Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
This Election is in the Hands of the DNC
TPM reader clearthinker recently posted regarding a perspective on the momentum of the superdelegates. This got me curious, so I started poking around and looking at the data myself. In the words of Enrico Fermi, this will be pretty "back of the envelope."
The totals by group first caught my eye. The first group is the Distinguished Party Leaders (DPLs). They total 19, with Clinton holding 10, Obama holding 4 and the remaining 5 uncommitted. If you're curious, the remaining five are Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, George Mitchell, Roy Romer and Robert Schwarz Strauss. There is a sixth, Robert Byrd, but I think he's been tentatively held off of these totals due to his current condition. However, given that there are only five here I don't think this category is particularly interesting as it can't really swing the outcome.
Then there are the Governors, Senators and Representatives. The most notable thing here is the distribution. Clinton and Obama are splitting these categories nearly 50/50: 53% Governors, 54% Senators and 49% for Obama with 50% over all three categories.
This brings us to the DNC members. This is really the only place where Hillary Clinton still has an advantage. Her overall superdelegate advantage is expressed almost entirely in this category. She leads Obama right now 242 to 205 with an edge over him in the DNC members of 137 to 103.
This makes the DNC members category pretty crucial for Clinton at this point. If Obama can close this gap, assuming that the split stays even among the Governors, Senators and Representatives, there will actually be no way for her to overcome him using the superdelegates. I hope by now everyone realizes that barring some kind of very bizarre reversal of fortune in the near-term upcoming primaries resulting in Clinton wins in excess of 20 points the superdelegates will decide this outcome of this primary.
So what can we know about trends surrounding these superdelegates? As clearthinker pointed out before, they have been breaking for Obama as of late and he now has 46% of the committed superdelegates. I've taken the liberty of graphing the data from Wikipedia for which the commitment data is known so that we can have an idea of what this trend looks like. This sample group ends up being 46% of the total superdelegates and ends up having a distribution of 43% Obama as compared to 46% of the real total. This means that the sample is biased against Obama by three points.
I've also created a graph of the DNC members for which the commitment dates are known. This is a smaller sample, only 26% of the real total, with a distribution of 44% Obama compared to 43% for the real total. So this is a smaller sample, but it's only biased towards Obama by one point.
So what does it all mean? If the Governors, Senators and Representatives continue to split 50/50, then Obama will be able to make a Clinton win impossible by closing the gap in the DNC members. So how has this been going lately? I've created one more graph, which shows the DNC superdelegates gained by each candidate since Super Tuesday. I think this shows how close we really may be to this all being over. If this 34 DNC member gap is closed, there will simply be no realistic way for Hillary Clinton to win without some sort of radical distribution of delegates at large.
Another interesting point is that there are only 153 uncommitted DNC members left. Even if every single one of them pledged for Clinton right now, the race would still be tied in terms of total delegates. What this means is that the clock is seriously ticking for these DNC members to really be able to have any influence at all. If Barack Obama can widen his lead among pledged delegates to be comfortably above the number of uncommitted DNC members, then it will not be possible for the superdelegates to tip the election in Clinton's favor as they are currently distributed.
Take all this with a grain of salt if you wish, but I think it paints a pretty stark picture for Hillary Clinton. It gives me reason to believe that we may not see this thing roll into Pennsylvania.
Comments (21)
DF -
Thanks for the trench-work!!! I like having something to grab onto in midst of MSM lazy del analysis.
I need to re-read your piece a couple more times to absorb but at first two readings gives solace.
March 9, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Basically, the short version is this: Clinton has a slight lead among superdelegates and this lead is almost entirely expressed in her lead among DNC members. We know that she would need absolutely unrealistic wins (70%) in upcoming primaries to close the delegate gap and FlyOnTheWall among others have noted that she needs to gain superdelegates 2.5 to 1. What I'm showing is that she's hemorrhaging her lead in DNC members, the only category where she has an edge.. Once she loses this, they will lose their ability to tip it for her. It just won't be possible anymore. There are only 113 supers that aren't in this group and she's splitting these with Obama almost 50/50. There are only 153 DNC members left and even if they all committed for her right now she wouldn't be able to overtake Obama.
So not only can she not catch him in pledged delegates, the superdelegates will lose the ability to tip it if Obama can increase this gap beyond the remaining DNC members. And that's assuming that the current trend ends and he's stops picking them up faster than she does.
March 9, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
From your lips to God's ears!
March 9, 2008 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely put together, DF. I'd tip my hat to you -- if only I was wearing one!
March 9, 2008 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or pants.
March 9, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wondering if there's some way to measure the strength of these superdelegates' commitment to the person they've endorsed?
I know the media are contacting the uncommitted supers regularly in order to see if they are now supporting a candidate, but I wonder if anyone has been checking in with these early DNC supporters of Clinton? Are they wavering or solid in her corner no matter what? Has anyone read anythign that tackles this issue?
I ask because I think the most damaging news for Clinton in the past month was the loss of John Lewis to Obama. If there were some more defections it would create an air of uncertainty in the campaign and with other supers.
Shout out to John E. and Bill R. - hey guys, help us end this before it gets really ugly!
March 9, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great read. One correction however.
It's Obama who can take this nomination outright without relying on supers if he managed to win the remaining contests with 20 point margins. Not likely, but it's within his reach.
Clinton now needs a bit more than a 20 point victory over Obama in every remain primary and caucus in order to reach the 60% of pledged delegates still up for grabs she needs to tie Obama's pledged delegate total. Again, not likely, especially when you look at some of the remaining states who are still waiting to vote.
This is, in a nutshell, why the Hillary camp is now trumpeting the popular vote total over delegate counts. Obama is also leading the popular vote total as well, and will likely continue to hold his lead unless Florida holds a revote while Michigan refuses.
Again, great article. Just wanted to weigh in on that one part.
March 9, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that sentence was kind of ugly and you're absolutely correct.
March 9, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's consider the campaign tactics of each candidate in terms of how the delegates eventually sort this out. So then the question becomes, are they badgered or bullied or outright "bought" in terms of future favors on the Hillary side? And alternatively, do they see Obama as having the temperament of a diplomat? Someone who is not going to badger or bully or "sell" future favors, but instead tries to pitch his arguments in terms of the best interests of the country, what we all can do together, how diplomacy creates a win-win at the convention, for the party, for the country, and for the world.
To me I'm thinking that the whole thing comes down to whether a delegate can be motivated by a carrot and stick philosophy (e.g., their own personal gain or power) versus whether delegates are moved to place ideals... rule of law, Constitution, best interests of the country and the world above personal loss or gain.
We've got different philosophies going here. And it all comes down to that, I think. Short-term personal gain or score-settling (the Clinton view of how politics works) versus long term selflessness in view of our common fate as a nation and as citizens of the world.
I think the delegates who have held off are looking to the longterm, wanting to vote for selfless ideals... or they would have been bought off by now.
Some will disagree with this assessment, but I think it comes down to conscience and what really matters when it's said and done.
Will we as a nation take the high road or the low road?
God, I'm hoping for the high road from these delegates!
March 9, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great graphs! They suggest that Hillary's lead in super-dels is from DNC members who committed to her early on. Obviously she has strong DNC connections, so that's to be expected. But as you say, this is bad news ... for Hillary. It means her closest friends in the DNC have already committed, and she's gained most of what she can gain from her DNC connections. I hope.
March 9, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
rabbit:
While the momentum is still in Obama's favor, it's still not 100% clear to me as what the final DNC people will do. However, this is exactly the reason why I believe we will better understand the Party Elders' minds on the direction of the Democratic Party.
This primary can really reinvigorate the Democratic Party, and redraw the national political landscape (in much the same way as Ronald Reagan tossed off the moderate section of the GOP in 1980), or have the Dems possible suffer the fate of the Whigs starting in 1856.
This is truly a historic election: not for the race and gender of the candidates, but because it's a watershed moment for the Dems, the first since FDR put together his coalition in 1932.
March 9, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. I think what we're seeing here is a showdown between the old guard DNC of McAuliffe and the new guard under Dean. The DNC rules have gotten progressively more democratic and I think Howard Dean is relishing in watching the success of the 50 state strategy. I think the Reagan analogy is exactly right and I really don't understand why every Dem doesn't want to get behind this. How could the Dems not want a Reagan right now? They want to go back to the 90s?
Another point to consider here is that the DNC is watching this and they know they can call it any time now. So what reason do they have to let it continue? One very good reason is money. Obama breaks the financing record every month that he spends on the campaign trail. Will this trend continue against John McCain? Hopefully so, but there's no question that the Clinton/Obama match-up has been fantastic in terms of filling Democratic coffers.
March 9, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and in the "reasons to call it now" category we have MI and FL. No one wants to pay for a re-vote and no one outside of the Clinton campaign wants to seat these delegates as is. How to get out of this mess? Call the election next week.
March 9, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
so, do the supers move en mass after tuesday? or do we have to wait till pa or beyond?
March 9, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there's any way to know that for sure, but what I intended to show here is that they really can't wait indefinitely. I don't think Mississippi is going to net enough pledged delegates for Obama to close the door on the DNC supers. Now, they may use the Mississippi win as an opportunity to go ahead and close the door themselves after an Obama win, but this is pure speculation.
If the current distribution trend holds up, he needs to net himself another 30-40 pledged delegates to close the door on the DNC supers. At this point they would be unable to overcome his lead even if every single one pledged to Clinton.
March 9, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Your hard work is to be commended. My only worry is that even if Barack is able to "shut the door" on the supers, by obtaining the 30-40 pledge delegates you mentioned, what is to keep his supers from gravitating to Hillary? It seems the only ones who would be unable to do so--because they would need to save face, it seems--are those who publicly switched from her in the first place (e.g., Lewis).
March 9, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's true that they can switch at any time. Everything I've written here is based on trends that we've seen so far and these trends can't be counted on to continue with certainty.
March 9, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must admit, your results do make me feel better about Barack's chances are getting the nod.
March 9, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Here is my take. There is The Math, and then there is The Chaos.
The Math is as you described it-- it has been clear since Super Tuesday, and obvious since Obama ran the table last month.
The Chaos is more difficult to see, but there have been hints of where it is going. Whispers of lawsuits in Texas, the 3 AM commercial, MSM Momentumism, re-votes in Michigan and Florida, the Kenyan garb photos, etc. The editor, Mr. Marshall, when commenting on the Monster Resignation, called it "getting inside the Obama campaign's head." This is close to the explanation of what's going on, but I think The Chaos is a little more sinister than that.
Let's pretend The Math happens as you say it will, and Obama ends this with a 200 pledged delegate lead. Let's start with what we know: the MSM will not lead with "Obama Wins Democratic Nomination." Confetti will not fall. We know they will lead with something like "Photo Finish: Superdelegates To Decide Race." Start to imagine the spin that the Clinton campaign will start feeding the MSM. Imagine two or three more Outrage Scandals. Naftagate. Monstergate. The Chaos.
We sometimes call this technique "poisoning the well." We don't have a good word for this in English-- does anyone know of a good term for this in another language? But the game is as old as time. When I think of this sort of politics, I think of Cinderella and her sisters. Or in astrology, the sign of Scorpio, that would rather sting himself to death than allow his enemy the victory. In a word, the strategy is this: create confusion, and in The Chaos seize power.
March 9, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the term you're looking for is scorched earth.
March 9, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
DF thank you for your post, I do agree fully, the math is beyond question. What is in question is the length Clinton will go with THE Chaos or scorched earth approach.
The scorched earth approach has begun, examples: the Ken Star reference, the apparent preference of McCain for CIC, etc. These remarks shall not be forgotten and likely be used again in one from or another, too much will spell her doom real soon.
Am unconvinced that a full fledged power crab by Clinton will happen as too much attention has been raised, the inevitable narrative is long dead, and Clinton fatigue is palpable.
Also, the MSM is no longer at attention as regard: the MI & FL primaries are being put in their actual context; the effect of the pledged delegates as opposed to the supers, etc. I suspect the MSM as a whole is giving them some time(face saving) for the matter to settle; if this continues after April 22 THE CHAOS scenario is more likely.
Also, the six week break will allow for some reflection by party elders, etc. I suspect the ILL 14th, Foster, will be a major topic. This will not be to Clinton's benefit nor will maintaining the non-sense by Penn and so on during the past week. If this continues I suspect many more Supers will pledge to Obama as in the past month. Short of an absolute blowout(60%+ of delegates)on April 22 by Clinton the party is over as more Supers will move to Obama. The grace period or face savings period would have expired.
Unfortunately, some vindictiveness will occur and this will, if not complete, will continue the marginalizing of the Clintons. True, the Clinton's may choose not to save face, but the vast majority of the Democratic party will. If she chooses a floor fight forever will she be scorned and her allies and friends will be free to move on as she in fact had the same chance as Obama; a second ballot will not happen, she is simply not worth it. In sum it will be settled before the convention.
March 9, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment