Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Why it's worse for Obama than you think...
I'd saw Obama's still a 80% or more favorite to win the nomination. However, if Hillary does eek out the popular vote in TX but loses the delegate battle, the outcome tonight is the precise scenario in which Hillary gets to claim big media victories while simultaneously shining a spotlight on the flaws of the delegate allocation process. I saw Chuck Todd on MSNBC earlier explaining how the border counties have disproportionately fewer delegates than the urban counties and there was a palpable awkwardness as the ultimate implication -- even the primary (let alone the caucus!) is not one-person, one-vote -- finally seemed to dawn on the panelists.
What people aren't realizing is that Hillary knows full well she cannot win a majority of pledged delegates. Where does that leave her? She has to undermine the whole notion of using pledged delegates as the basis for superdelgate-persuasion or fundamentally, the nomination. If people catch on that a huge share of Obama's delegates came from caucuses and Hillary can point to *obvious* examples like Texas where even primaries seem to be undemocratic, (and especially if she wins the majority of the popular vote nationwide), she might actually have a chance at having a claim to the nomination at the convention! The "some states don't count" argument was just the test missle for the nuclear war about to follow.
Comments (6)
Barack needs to get tough. Real tough. Now.
He must also claim MSM bias this week because they choose not to focus on Delegates won. (This is such a frickin' nightmare.)
March 5, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get the MSM to keep focusing on pledged delegates and people will become more aware of how messed up the delegate allocation process is. Nothing could be better for Clinton than to win the Texas popular vote and lose the delegate count. People will think of Gore vs Bush. I know its not the same but its similar enough to sell. Its almost impossible for her to win the pledged delegate count. She has to discredit it. If she goes to the convention with the popular vote nation wide she wins the nomination.
March 5, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's even better for Hillary than I originally said. Josh just posted a video of Chuck Todd talking about the delegate math and how Obama is dominating the caucus in Texas. But I can see people thinking -- "That's strange, but he lost the primary. What is this caucus thing?"
The Obama campaign really doesn't want anyone thinking or talking about that. Having Obama win a two-to-one margin in the caucus on the same day that he loses a primary in the same state undercuts *every single one of his caucus victories* because Hillary can say "I would have won those too if they were fair!!!"
Will the media buy it? Will the voters? Will the superdelegates?
March 5, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having Obama win a two-to-one margin in the caucus on the same day that he loses a primary in the same state undercuts *every single one of his caucus victories* because Hillary can say "I would have won those too if they were fair!!!"
Wow, Ryan, that's the most astute thing I've heard or read all night. The Clinton campaign should 1. blast that message every day from now till Denver, 2. Make Mark Penn buy you a car.
I don't even like Hillary, but damn, your frame is a thing of beauty.
March 5, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely disagree. We may all be left to consider the workings of a Dem primary system that is a combination of caucuses (with all their flaws) and primaries (that are arbitrarily scheduled)...but it's something that will have to be taken up post-election. Any gerrymandering during the primary itself would be exceptionally disenfranchising, particular to the nation's african american communities...and lead to a generational/revolutionary restructuring of the Dem party. (On a side note, maybe this is needed...for politics, not just the Dem party.) Beyond its being a direct affront on all those who have already cast ballots in favor of Obama, any "Party" effort to reconsider the race in support of Clinton would be (whether accurately or not) the real reminder of Gore vs. Bush here.
Now, if super delegates come out in BIG numbers in the next few days, swinging their support in favor of Clinton, then it gets interesting. But that I don't expect.
March 5, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes the system can't be changed mid stream. The pledged delegates will fall where they may based on that system. But neither candidate will get enough pledged delegates to win so it will come down to the superdelegates. I think in the end the supers will make the decision that is percieved to be most fair or at least acceptable to the majority of the public. If Clinton wins the popular vote in Texas and loses the delegate count it will be crucial in setting up perceptions. After that it will be easy for Clinton to win with supers if she gets the popular vote. Most average Americans will accept that as "fair."
March 5, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment