Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Wednesday Morning Questions (and Answers)
1) What's changed in the past 24-hours?
Nothing. And everything.
Yesterday, Obama had a chance to end the fight for the Democratic nomination, and Hillary faced elimination. By winning three out of the four states, Hillary seems to have convinced the punditry that she remains viable, if only barely. We now face a long and increasingly-bitter fight, as Clinton ramps up attacks on Obama. That's a big change from the relatively-civil battle we'd witnessed until the last few days, and if the contest really drags on for another seven weeks, that's also significant.
On the other hand, when the dust settles, it looks as if any changes in the delegate count will be negligible. Just a few weeks ago, the Clinton campaign was talking about narrowing the overall delegate gap to 25, pulling even, or even taking the lead on the strength of the March 4 vote. Depending on the count, the actual lead will remain somewhere around 80 delegates in most leading tallies - or just over 100, using the Obama campaign's count that fully allocates the delegates. Running out the clock is never a good way to win, but every contest that passes with that lead intact is a major blow to Clinton's aspirations.
2) Did Clinton "win back her base" last night in Ohio? Did Obama "cut into Clinton's base" in Vermont?
How to put this? No.
One of the challenges of covering the long series of contests in the Democratic nominating process is assembling a cohesive narrative out of discrete events. Sometimes, that makes a great deal of sense. In 2004, we watched John Kerry's momentum build state-by-state, as his performance in one round boosted his viability in the next. That's one reason pundits like to speak about such elusive things as momentum. The problem is that we're comparing unlike quantities. Obama, for example, has won better than 80% of the black vote in every contest since Georgia. But his share of white male voters has varied widely. There's a temptation to over-interpret those facts - to suggest that when his share surges upward, he holds more appeal for white men, but that Clinton's recent attacks have eroded that support. The difficulty is that we're not talking about the same people. There's every reason to believe that had Wisconsin not held its election until yesterday, it still would have delivered a substantial margin for Obama, even as Ohio went solidly for Hillary. The two states are quite different - driven by different issues, inhabited by populations of different socio-economic statuses, and traditionally supportive of different sorts of candidates. Conversely, had New Jersey decided to take part in the Potomac Primary, geography be damned, it would almost certainly have tipped toward Hillary anyway, even as three other contests went for Barack.
The headlines this morning all speak of Hillary reassembling her coalition or reclaiming her base, but there's no reason to believe that voters in Ohio ever left her, or that they needed to be reclaimed. In fact, the polls taken over the past month tell a different story; that Obama cut into some of her key constituencies, but not enough to win, and saw some of his gains slip away in the final days. Obama's sole triumph of the evening, in Vermont, is a similar case - he didn't have to win voters over, they'd been backing him for as long as pollsters have been asking the question.
There's another way to look at last night's results. It would appear that the Democratic primary electorate is fairly evenly divided along some fairly consistent lines. With the exception of black voters, however, monovariate explanations fall short. In other words, predicting outcomes typically means combining various traits of the electorate. It's not enough to say that Obama is likely to do better among men, even though that may be true; we have to say that Obama tends to take white men in northern states with at least a college education, and that his share of their votes increases as educational attainment and income levels rise, but falls with advancing age. We might add that he does best in this group in states where blacks comprise less than 5% of the population.
Suddenly, momentum all but vanishes. In national polls, Hillary Clinton has garnered astonishingly consistent levels of support for more than a year, almost always falling in the range of 40-45%. Obama's support has steadily risen since Iowa, as he's introduced himself to voters - but almost all of that support has been drawn from those who backed his one-time rivals in the field, and remarkably little from Hillary. (The obvious exception is the mass defection of black voters from Hillary to Obama in February.) In other words, the electorate knows exactly how it feels about the two candidates - and it's split. That's why the Obama campaign was able to make projections all the way at the beginning of February that - although sharply at odds with the polling at the time - were proven remarkably prescient last night.
That's a less exciting narrative than the surges and the improbably comebacks; the gains and the losses; the eroding bases and reassembled coalitions. But it's also more interesting. Each time the traveling circus arrives in a new state, we see a microcosm of this national narrative - the initial numbers, based largely on name-recognition, rapidly shift, until they come into alignment with the state's demographic composition. Then they remain remarkably stubborn. The major variables at play are election-day turnout, crossover voting, and local issues that cut contrary to national trends. And it also allows us to project results forward in time, with a fair degree of accuracy. The upshot is that Obama will likely add around a dozen delegates to his pledged delegate lead before the convention, even if Hillary contests every remaining race. There's margin for error there, but not much - barring a catastrophic scandal, the two rivals will roughly split the remaining pledged delegates.
3) Why is it that reporters continue to tout contests in the largest states as if they will have the greatest impact on the outcome of the race?
Almost every headline I've read, seen, or heard this morning has focused on Pennsylvania, still seven weeks away. But consider that a 60-40% Clinton landslide in that state would yield her (at most) a 32-delegate margin, only about a third of what Clinton needs to close the current gap. Recent polling puts the race closer than that, at somewhere around 55-45%, which would yield (at most) a margin of 17 delegates. In both cases, the outsize clout wielded by heavily-black districts under party rules probably means the margin would be somewhat smaller. And unless Pennsylvania turns out to be dramatically different from the other rust-belt states, Obama will rapidly make up that ground, only to cede some of it back in the final few days (a few polls show that already happening). It wouldn't be the slightest bit surprising if Clinton wins decisively in Pennsylvania, and her pledged delegate gain is somewhere around a dozen. Call it the Ohio scenario, if you will.
Compared to the 158 pledged delegates in the Keystone State, the 33 up for grabs in Mississippi and the 12 in Wyoming do indeed seem like small potatoes. But in 2000, fully 55% of Mississippi primary voters were black. In 2004, that number rose to 56%. Let's be conservative here, and assume that increased interest and higher turnout lower those percentages. We've actually seen an electorate that looks remarkably like the one in Mississippi - in Georgia, where black voters accounted for 51% of those who went to the polls. Obama took that state, 2-1. So I think it's more than reasonable to expect a 22-11 delegate split in Mississippi. Add in an Obama victory in the caucus state of Wyoming (7-5? 8-4?) and suddenly, those two states don't look so small. In fact, the 13-15 delegate margin they're likely to yield is about the same as the optimistic scenarios for Clinton in Pennsylvania.
4) If Clinton's betting her campaign on winning superdelegates to her cause, just how many of them will she have to win over?
By the most transparent count, there are some 284 superdelegates who have yet to publicly announce their endorsements. (That excludes the 76 unpledged add-on delegates, but the best-case Clinton scenario has those delegates evenly split.) Let's assume, for the moment, that the current margin holds - that's actually a remarkably rosy scenario for the Clinton campaign, given the states that have yet to vote, and Obama's built-in advantages in the allocation formulae. The Obama camp claimed 160 more pledged delegates than Hillary going into yesterday's battles - let's whittle that down to 140, in case the Obama camp's "double-digit margin" in the Texas caucuses doesn't actually materialize. Most superdelegate counts give Hillary a margin of 40-45, so we'll knock the total down to 100, because it's a nice, round number. So to grab the nomination, Hillary needs the remaining superdelegates to split somewhat better than 2-1 in her favor.
The trouble is that the current tallies aren't graven in stone. More than a few of Hillary's supporters are under substantial pressure from their own consituencies to reconsider their endorsements; I haven't seen any media accounts of similar pressures being exerted on Obama backers. Hillary also faces an uphill battle in convincing some of her own supporters, and more than a few of the fence-sitters, to vote against the winner of the pledged-delegate tally, a title she no longer even pretends to contest. And, we should mention that Hillary's superdelegate lead has fallen from around 100 to its present total over the past few weeks - the trend is not promising.
So here's a prediction that I'll reiterate: in the next week or so, we're going to see the superdelegates effectively settle this race - ratifying the pledged-delegate results. Next week's elections will see Obama's pledged-delegate lead surge back to 150 or more. With just a few dozen superdelegate endorsements - or fewer, if they include defections - he can entirely erase Hillary's lead in that category. Say he pulls that off - pulling in enough superdelegates to even things out. Hillary would need a virtually impossible margin among the remaining supers to pull out the race. But she faces another problem - the less probable her win, the less likely she is to garner further support. Her current rationale is that the superdelegates will see her as the stronger candidate and come to back her; without a superdelegate lead, that doesn't look too plausible.
We're not going to have to wait for 285 people to make up their minds. A few dozen more decisions will effectively end this thing.
If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend this' link. You can find more analysis on my blog. As always, I welcome comments and corrections. And thanks to all who have responded.
Comments (86)
It's been like a desert here without one of your posts!
Thanks for the refreshments!
♪♪♪
March 5, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
An update:
The Obama campaign is now claiming that when all the votes are counted, the pledged delegate tally from yesterday will be 187-183, for a 4-delegate Clinton win.
March 5, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allow me, if you will, to update (4) using these new numbers - assuming they hold up to scrutiny and/or legal challenges.
Last night, Hillary chopped Obama's pledged-delegate lead from 160 down to 156. Next week's contests should put pad that total to around 170. I agree with Billy that Hillary's likely to prevail in Pennsylvania (demography being destiny this cycle), and would guess that it'll pare the margin back to around 155. The remaining 408 pledged delegates should split fairly evenly.
Hillary's present lead among the superdelegates (according to DemConWatch) stands at 43. Even if she wounds Obama's pride in Penna, as Billy suggests, she'll need to add over 100 to that margin in order to overcome his lead in pledged delegates. I hate to bring you down on such a happy day, Mr. Glad, but a Hillary victory in the Keystone State will almost certainly prove pyrrhic - she could win the vote, but she can't win enough delegates to make a real difference.
March 5, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. That's why she needs the super delegates or, even better, for him to concede. IMHO, it hasn't been about the elected delegate count for a long time now. Did you hear her this morning? She is already laying out the rational for them to step in and settle the race. A lot of feel good stuff about their role in the Party, sober judgment, piled on top of the Ohio story -- no one has ever one the Presidency without winning the Ohio primary.
Obama is out of bullets. Hard choice now. If he goes negative too hard, he may not be able to campaign for her effectively in the Fall, essentially shutting the door on the VP slot, which she keeps dangling in front of him.
She is just looking so good right now. IMHO super delegates are already imagining her on the stage with McCain, hearing the voices of millions of women of all races screaming yes she will!
But how does she give the VP to Obama without offending Hispanics? LOL. I don't know tech stuff.
March 5, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me you're at least half joking here.
He wins 11 in a row and the closest she can come is 17 in Wisconsin, but Hillary wins Ohio by 10 and all of a sudden she's got the claim on the nomination? I guess Obama should have put all $150 million into Ohio.
Hillary can use Ohio as a smokescreen for a few days but not seven weeks. Every time the media comes back to the delegate reality (as they did after Feb. 5) it gets harder to convince them that delegates don't matter.
March 5, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine, she is laying the ground for the supers to decide the outcome. That said, why should we suppose that they will decide in her favor? What is the motivating force that you see swaying the supers to choose her?
March 5, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? She is "looking so good?" Are you high? She lost this race weeks ago.
March 5, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so high I can't go on. LOL. I wish.
March 5, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
Are you okay, man? You don't sound lucid.
Clinton regained some mo and the press is on her side right now, adding to it. She's worked hard for it so I think congratulations are in order.
But I agree with what Greg DeLassus said: "What is the motivating force that you see swaying the supers to choose her?"
March 5, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm fine. Thanks for asking. The motivating force is that she looks much better than Obama right now and is going to look even better after Pennsylvania. He's looking shopworn, and she is coming on strong v. McCain. My theory is simply that after she beats Obama in a couple of more key states that we want to win against McCain, the super delegates will get behind her. The longer she keeps Obama campaigning, the more ragged he looks around the edges. I also think she made her first explicit call to women in her Ohio victory speech, and that we will see a real response to that call in Pennsylvania. She has also made it clear to the super delegates that the number two slot is a possibility for Obama.
March 6, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL indeed.
March 5, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so tired of yelling and screaming at Clinton supporters. What I wanr now are some honest answers. Because I am taking your claims seriously. You intend for your candidate to win. Period.
If Hillary steals this nomination white women will have only themselves to blame for the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v. Wade. Did you notice that in Ohio, Hillary actually did beter with black men than with black women? That's because black women would rather spend the entire day (and that's how long it usually takes) getting our hair braided at the beauty parlor than vote for Hillary Clinton. Her nomination has ominous portents for the entire democratic ticket. I myself will spend the day at a day spa getting my mani/pedi and sipping herbal tea before I would dream of voting for anybody in a party so stupid as to nominate Hillary Clinton for president. She has never exceeded 50% in a national poll. Ever. She has half the voters saying they would never, ever vote for her. And now she is adding Democrats to that list, especially African-American voters.
Billy Glad, please tell me what YOU would say to African-American voters who have stood by this party through thick and thin for decades, who have been waiting for this moment every bit as long as white women, and who see a qualified African-American candidate who goes to the convention with a pledged delegate lead, an advantage in popular votes, and who has won more state contests. Yet, the candidate who has won fewer states and pledged delegates is somehow deemed 'stronger' and gifted with the nomination? How would you propose making that right with African-American voters? I don't think it will be possible. Not even if Obama accepts a VP position. If he does that, he ends his political career and black people will consider our early suspicions of him to be born out. No, if you get your way, and Hillary is nominated under the circumstances currently unfolding, you should expect to lose the general because the most loyal voters in the democratic base will be so disgusted we will stage a blackout of this election.
Yes, some of us will stay home. Some of us will vote for McCain. Some will vote for Nader or the Greens. Not everyone, but enough so that the Democrats can expect to lose the election. If it's at all close, you can forget it.
Over the last several weeks, I hear a certain giddy recklessness in the posts of Clinton supporters, and especially your posts. A sense that whatever it takes is fine and repair the damage later. What I am saying is that the damage you are prepared to sustain to long standing coalitions and even personal relationships probably can't be repaired in time for November. At the end of this process, Hillary Clinton has her safe Senate seat in New York to return to. But the dozens of members of CBC who are supporting her against the wishes of their constituents are risking their careers for her. The dirtier her fight with Obama, the more she allows her campaign to smear him because of his name or play to racism among older white voters, the greater the peril for her black 'friends' in congress. And I place the " around friends because if she was a friend, she would be running a very different campaign. How do you propose protecting your friends in the CBC who support your candidate? Or don't those delegates matter? Is the loyalty all one way?
I really want to know. So please reply.
March 6, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fly,
As to #4: If Superdelegates were looking for cover to back Clinton, I would say they had plenty last fall. If they didn't do it then, there's even less reason to do it now.
I think the holdout Supers are waiting for the cover to break away from Hillary.
And as to #3, don't be surprised on May 6, when Indiana and North Carolina break strongly for Obama, to see his pledged margin not just hold after April 22, but increase, perhaps by as many as fifty.
March 5, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect to Mssr Sargent and Kleefeld, who do a fine job in every respect, this post is better than anything currently running on the TPC-EC main page. I am very much obliged to you, dear FotW, for your points #2 & #4, because they state so well matters that should have been obvious, but which had escaped my conscious attention. I blush to admit it know, but I had been reading the exit polls to mean that Obama was losing white support. Of course you are right that white voters in OH are not motivated by the same goals and pressures as white voters in VA (or some such) and that it is pointless to compare the exits polls from these various states to look for a trend in white support.
Meanwhile, I know that some Clinton supporters are really quite certain that the supers want to break for Clinton and are just waiting for TX, OH and PA to give them "the cover" they need to do so (these are Billy Glad's own words, but I notice the same sentiment popping up in Frankly0's rhetoric and shades of it in Kensdad's posts as well). Obviously FotW's analysis takes rather a dim view of this idea. Would any of the folks who hold with this Clinton-will-win-it-with-supers hypothesis care to explain what leads them to this conclusion and where they think that FotW goes wrong on this point?
March 5, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg DeLassus,
I Agree.
Thanks for your insights, FlyOnTneWall.
March 5, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly! Happy to see you on this wonderful day. Your wrong, my friend. Politics is still about emotion. She takes him to PA and beats him bad and he concedes. You will eat your words. But yours are tasty words, so it won't be too bad.
March 5, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just ruined the moment.
You're not wrong, but let's see how hard Obama hits back now that Hill has opened the fear mongering, attack door. Emotion, for sure, but we don't know exactly how that shapes up in Penn over the next seven weeks. Let's see who wins the emotion game, and who ends up ripping the party apart.
In any case, after a solid unemotional analysis, you're observation is a point well taken.
March 5, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that was true, Obama would just concede now.
Fact is, everything is going to plan. He still leads, and will be the Democratic Nominee.
March 5, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of his problem is getting you to see the wisdom of his concession. Maybe he's afraid you'll feel let down and will embrace the situation better if he takes a beating in PA, WVA, KY? Maybe he figures after that you'll see him spending some time as VP before he runs on his own as a plus. I don't know tech stuff.
March 5, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy G,
I am on the ground here in PA in the Philly 'burbs and I am here to tell you that there is no way Hillary is going to "beat him bad" here. She may well win PA, but I seriously doubt it would be more than 55-45, barring some fundmental game-changer (it may well be closer and he could possibly win if all the cards fall into place for him).
Also, if Obama wins the pledged delegates, and it looks like he will (again, barring a game-changer), how on earth is the Democratic party going to take the nomination away from the first african-american with a legitimate chance to be President to give it to Hillary? Consider for a moment how that act would be viewed by Obama's african-american supporters -- upwards of 90% of african-americans voting in recent democratic primaries -- not to mention his supporters of other races). It would totally destroy the relationship between the Democratic party and african-americans. As stupid as the Democratic party appears to be on occasion, I can't imagine they would leap off of that cliff.
March 6, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally, a posting with educated analysis.
Thanks for the clarity, you've relieved my primary hangover this wednesday.
March 5, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The year of the little guy. The Davids against the Goliaths. Little states rule! Little states each have two senators! All Senators are supers. And even in those big states, many, many folks voted for Barack "Who's Sane" Obama. So, the underdogs are really the Obama folk!
Thank you, Fly!
March 5, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, not _all_ senators are supers... only the democratic senators.
March 5, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected. ♪♪♪
Go Barack "Who's Sane" Obama!
March 5, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's he going to concede after Pennsylvania? That Hillary Clinton can't get above 58% in any state except Arkansas, but needs 65% after this week to muster a pledged tie?
"_Obama_ must pull out!"
*cuckoo*
*cuckoo*
Obama 08! Get on the train, folks . . . three-fourths of Dems have spoken, and we need everyone's help to defeat McCain.
March 5, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely wonderful analysis, Fly - thank you for all of your hard work and insight. Let's hope that your predictions bear fruit and Obama is indeed our nominee for the general.
March 5, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Fly - great stuff. The numbers don't lie.
Yes Billy, you too are right: the Supers will decide what's best for the party and act:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/first-new-superdelegate-endors.php#comments
March 5, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great job throughout the campaign Fly, i am not trying to pry but did you study this stuff in school! My girlfriend loves statistics but hates politics so go figure! Keep on keeping on!
March 5, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis, Fly.
One question - what of the MI & FL mess that has been Clinton's trump card since South Carolina? McAullife last night spoke of Crist's offer of a do over in FL.
I seem to recall prior pundit analysis saying even with seating MI & FL delegates, Clinton still wouldn't have anyway of getting the edge in pledged. Does this still hold true?
March 5, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly,
I see no mention of the possibility of Florida and Michigan primaries being re-held. Do you view this as a potentially significant factor at this stage?
As usual, your analyses are the cream of the crop.
March 5, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love you, Fly!
Billy, I disagree that HRC is making the VP offer from a position of strength. It's another attempt by her to frame him as her subordinate, but moreso, I think she's perfectly well aware it's her only hope at the presidency. No one is going to overturn the electoral results to give this to the person who won less.
March 5, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great stuff, Fly. If Obama scores expected wins in MS and WY, then we're back to March 3, except less opportunities for Clinton to score delegates. Also, the drip-drip-drip of the supposed 50 secret delegates flocking to Obama should signal he's the inevitable nominee.
Plus, if he leverages the superdelegates into being surrogates for him in PA, that'll give him more firepower in scoring a win there.
I think the Party would prefer to have him win-out, but can they wait that long?
March 5, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still say that it's like watching the final season of West Wing all over again.
March 5, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
dojo23 & AdAbsurdum:
I've written before that I expect the Clinton campaign to abandon its futile quest to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations, and to press instead for re-votes. So far, we've seen only small hints of that, and there are some substantial obstacles, the enormous cost not the least of them. I suspect the only reason we haven't seen more movement is that everyone's been hoping it won't be necessary. Obama's folks are praying that their lead will be large enough that they can afford to be gracious and seat MI and FL; Hillary is well aware that she can't replicate her current margins if the vote were held again, and so is betting on seating the current delegations; and the DNC has been hoping that the whole mess will resolve itself, one way or the other.
If the races were held again, it's just not clear what the outcome would be. Florida would probably go to Hillary, but by a smaller margin. Michigan would likely be more of a battle, and it would yield delegates more firmly committed to Obama. It's tough to see a re-vote making a huge difference, even though the two states count 313 pledged delegates between them. Maybe a dozen or two for Hillary, probably less. It would depend, in part, on the method. The contests would be labeled caucuses, because they'd be held under party (not governmental) auspices. They might try to replicate the primary, far and away the most expensive option. Or they might opt for a more classic caucus system. Either way, it'd be a mess - we've seen how ugly it gets when state parties run these contests, and these would be held with minimal lead time and no prior experience.
Seating the delegations as things stand would give Hillary 178 additional pledged delegates. Obama would gain at least 67, and as many as 122, if we assume that all of the 'uncommitted' delegates from Michigan break his way. Edwards also picks up 13 in Florida. Remember, too, that seating the delegations also means seating their superdelegates. Today, seating the MI and FL supers would give Hillary a net gain of +10.
So it's not hard to see why the Clinton campaign is so focused on Michigan and Florida - they stand to gain 66 to 121 delegates on Obama. Even a revote might conceivably narrow the race. The problem is that so long as Obama retains a delegate lead, the delegations won't be seated if they stand to affect the outcome. One can imagine solutions - a pledge from those delegations to vote in proportion to the national delegate tallies is among the more popular proposals. But there's no reason to think these solutions will work. The delegations and state parties are adamant that their primaries be respected; and of course, the rest of the party recognizes that would be ruinous.
It's really quite a mess. Re-voting is the best way out, but it's getting late in the day to try that. The biggest impact this will have is on Democratic prospects in November - if Hillary forces a floor-fight on the issue, there are going to be a lot of bitter voters in Florida and Michigan.
March 5, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
nice analysis. recommended as the EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!! it clearly is.
March 5, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks.
March 5, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another great post. You're far and away the sharpest reader blogger at TPM and better than most of the celebrity bloggers over at the coffee house as well.
March 5, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most? :-/
Nah, he's better than all of the other bloggers, professionals included.
March 5, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It comes as no surprise that the superdelegates will have to settle the race. But what people here seem to be glossing over is that this applies to Obama as well as Hillary. While Obama may enjoy a small lead in the number of pledged delegates going in to the convention, it's not enough to win the nomination. Hence, the superdelegates decide. I could see his supporters making the claim that the will of the voters must be honored, but is his lead significant enough to make the claim that the voters have spoken? At this point, I'd have to say no. Indeed, the number of pledged delegates doesn't even correspond to the number of votes - witness Nevada, where Hillary won the vote but Obama won more delegates. For the first time in a long time we're seeing how the nominating system works and it's a cruel joke. Almost makes you want to go back to the days of the smoky room.
March 5, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Fly.
March 5, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's strategy -- not an ideal one but an effective one nonetheless -- is this:
1. Fight her to a draw on her big days, her "firewalls".
2. Mop up the floor with her everywhere else.
It's remarkable how effective this has been. He took lemons (her big firewalls, compacted calendar, lack of name recognition, etc), and made lemonade.
February 5th was her big day, and he leveraged places like Colorado and Idaho to fight her to a draw.
Ohio and Texas was her second firewall. Yet she only gained 10, although the Texas caucuses are still not counted. All he had to do was be competitive in these two states and prevent a blowout, and he succeeded.
March 5, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, by the way.
March 5, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for the macro-picture, Fly--I'd be lost without your perspective.
March 5, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly you wrote:
"By the most transparent count, there are some 284 superdelegates who have yet to publicly announce their endorsements. (That excludes the 76 unpledged add-on delegates, but the best-case Clinton scenario has those delegates evenly split.)"
Fly (or anyone else) can you explain what/who are these "unpledged add ons" and why is the best case scenario for Hillary an even split?
March 5, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure whether this post (about #85) on this thead will be read by anyone but I just feel the need to say this:
I'm something of a political junkie but I've had enough. I will gladly take either Obama or Clinton at this point and I just want to avoid the Dems going up in flames over this thing. Its time to focus on why the county should not elect another Republican.
In any case if there's going to be another month or two of wrangling I pray it doesn't degenerate into a food fight. And for the rest of March I'll be taking a break and reading only the sports page (and maybe world news)...
March 5, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice analysis.
The media is to blame for all of this because things only appear bad because the media is eating up the Hillary spin like she is dropping pez out of her ass. You are right, in reality she still has no chance, and her win was not meaningful. I just hope the media will wake up and start vetting HER, because unlike Obama, she actually does have big questions that remain unanswered. My full post-election breakdown:
http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/28045053
March 5, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I have heard all the smugness, through yesterday from my fellow Obama supporters about what will not be able to do. And then I watch her do it. When someone with no actual, personal experience at governing or management, gets 90% of experience in all exit polls, then this woman can spin a yarn like I have never seen.
So Obama supporters taking solace in delegate count -- be very, very afraid. She's also spun this ridiculousness about the "big" states, as if that makes a God damned difference between now and November. New York not going blue? Give me a break. That Obama could pull one or two small red/purple states, no one cares. And everyone should. He would help to re-make the electoral map and add a good number of democratic congresspeople throughout the country. She will only bring the Republicans out in drove for McCain. They won't even need money. They'll have Hillary.
I have just seen ridiculous rationales from her throughout this campaign, and she gets away with it and it becomes part of the narrative. Expect her to win some battle on Florida and Michigan. Or the great party leaders, like Pelosi, who has done such a bang-up job standing on principle for us, will anoint her. They can't stand up to Bush. How the hell are they going to stand up to the Clintons?They'd rather have the devil they know than the one that might actually ask them to do their jobs.
The only hope is that Obama wins this thing fair and square. He's an extraordinary man who made extraordinary mistakes last week when the entire house was being thrown at him. He let her define him and did nothing to define her. He needs to learn, and learn quickly, how to connect better with working class voters. He needs to seed some doubt against her. He needs to win good in Wyoming and Mississippi. If you look at the Texas caucuses, she learned how to do them. They now have an effective ground game. He needs to get outraged when she insults any state she hasn't won, and the good democrats who live there and will vote in democratic congresspeople.
It's up to him. And I have to stop reading smug projections about how she can't do it. Because she's doing it, people. Wake the hell up.
March 5, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
She got a great spin operation, no doubt. Did she spin Feb 5 into a victory? In the immediate aftermath, yes. But people realized after a few days or a week what a terrible position she was in. The same applies now. Obama will change his approach but he burned down her firewalls. That's at least a small victory for him. Spin only gets you so far. Then you have to win--delegates.
March 5, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
God I hope you're right. I pray you're right.
I'm exhausted from 7 years of black being white in a Bush Administration. I see no difference in Hillary's tactics. I see the same game being played the same way and unfortunately with the same results.
I'm so tired of it......
March 5, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
very thoughtful analysis, however, there are a few holes, namely that And clearly she has momemtum, see national poll (she is up 4) in new Gallup, and that does not even factor in yet last nights results. I suspect that number will rise in the next several days.
he outspent her 3 to 1 in ohio and texas.
but lost solidly in both states despite spending a lot if time in both and debates in both states. clearly her fundraising will increase over her very solid February.
Obama cannot win without Superdelagates just the same as her.And nobody like to adress this, why would the superdelagates have to follow pledged delagates? If that were the intention, then why have superdelagates? If they were not intended to exercise their own independant judgment, then there would be not reason to have them.
There will have to be new primaries in FL and MI. Clearly she will win FL and obviously MI will be close, but if she wins the majority of contests here out, and PA and FL, she will likely have the the lead in the popular vote,
and if she does, it is a strong couter argument to pledged delagates
There is a good likelihood that he has peaked, and nowhere to go but down. He can get more critical with her, but where will that leave him to those who chose him b/c "he is a different type of candidate" I dare say it wont help him.
It will be interesting
March 5, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
AzAttorney:
Let's cede, for the moment, that everything you write is true. That Obama's momentum has peaked, that Hillary will regain her lead in national polls, that even outspending her by a large margin doesn't overwhelm her demographic advantages, that she'll end up with a lead in the popular vote, and that superdelegates will not ultimately feel bound by the pledged delegate lead. How, precisely, will that yield Hillary the nomination?
This is what gets to me about Wolfson and Penn. For all their talk about courting superdelegates, they don't very often profer hard numbers. There are only (as of this evening) 283 superdelegates who have not yet publicly committed to one candidate or the other. Obama's total lead is somewhat more than 100 delegates. So how, precisely, does the Clinton campaign plan to use all of its newfound advantages (assuming they exist) to close that gap? Does the campaign believe that it can significantly whittle away at Obama's pledged delegate count - and if so, by pulling off upsets or winning by wider than expected margins in which states? Do the Clintons expect a majority of the 283 remaining supers to break for them - and if so, by what margin? Are they counting on wooing away Obama's pledged delegates and/or superdelegates?
What I'm looking for is a plausible scenario that results in a Clinton win. The only one I've found thus far rests on the quixotic belief that Michigan and Florida will ultimately be seated, based on the results of their January votes. If anyone else can make the numbers work, I'd love to see it. But, although I appreciate you passion, I have to tell you that the points you raise don't seem entirely germane. A lead in the national polls isn't going to affect the convention, nor will beating expectations. That stuff is useful in January, not in March. What matters now is the delegate count. And I just can't make the numbers work for Hillary.
March 5, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why will the delegates follow the pledged delegate count? Because it's the only option that gives the appearance of a legitimate resolution to the nominating process. Imagine all possible scenarios where Clinton wins the nomination. Are any of them clean? Do any of them not create a massive controversy that splits the party?
March 5, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The unfortunate (and unspoken in this thread) truth is that there is no actual requirement for any of the delegates to vote as pledged.
Nada.
March 5, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only will MI be close, Florida will also be close. Granted, I expect that she will still win, but not by nearly the margin by which she won in January.
March 6, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. I've blogged about them previously here and here. The short version is that every state has at least one bonus delegate and some as many as five, and that procedures for selecting these delegates vary widely.
To my earlier discussions, I'd add that the fights I predict in those posts are no longer theoretical. The first contested UAD battle happened last week in Alabama, where both campaigns put forward their nominees, and Obama controlled more votes on the state executive committee.
Obama has a structural advantage here - in almost all states with caucuses, the selection of the UAD is left up to the state convention, which he'll control. In primary states it devolves to the state committee, the delegation, or the convention. That doesn't always favor the winner of the primary. So, for example, in Texas, Obama won the caucuses and will ultimately control the three UADs selected at the state convention, even though Clinton prevailed in the primary. In other states (Massachusetts springs to mind) where Clinton won at the ballot box, Obama commands substantial institutional support and could potentially win the UADs, anyway. Alabama is a good indication that we may see this happen - it was a battle determined by loyalties, and not by vote tallies in the primary.
I haven't the time at the moment to go back and game this out, much as I'd like to. But eyeballing my spreadsheet, it looks like the UADs will continue to provide a narrow edge for Obama, largely because he's won more states and more caucus states. Make sense?
March 5, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. I've blogged about them previously here and here. The short version is that every state has at least one bonus delegate and some as many as five, and that procedures for selecting these delegates vary widely.
To my earlier discussions, I'd add that the fights I predict in those posts are no longer theoretical. The first contested UAD battle happened last week in Alabama, where both campaigns put forward their nominees, and Obama controlled more votes on the state executive committee.
Obama has a structural advantage here - in almost all states with caucuses, the selection of the UAD is left up to the state convention, which he'll control. In primary states it devolves to the state committee, the delegation, or the convention. That doesn't always favor the winner of the primary. So, for example, in Texas, Obama won the caucuses and will ultimately control the three UADs selected at the state convention, even though Clinton prevailed in the primary. In other states (Massachusetts springs to mind) where Clinton won at the ballot box, Obama commands substantial institutional support and could potentially win the UADs, anyway. Alabama is a good indication that we may see this happen - it was a battle determined by loyalties, and not by vote tallies in the primary.
I haven't the time at the moment to go back and game this out, much as I'd like to. But eyeballing my spreadsheet, it looks like the UADs will continue to provide a narrow edge for Obama, largely because he's won more states and more caucus states. Make sense?
March 5, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect. Thanks!
March 5, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wanted to add a note, as this thread winds down, to thank all my readers for their responses and encouragement. I haven't had the time to respond to each point that's been raised, but I assure you that I've read all your posts, and I'll try to address some more of them in future entries. And I particularly appreciate that almost without exception, these posts have been civil and respectful, and have engaged directly with the facts and figures. That's what I enjoy most about the TPMCafe community, and I think you all for making it so.
March 5, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
how much of an issue will strategic voting be for the rest of the race, now that mccain has it officially won?
March 5, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a great service you provided. Thanks a mil!!!
March 5, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, FlyontheWall, your analysis is great. Better than the "pros", actually.
March 5, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Fly asserts but doesn't show that Ohio and Wisconsin "are quite different". Over at pollster.com a few days after the Feb 19 Wisconsin vote there was a lengthy blog discussion, entitled "The Differences between Ohio and Wisconsin", trying to answer the question "Why does Ohio's Democratic primary electorate seem so different from Wisconsin's?" http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_differences_between_ohio_a.php
A rough and selective summary of points made there is (a) the quantifiable socio-economic and demographic differences are small, (b) in the larger cities and suburbs the qualitative political differences between Democrats in the two states are hard to see and small, (c) the rural south east of Ohio is culturally easily distinguishable from rural Wisconsin but the numbers of people living there is not overwhelming in the context of statewide comparsions, (d) for various reasons Obama was relatively well-known and trusted in Wisconsin on the Feb 19 voting date, and not well-known in Ohio at the same time. The majority of commenters at pollster.com were predicting that Obama would be able to eliminate his polling gap in Ohio with more campaigning presence and lots of ads aimed particularly at Ohio's less-educated, less engaged types of voters. My view was that Clinton's the default, safer, better-known candidate but Obama has the proven capability to convert people away from her, when people give him the time to make his pitch. That was proved in Iowa.
In the early days after Feb 19, Obama's polling numbers improved in Ohio, alright. But in the days closer to the March 4 vote, they went back in reverse. And Ohio's result was very different from Wisconsin's. No credit to Clinton -- her campaign was essentially unchanged in Ohio. Obama's campaign got rebuked.
A key part of Obama's core message, one of his key advantages against Clinton, is -- to quote from one of his ads -- "I will always tell you where I stand and what I think". That claim has been totally contradicted by his posturing on international trade and NAFTA. His loss in Ohio must be attributed, in part at least, to his NAFTA ads undermining his core message about being a straight talker. The ads were cynical posturing, lacking integrity, intentionally designed to fool the less educated, less engaged types of voters into perceiving Obama's trade policies as having more protectionist sympathies than Clinton's. The Canadian story proved that to all the voters, including the ones that were to have been conned.
For the past year Clinton has been laboring under the disadvantage of the perception that "she'll say anything to get elected". Obama's NAFTA advertising escapade has inflicted on himself the same disadvantage. But not with the same severity. If he'll now be wise enough to avoid similar sly, bogus, misleading ads, he'll probably be forgiven and may be able to break even in PA.
March 5, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume you are acknowledging the fact that the Republicans (Canadian and American) had the most to do with your perceived dishonesty on BHO's part?
Rather the misinterpretation of his consistent message.
Here is to hoping.
March 5, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
See the TPM's latest update on the twist in NAFTA/Canada story. It looks like BHO's camp was taken to task a bit prematurely. I wonder if HRC will get the same treatment now.
March 6, 2008 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sean:
Thank you for your response. Pollster.com is among my favorite sites out there, and Mark Blumenthal has been doing a fabulous job throughout the cycle. (See my three-way dialogue with Mark and Frank Newport of the Gallup Organization from last month for an example of the difference that Mark's site has made in the transparency of polling.)
In this case, however, I have to part ways with Mark. I'd note that his exploration was an attempt to solve a riddle: line up the polls taken in Wisconsin and Ohio by the number of days prior to each election, and you'll find that Obama was running much better in Wisconsin than in Ohio at every point in time. Given the apparent demographic congruence of the states, why should that be?
Mark focused in on the education gap - that in Wisconsin, Obama ran roughly even among whites without college degrees, while in Ohio, both pre-election polling and the exits showed him losing roughly 2-1. He's right to note it's importance. But then he suggested that Obama prevailed because of the "inroads made into Clinton's base in Wisconsin" and that he'd need to do the same in Ohio. The problem with that is a lack of any evidence that Obama made "inroads" with this group in Wisconsin. The only polls in WI from 2008 were taken in February, and during the final three weeks before the election Obama consistently led Hillary (excluding ARG, for methodological reasons). In fact, even though he trailed in the 2007 polls, most of them showed him doing better in Wisconsin than in national polls taken at the same point.
So what we find, I think, is that whatever the difference between the two states, it's reflected in polls that antedate any serious efforts at campaigning in either one. To me, at least, that suggests the explanation does indeed lie in some prior set of distinctions between the peoples of these two states, and not in anything the campaigns did or did not do. I don't pretend to be able to pinpoint the differences, but I can suggest a few possibilities. Perhaps the much larger percentage of blacks in Ohio made working-class whites less likely to support Obama; there does seem to have been such an effect this cycle. Perhaps the legacy of La Follette Progressivism endures, in some measure, to this day. Perhaps differences in the national origins of the white ethnic blocs plays a role - not all whites are the same, after all. Or perhaps it's a function of Ohio's more industrial base.
But the point is, I don't need to pinpoint the nature of the demographic difference - just to demonstrate that it must have existed. I think it did. I think the polling confirms that. And to me, at least, that suggests that Josh's "bitch-slap theory" of politics is wide of mark. Obama's problem in Ohio was mostly demographic - give these voters the choice between Hillary and Obama, and he's going to have problems every time. The NAFTA flap and other controversies seem to have played a far more marginal role than the conventional narrative allows - perhaps tipping the race a few points one way or the other, but not having much impact on the delegate tally. If that's correct, we're going to see Obama coast to easy wins next week in Mississippi and Wyoming. We'll see another round of headlines proclaiming a 'resurgence,' more pseudo-statistical analyses purporting to demonstrate that he has "made inroads into Hillary's base," and some confident chest-thumping by pundits who'll proclaim that Obama has found his manhood and owes his comeback to his more vigorous defense of his own record and attacks on Hillary. And it'll all be a load of hooey - Obama's going to win next week because these voters supported him last week and the week before, and will support him next week, too.
March 6, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The way I see the whole contest, which I've partly learned from reading Mark Blumenthal, is that for "low-information voters" -- those are mostly but not exclusively voters with less formal schooling -- Hillary is the default, safer choice because she's better-known, vetted by over a decade in the national spotlight. Obama is a new and unknown entity to less-engaged, low-information types of voters. They can't vote for somebody they're almost clueless about. When these voters get lots of exposure to his spirit and message, and hers, they tend to convert to him. Here's a related observation from Mark Blumenthal just after Obama's big victories in the Cheasapeake primaries: [quote]In both Virginia and Maryland, exit pollsters asked voters to "rate the importance of campaign ads...in your vote in today's presidential primary." As the table below shows, Obama did much better in both states among those who rated political ads as important. [endquote] http://www.pollster.com/blogs/low_information_voters_and_tel.php
Before the contest moved to Wisconsin, Obama was already relatively well known in Wisconsin because of the proximity of Milwaukee to Chicago (the two constitute a continuous, unbroken metropolitan area and about a third of Wisconsin's total pop lives there). Also he had a superb list of endorsements from Wisconsin's Democratic political establishment. That's why he was polling relatively well from the get-go.
When the contest moved to Ohio, Obama's polling numbers in Ohio started going up by a serious amount. But toward the end that completely stopped and indeed his numbers turned downward by a serious amount. If the early upward trend hadn't stopped in Ohio (Texas too), he could've scored an overall contest knockout.
Obama's and Clinton's trade policies are essentially indistinguishable. They are not protectionist. The items they say they'd like to modify in NAFTA do not concern trade itself, but rather some harmonization of some environmental and labor regulations in the several countries.
Obama's had a radio ad in Ohio saying "Barack Obama is the only candidate who has consistently opposed NAFTA and other unfair trade deals". He's had a mailer showing locked factory gates, a declaration that he's "consistently opposed NAFTA", and a verbal attack on Clinton for being inconsistent in her opposition. Yet at the same time in Ohio, Obama never advertised the truth of his own actual support for free trade, international competition, and NAFTA itself. His advertised words bad-mouthed NAFTA to try to fool the low-information voters into perceiving he's got more protectionist sympathies than Clinton. BTW, most political economists at this moment in time would say Ohio would benefit from protectionism but the USA would suffer from it, and a protectionist candidate would lose in most states but win in Ohio.
I'll readily agree with anyone who says Clinton's lack of integrity on the NAFTA issue is just as bad, maybe worse, than Obama's. But, please, you've got to agree with me that Obama was sly, bogus and misleading here. You don't need to look at the Canadian story to see that. Just compare his Ohio NAFTA ads with his actual policy positions on trade.
March 6, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've enjoyed your thoughtful analyses. You note that "Re-voting is the best way out, but it's getting late in the day to try that." I'm not sure that is true. Per Howard Dean on NPR this evening, Michigan and Florida could approach the party with a potential solution, and a re-vote is one of them. He felt such action would have to occur by early June.
The real question here is legitimacy--that the loser's backers (and yes, either Obama or Clinton) will eventually lose) feel that the process (resulting in their candidate's loss) is nonetheless fundamentally fair. I can't see how anyone could think that using the current results from Michigan/Florida would meet that standard. But it would be very hard to argue with a revote.
I think Obama holds the high cards here. He is ahead in pledged delegates, such that Clinton is unlikely to catch him through the remaining primaries. He could offer to split the cost (with the Clinton campaign) of a re-vote--given the gobs of money both sides have been raising, there has to be enough. He's very likely to be ahead in pledged delegates even with a re-vote, making it very hard for the "supers" to go the other way.
March 5, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ernie:
Perhaps so. But a couple of minor points:
-Neither campaign is going to offer to foot any part of the bill. That would mean forking over hard-won contributions from their supporters in a race where every dollar counts, and some of those contributors have already maxed-out. (Although if Axelrod wanted to make mischief, I suppose he could calculate that Obama could afford this while the cost might cripple Hillary.) We're much more likely to see a third-party (or should I say, state party) fundraising effort, not subject to the donation limits that apply to federal campaigns, to which both candidates encourage their supporters to contribute.
-I missed the Dean interview, although I've seen yesterday's press release on the matter. There are two ways to look at this - the last date at which it might theoretically happen, and the last date at which it could occur without the cure being worse than the disease. Consider that any new primary will have to include some method of absentee voting, out of deference to those serving abroad - printing ballots, mailing them out, and getting them returned and counted. That it means hiring thousands of poll workers for a primary, or locating thousands of meeting places for a caucus. That voters will need to be informed of the race and of how to locate their polling stations. Elections are incredibly complex endeavours, and take time and planning - particularly in this year of record turnouts. And then, there's always this - it's not in anyone's interest to allow the voting to drag on for longer than it already will. Right now, Puerto Rico bats last in the order on June 7. I suspect that's where Dean was getting his date. No one - no one - wants to see this thing go much beyond then. So if you're going to have an unprecedented election by the second week in June, you've got three months to plan it, get the approval of all interested parties, and put it into effect. So yeah, I'd say that the sands of time are running down on this idea.
March 6, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fly,
Great and insightful post.
March 5, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
FotW,
Incredibly astute analysis and impressive presentation.
Thank you, thank you!
March 5, 2008 10:27 PM |