some Hart-like scandal, Obama is going to win this thing. I have absolutely no problem, however, with Clinton staying in—I just wish we'd keep the thing positive.
*You know, as in Scooby Doo. Ruh?
March 29, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ben,
Thank you for that. You're exactly right, as the context certainly makes clear.
March 29, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
God forbid I should appear neutral. I mean "automatic" in the sense of committed by vote or caucus. It is not my practice to use "spin" words, or to rely on cliche's generally. Actually, there are scenarios by which she could win - that's why we're still discussing her, and not Gravel or Huckabee. We don't know WHAT voters are thinking right now, because none have voted recently. Finally(and I do mean "finally"), there is the matter of your tone: Accept this as constructive criticism, but you need to work on that a little.
March 29, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
After a 12-hour workday, I can respond...
My "tone", such as you put it, was prompted by your use of the Harold Ickes-coined spinword. "Pledged" is the operative term.
You also did seem to be fishing for some reason to pull the rug out from under Obama, which makes me less inclined to cut you slack by some distance than had your own tone been truly neutral.
So, to conclude, since, by the phrasing of your original post, I have some solid reasons to suspect your motives, I do not consider your comments to be "constructive" in any meaningful way.
It's a blog. We disagree. I'm a big kid, with lots of gray hair. I can deal with it.
March 29, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"and arguably may have gained a small lead under less informed conditions"
Might I point out that you insinuate we have now learned something "new" about Senator Obama as a result of the Wright thing. I learned nothing new, in fact what I learned only served to reinforce what I already suspected: that Senator Obama has a unique ability to listen to the entire range of perspectives. Has Wright hurt his electability? Yes. But I might also add that we've had some "new" information about Senator Clinton - i.e. her participation in pushing NAFTA, lying about Bosnia and plumping up other areas of her "foreign policy resume".
Should we want the best candidate for November? Yes. But you assume that we have all now realized that Senator Clinton is clearly the more electable, to which I would respond that neither candidate would have a clear and huge advantage in November. Personally? I still believe Obama has a better shot at winning in November. But I guess that's the point of all this - not everyone agrees on that...
March 29, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your last sentence really captures the sense of my main point. I'm not specifically talking about Wright, or anything else in particular. It is (I hope) a plain fact that we know a lot more about Sen. Clinton than we do about Sen. Obama, and that we will tend to learn more about both of them as this process goes forward. Voters will tell us the answers to all these questions,if we will give them their chance. I tend to resent efforts to use predictions and theories to substitute for the public's actual verdict.
March 29, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Has Sen. Obama's bubble sort of busted"
Obama is a person, not an inflatable candidate. Why can't we ignore ridiculous, shallow BS like that "bubble" garbage? Let's try to figure out who Barack really is, and who Hillary really is, and who John McCain really is. Then we can vote sensibly.
The mainstream media have no interest in anything resembling truth. We have to find it ourselves.
March 29, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our goal SHOULD be to field the best November candidate, in terms of the most current available data. That may or may not be the same candidate who looked better in March (and arguably may have gained a small lead under less informed conditions).
That's a valiant attempt to come up with an argument for overruling the pledged delegates, I'll give you that. But think about what it's saying. It's saying that all those votes cast in March shouldn't be taken seriously because, well, they were cast in March. And the votes cast after March will be "better informed" votes, so they should count more.
If something so severe happens that Obama's support evaporates, and he crashes in the polls, and even Obama's supporters are running away from him, then you'd have a case for ignoring the primary and caucus voters and hoping the super-delegates would give the nomination to Hillary.
That's the thread that Hillary is clinging to, and it's the only thread she's got left. It would be nice if Hillary supporters would admit that.
The super-delegates aren't going to overrule the pledged delegates, with the consequent damage that would do to the party, based on lame arguments about how voters who voted in March were "less informed".
The super-delegates aren't going to step in as the elite and wise ruling class, pat the pledged delegates on the head, and then overturn the pledged delegate results on the basis of lame arguments about primary votes predicting general election votes (as if Hillary winning California against Obama in the primary means that McCain would win California against Obama in the general).
The super-delegates are not going to stomp all over the primary and caucus voters simply because Hillary supporters assert that Obama's bubble "sort of busted."
The only scenario that wins for Hillary is a scenario in which Obama's campaign suffers such a complete melt-down that having the super-delegates give the nomination to Hillary doesn't rip the party in half, it unites the party with a huge sigh of relief. And they'd have to be willing to do this knowing that Hillary's "favorable" numbers are at a seven year low, and very near a fourteen-year low. They'd have to be willing to reward Hillary for the unprecedented step of endorsing the Republican candidate over her Democratic rival. They'd have to be willing to do this even though Obama showed much stronger fund raising ability, etc., etc. So it would have to be something drastic.
It's not impossible. Obviously Hillary supporters hoped that the Wright thing would do that, but just as obviously, it didn't. Not even when Hillary tried to re-ignite it. It hasn't happened, but it might. That's what Hillary is hoping for. She's got nothing else left.
March 29, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
" It is (I hope) a plain fact that we know a lot more about Sen. Clinton than we do about Sen. Obama, and that we will tend to learn more about both of them as this process goes forward."
True, but as Michael Gerson pointed out, "It is not enough to be vetted. The goal is to be vetted and found clean."
See, there has been an eerie silence from the right-wingers about Clinton's past...and I find it seriously hard to believe that they will not jump on the opportunity to bring up all the scandals. Do I think they should? No, but I doubt that's going to matter in their minds. So my point is that there are equal risks to both candidates, and just because one has been in public eye longer does not necessarily make them a shoo-in in the general.
March 29, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is generally referred to as keeping one's powder dry.
March 30, 2008 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, who are actual VOTERS? Why do I have a feeling that they are in big states? You know, the ones that matter.
Look, here's a clue: There are a total of 2687 pledged delegates. This means that in order for a candidate to get to the magic number of 2024 in pledged delegates alone they would have to win by better than 75% in all 50 states.
Fortunately, this is the way that the Democratic nominee is decided in Fantasy Land and not America.
No candidate will ever get the nomination in pledged delegates alone with the way the system is structured and it doesn't matter because this isn't what they're required to do. Obama will get there in total delegates, superdelegates included, and this is the only realistic way that any candidate will ever do this unless the system is changed.
March 30, 2008 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment