« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Edwards endorsement shatters Clinton's last hope: her MI/FL gambit
(Cross-posted from The Jed Report.)
::
For several weeks now, Hillary Clinton's only conceivable path to the
nomination involved securing a favorable deal for seating the Michigan and
Florida delegations. Now that John Edwards has endorsed Barack Obama, however,
even that path has disappeared.
To understand why it has disappeared, let's take a step backward and review
the situation. Clinton's goal is to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations
according to the January primaries, with each delegate counting as one vote. If
that happens, the biggest question will be what to do with the 55 uncommitted
Michigan delegates.
On election day, 40%
of Michigan voters chose uncommitted. Of those, 77% favored Obama and 19% favored
Edwards. Since virtually all uncommitted voters were either Obama or Edwards
supporters, now that Edwards has endorsed Obama, there's really no fair argument
to deny Obama those 55 delegates.
Consequently, even if Clinton secures a full recognition of the Michigan and
Florida delegations, Barack Obama will receive 55 delegates from Michigan as
well as Edwards' 13 delegates from Florida. Even if Obama didn't have those 68
delegates, the Michigan/Florida gambit probably wouldn't have been enough to
give Clinton the nomination. But now he will have those delegates, effectively
ending any chance Clinton has at the nomination -- even with the
Michigan/Florida gambit.
For the full numbers, please see my post over at The Jed Report. (I cannot post images here.)
Here is a text description of the chart: The bottom-line of the numbers is that Obama will have 2,152 delegates on June 3 even without another superdelegate before then and Clinton will have 2,005. The goal being 2,210 (as set by Clinton) means that Obama will need just 22% (58) of the remaining delegates.
As you can see, there's nothing fancy with these numbers. The projections for
the remaining five contests are conservative, giving Hillary Clinton a net gain
of 5 delegates.
Still, even if with these conservative assumptions, when add up the total
delegates for each candidate and you look at the delegates remaining, Barack
Obama would need barely more than 1 in 5 delegates to officially nail down the
nomination.
There's just no way Hillary Clinton will get 78% of the remaining delegates
-- and that's what she needs under her best case scenario.
Even if Obama bleeds away a few Edwards delegates to Clinton (say 5), the
numbers don't change significantly.
So yes, it's true: we can finally start waving goodbye to the nomination
battle.
::
Cross-posted from The Jed Report.
Comments (30)
Theoretically true. But I think Kentucky is likely to slow down the move of superdelegates to put Obama over the top. The polls there do show a 60 to 30+ lead favoring Hillary (RCP average) as of
5/9.
I know he can lose Kentucky and still win the nomination. But to lose again by that much, near the end of the primary race gives the Clinton campaign and the MSM ten days to strike fear in the hearts of supers.
May 15, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You underestimate the "news" factor. Obama losing in WV was fully expected and therefore not news, and hence almost ignored. The same thing goes for Kentucky. On the other hand, Clinton's extremely thin margin of victory in Indiana was unexpected and therefore big news, and hence very important.
It doesn't really matter how badly Obama loses Kentucky. Now if he lost Oregon, that would be extremely bad news for him indeed.
May 15, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that we didn't take either of those states in the last two elections. Flipping Virginia (where Obama bested Hillary by similar margins) would have tipped the presidency in 2000 or 2004 BY ITSELF... WITHOUT FLORIDA. Not for nothing, it has the same EC votes as KY and WV COMBINED.
As an aside, the West holds untapped potential to mitigate any perceived "softness" in Obama's appeal to white voters. His donor base is unmatched on either side, waiting to be used ofr GOTV efforts. Once the primary is over, that's a HUGE GE advantage over the GOP.
Bottom Line: Flipping Colorado... South Dakota... Montana (much less Louisiana or Georgia) is just as important as flipping West Virginia or Kentucky. All of these states show promise in the general. It's only because the fight has gone on so long, that we even had the chance to experience the ingrained racial trauma of these two states.
May 15, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think South Dakota and Montana are in play?
May 15, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dakotas might be. He polls well there in head-to-head match-ups a month or so ago, and Montana.. think Tester.
West of the Mississippi and Obama is a good fit, and as is shown in VA, MO, WI, he can do well along the Atlantic coast and upper midwest.
May 16, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know how it'll play with the supers because I'm pretty sure of how this race ends, though maybe not for the reasons that most people cite.
Still, your point is quite valid; There's only a tiny handful of primaries left on the calendar and the front-runner isn't always emerging victorious. As I've said in a previous posts or comments, it's not like Sen. Clinton is going to suspend her campaign and suddenly everybody's going to vote for Sen. Obama.
There may be some who'll change their vote, many others who'll just skip their primary because their "vote will make no difference" and the remainder will still show-up and vote for their preferred candidate. Heck, right now McCain is still getting only 80% of his primary vote and not only is nobody running against him, but most of his opponents have already endorsed.
I really don't see any way that Obama won't be the nominee and there's nothing to stop the voters from coalescing around his candidacy, but for some reason they're not. We're just a couple from the end and both candidates still lose, so this has to be indicative of something because it all can't be the voters fault.
May 15, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Still, your point is quite valid; There's only a tiny handful of primaries left on the calendar and the front-runner isn't always emerging victorious."
As it has always been. Front-runners don't always win the last remaining primaries - particularly when they have a lock on the nomination already. It has no bearing at all on the final outcome at this point.
May 16, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The supers are already committed. The race is over. This is all about timing. The supers won't put Obama over the top. They will put him on the edge. The voters will seal the deal.
May 15, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
Obama is on a glide-path that gives him the 2,025 or more in the final primaries. Here in Oregon on May 20th, will put him in a position where it will mathematically impossible (literally, if PR, MT and SD all went for Clinton 100%) for her to overtake his pledged delegate number.
May 16, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I think Kentucky is likely to slow down the move of superdelegates to put Obama over the top"
If that logic were true, then Obama wouldn't have gotten such a boost after West Virginia.
Kentucky might actually be closer than you think, too, which would only accelerate the inevitable outcome.
May 16, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Jed, for forcing people to deal with what an election is about: getting larger numbers.
Excellent post, recommend.
May 15, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I came here to make a digusted comment, then I realized you said MIFL--not MILF. Never mind...
May 15, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I too came in search of MILFs.
May 16, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
MILF ? OMG.....:)(:
May 16, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw the same thing - MILF strategy. John Stewart ought to be able to do something with this...
May 16, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those states are hot.
;-)
May 16, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I think is that Virginia is in play and Tom Daschle et al are making serious plays in states that were previously given up. The GOP has stressed this country to the breaking point. Their policies have failed and people are suffering.
If the recent special elections tell us anything, it's that the GOP can take NOTHING for granted. That will dilute their Presidential efforts and heighten the intraparty concerns about McCain.
Heartlanders are losing their kids to this war... jobs are flying overseas... change will have a LOT of appeal to these folks.
May 16, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll agree that Virginia could be in play and now that I've looked at some data, Montana could be within the realm of possibility. Though based on my anecdotal knowledge and after looking at the most recent polls, along with the numbers from '00 and '04, I really wouldn't count on South Dakota.
Plus, SD and MT have three electoral votes apiece; CO has nine; WV, five and KY, eight: So, the whole basket of states aren't really equal.
May 16, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
While it may not matter in terms of total votes, watch Kansas for a red-state turns blue surprise. Obama's "favorite grandson" status plays well with the common folks here.
More than one surprise in store come November. Some of the R's already know it, like Corker and Davis, but the rank and file lemmings just won't give it up.
But Kansas may be just the tip of a purple iceberg, turning from red to blue even as we speak.
May 16, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize flipping Virginia ALONE wins the Presidency right? We didn't get KY or WV or OH or FL, but flipping Virginia wins the presidency WITHOUT ANY OTHER FLIPS AT ALL.
The rest of the states that may flip are just gravy. Not to mention, Louisiana is looking WONDERFUL right about now... or God-help-us Mississippi (disgruntled Fundies stay home and Black voters show up in record numbers... a stretch, but that seat loss offers hope).
Virginia is the new key to this race.
May 16, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that's the point. Battling it out over VA means the GOP are not able to focus on OH, PA, FL...
I know sports analogies can be lame, but you will win more games when you have the ball in their red zone, than having to play prevent defense on your own end of the field.
May 16, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, yes. It sure looks like Hillary has lost. So once you wave goodbye to the nomination battle, what's left? Oh yes. The battle with McCain. Now where are all those defeated Hillary supporters? Did we wave goodbye to them too?
May 16, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did WE? They, are you, Otto. So, you tell US.
May 16, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto's a dittohead troll epublican, hoping to discourage Dems from their inevitable 50-state landslide.
Still can't figure, though, why the legitimate Hillfolk cry foul about "popular vote" and ignore the one million Obama supporters who did not even get to vote in Michigan. And considering Hillary staffers make up more than half the DNC rules committee, you know the committee that initiated the very rules they now want to circumnavigate, the hypocrisy factor is growing more obvious every day.
May 16, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you meant circumvent, no circumnavigate.
;-)
May 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know... it would be exactly the sort of mistake the Clinton campaign is prone to make.
May 16, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Kentucky primary will clearly indicate the influence of Edwards democratically speaking. In terms of the hierarchical, top-down politics, his coming forward with an endorsement has really protected Obama from the possible fallout of his huge defeat defeat in Kentucky.
May 16, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It may be that Kentucky will want to show some contrast with the results in WV. There will be a backlash in Oregon where the voters who are already inclined to Obama will try and show they are less bigoted that other states.
May 16, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
there's really no fair argument
to deny Obama those 55 delegates.
Unfortunately, Jed, fair has nothing to do with it. If the Michigan delegation is seated, Clinton will get most of those "uncommitted" delegates, because she arm-wrestled for them at the district and state-level conventions. Those uncommitted delegates were never Obama's or Edwards' delegates to begin with. Uncommitted really means uncommitted in this case. Obama has zero claim on them. Nevermind that Obama and Edwards supporters were told to vote uncommitted. Sucks for them, but their votes will in all likelihood end up counting for the candidate that they opposed.
Read it and weep:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080424/OPINION01/804240315/1008
Is this by the rules? Unfortunately, this is in full compliance with the archaic, byzantine way that we elect our leaders in this country.
Is it fair? I say hell no. But apparently all is fair in Clinton's scorched earth plan to win the nomination at all costs.
May 16, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone know why the "OR PARTICIPATE" clause of the MI/FL pledge seems to be glossed over by Hillary fans and the media?
The common meme is "Obama VOLUTARILY took his name off the ballot...." Actually, it seems pretty clear that NOT "PARTICIPATING" in the election DEMANDS removing one's name from the ballot. In what universe can having one's name on a ballot not be considered "partipating."
Further, he tried in FL too, but their ballots had been printed or some such nonsense so he COULDN'T have his name removed on those. It seems to me that Obama (and perhaps Edwards) were ACTUALLY TRYING TO FOLLOW THE RULES.
Not for nothing, claiming that Obama "campaigned" to have his voters vote uncommitted and then backdooring those delegates seems the height of hypocrisy (not that I'm the least bit surprised). Where's the "will of the voters" on that score, Hillary? And since she absconded with the delegates is she also claiming the "uncommitteds" in her specious popular vote lead?
Come on, June 3rd...
May 16, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment