I’ve already taken two tabs of Dramamine, and am doing by best to concentrate on a far horizon, avoid the back seat, and get plenty of fresh air. A spin cycle of historic dimensions is about to be unleashed.
Let’s jump in.
Here is my take. Unless Senator Clinton wins Pennsylvania by 20 points or more she will have no valid claim to the nomination. Obama will have won more delegates, more states, and more votes. He should be the nominee. Continued campaigning by Clinton will be about influence, settling scores, and keeping her staff employed. It will not be about the nomination. In practice, donations will dry up, she will run out of money, and that will be that (unless she wants to spend some more of that $109 million).
The crucial mistake Clinton made is that she ran a traditional campaign. She relied on conflicted consultants like Mark Penn, big-money donors, and the us-versus-them (bad, hateful Republicans) rubric that characterized the politics of the waning years of the Clinton Presidency (not to mention the entire Bush Jr. administration). That has worked pretty well in the past all things considered (after all, W. J. was acquitted by the Senate). It was an easy mistake to make and one that, perhaps, was impossible for Clinton, steeped in politics for decades as she has been, to avoid. It’s hard to see beyond the world in which one lives.
Obama offered a different message. Sure, he attacked Clinton at times, took money from people one step removed from lobbyists, and was less effective in many debates than his rival. Essentially, however, his campaign set a different tone. Crucially, he has been more effective at reaching out to independents and Republicans: voters we must have if a Democrat is to win in November.
Finally, Obama’s campaign was much better run than Clinton’s as a practical matter. All those caucus victories took hard work and organization as well as a compelling message. In particular, Team Obama used the internet far more effectively than their rival. Remember those dueling Facebook groups, One Million Strong for Barack Obama (783,440 members today), Stop Hillary Clinton (one million strong AGAINST Hillary) (1,004,929 members today) and Hillary Clinton for President (148,520 members). Or if you think that is fluff, consider the tens of millions of dollars that Obama has out-raised Clinton online. That should be real enough for anyone.
20-points plus or out, new versus old, that’s my meta. If you disagree with me, which no doubt many of you reasonably do, I wonder what your number is: how much of a win, if any, does Senator Clinton need today?
joes says
Even at 20%, that would make up only about 32 of the 140 deficit, and with NC likely to go for Obama, some of that separation would be taken back.
<
p>However, that magnitude of win in PA would surely reverse the trend of the SD’s toward Obama, and may even affect the following primaries by reinvigorating Clinton’s supporters.
<
p>The biggest risk in this scenario is that Obama has the lead in pledged delegates, but the SD’s overturn that result. That would lead to chaos, which only Obama could mitigate.
bob-neer says
This is exactly my point. Absent that, Senator Clinton is out.
howardjp says
It’s obviously that she should get out of the race and apologize for even thinking about trying to win the nomination. Whatever.
<
p>Well, at least his supporters will apparently have lots to do trying to keep Massachusetts from going to McCain …
stomv says
Is that like Greater Antilles and Lesser Antilles? States aren’t equal when running for POTUS, but EVs are. It doesn’t matter how you get to 270, you just gotta get there.
christopher says
She has won every big state: NY, NJ, CA, TX (popular), (also MI and FL, yes even given the irregularities) OH (not IL which of course is Obama’s state). Sure you can get to 270 any way you want, but it certainly is easier to get them all at once in a winner-take-all system.
rollzroix says
So is North Carolina (which Obama should win).
christopher says
GA, NJ, and NC have 15 electoral votes apiece, which is what counts.
stomv says
it only matters which (either, both, neither) can get it instead of McCain.
<
p>Both will get NY, NJ, and CA. Although polls shows BHO within striking distance of TX, I wouldn’t expect that to play out. MI, FL, OH? Neither is sure to get them; I’d give HRC the edge in FL but BHO the edge in MI, at least if current polling is to be believed.
<
p>EVs matter to be sure — but winning states with many EVs has little to do with the ability to get those EVs in November.
<
p>Check out electoral-vote.com and play with the McCain v. Obama and McCain v. Clinton feature.
theopensociety says
Sorry to diagree, but if Hillary Clinton wins by 10 points or more, then Obama is in serious trouble. First of all, Clinton will be alot closer to Obama in the popular vote tally, if not surpass him. Second, this is Penn., not Utah or Montana. If Hillary Clinton wins today in Penn., which she will, and she wins overwhelmingly, (which I believe she will), then the superdelegates, who should be concerned about electability, will have some hard thinking to do. After all, the general election does not have any caucuses. There is a reason why the Obama campaign has been calling for Hillary Clinton to quit… they are scared.
<
p>But let’s assume you are right, Bob. Does that mean that if Hillary Clinton gets at least 20 percent of the vote today in Pennsylvania, you will agree that Obama should withdraw from the race?
<
p>
bob-neer says
All I said was that if she doesn’t win by 20% or more, she has no valid claim to the nomination.
leonidas says
so you’re trying to attach an objective measure to an entitlement which is, at this point, completely subjective.
<
p>So what matters is not how much she wins by but what the (unpledged) superdelegates think about it.
<
p>My personal opinion is that the only reason why a front-runner, outspending a challenger more than 2-1 (3-1?) in a ‘key’ state, is that there is something fundamentally flawed with the front-runner (especially if you conclude this race is over!)
<
p>This would be akin to Huckabee beating McCain in Texas (yes, at some point the Huckster had a polling advantage).
john-from-lowell says
When has Obama ever consistently polled better then Clinton in the state of PA?
<
p>Obama has mobilized his wide margain of popularity on a national level, along with his grassroots fundraising success to bear on Clinton in PA. However, he has been behind in the race, in PA, from Day 1.
stomv says
<
p>2. The argument that Clinton has won more swing states also doesn’t hold water. Electoral votes matter. May I humbly present:
<
p>Clinton beats McCain 289-239-10
Obama beats McCain 269-254-15
(both courtesy of electoral-vote.com)
<
p>Electoral votes matter. At this instant, Clinton’s got a stronger claim so long as you believe she’ll take both Ohio and Florida [plausible IMO]. Personally, I like BHO’s map better, because while I don’t think he’ll take Texas or VA/NC/SC, I do think he’ll take New Mexico and New Hampshire (giving him enough to win), and I think he’ll make a run at Ohio while simultaneously being much better for down-ticket races including senate races in Oregon, New Mexico, Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, and Alaska. He’ll also force McCain to spend money and effort in VA/NC/SC as well as TX, something Clinton can’t make McCain do.
<
p>Were I a Superdelegate interested in maximizing (a) the Dem chance at POTUS and also (b) the Dem chance of adding to the Senate and nibbling off a few more House seats, not to mention even further down-ticket races like state house/senate, I’d go with Obama. The Dems need more Senate seats to beat filibusters, and need more state rep/senate seats to control redistricting in 2010, and I believe Obama does that. I also think that Obama (c) expands the map in that his numbers are more competitive in the Southwest and in the South, an area in which I believe that the Dems can begin to compete again.
joes says
You will see in the categories of “barely GOP, barely Dem” that Clinton’s advantage is more at risk.
<
p>Clinton against McCain: 2 states “barely GOP”, 10 states “barely Dem”
<
p>Obama against McCain: 5 states “barely GOP”, 5 states “barely Dem”
stomv says
was the key phrase I wrote. That map will change more than 100 times between now and November. Some of the changes will be because of sampling error. Other changes will be systemic.
<
p>Which will happen where, when? Who knows!
they says
It’s great to switch back and forth and see some states go from Red to Blue and others go the other way. How can that be? I just don’t believe that anyone is going to vote for McCain who wasn’t going to vote for McCain because their favorite Dem didn’t win, nor do I see any McCain voters switching depending on what the Dem candidate is.
<
p>I mean, I’m sure there’s got to be some variance among some voters, but enough to swing a state? Does it mean that some people are voting purely on race or sex, like, they’ll never vote for a black, and some will never vote for a woman? Cause I bet not one voter could tell you a substantive difference on their positions other than one’s black and one’s a woman.
stomv says
<
p>Some vote using position papers. Others use race, gender, or other superficial metrics. Still others, however, use far more intangible methods, including life experiences, charisma, cultural background, etc.
<
p>
<
p>Snarkily, as a white man, it was hard for me to choose between HRC and BHO. Should I vote my race or my gender?
they says
I guess I’m not the only one thinking that it might have something to do with racist versus sexist states.
<
p>That site also has a sort of “combined map“, showing which states do better with Clinton and which states do better with Obama. The ones that like Obama more are color-coded brown and the ones that like Clinton more are color-coded pink. Sheesh.
<
p>I just can’t believe it. I think people are fucking with the pollsters as a way of expressing their preference, but they won’t actually follow through with that threat to vote R if they don’t get their way. No way.
justin-credible says
People answer these polling questions in ways that promote their agendas, and don’t necessarily represent what they’ll actually do.
justin-credible says
Is that why Obama has said that Clinton should stay in the race?
The Obama campaign has never called for her to quit. You are incorrect.
tom-m says
<
p>Obama is ahead by roughly 800,000 votes nationally. Only 800,000 Dems voted in PA in 2004, a number which will obviously be topped this time around. So basically, even with record turnout, Clinton is going to need to win 70% of the vote in Pennsylvania to catch Obama.
<
p>Do you honestly think that’s even a remote possibility?
laurel says
and explain how they get anything meaningful from a mish-mash of primary and caucus results minus FL & MI. if you want to tally popular vote in states that had primaries, fair enough. but you need to place qualifiers and definitions on that total. we can never know what the “popular vote” would have been, because the populace didn’t get to vote in all states.
bannedbythesentinel says
When you account for caucuses, the proportion of “popular vote” for Obama would be much higher.
laurel says
there is no legit way to add caucus results to primary popular vote tallies. they are two different systems, and they clearly have different biases in measuring “the people’s” candidate preference. texas is a great cases in point, where obama won the caucus but lost the primary.
bannedbythesentinel says
because in practice, they allow any registered voter to pick either ticket, opening the process to “meddling” from the opposing party.
In fact, there has been a deliberate call for exactly such meddling — by Rush Limbaugh among others — in favor of Sen. Clinton.
So while you are correct that it would be next to impossible to quantify the exact proportional representations of these voting blocks, it's also difficult to tell how much is the result of “meddling”.
However, I expect it would be much more difficult to sabotage a caucus than a primary.
stomv says
after all, you need substantially fewer people to do it.
bannedbythesentinel says
many caucuses, like Iowa, are face-to-face with your friends and neighbors in your district.
Much easier to spot that life long republican walking into a caucus and trying to drum up support for one dem candidate's supporters against another.
However, I understand that there is another type of caucus that involves a series of ballots cast in a repeating process until a clear majority emerges.
laurel says
i’ve only had the pleasure of one caucus – the most recent. i found it a wonderful experience. however, several neighbors who have lived here for decades and experienced many caucusus (cauci? đŸ™‚ told me that they have witnessed true intimidation in prior years. apparently kerry’s people in the area were particularly nasty. based on these reports from people who i find credible, it is quite easy to undermine the fairness of caucuses. and i’m sure there are more ways to do so than the one my neighbors witnessed. this year, i think large turnout may have made manipulation more difficult if anyone was interested in trying. but in th recent past, many fewer showed up, so thug to nice guy ratio was pretty high.
bannedbythesentinel says
before I had become established in my current career!
I've always wanted to be a thug. *sigh*
đŸ˜‰
laurel says
free on the job training. make extra cash on your free nights & weekends. ask eb3 for details.
bannedbythesentinel says
but methinks you give him too much credit.
laurel says
as they are in a virtual dead heat, it is hard to claim either campaign was more effectively run than the other.
bob-neer says
She was the former First Lady with a national reputation and a huge lead in every poll for years.
<
p>Obama’s achievement would have been extraordinary even if he was in second-place like Senator Clinton is right now. In fact, however, he is in first place and has won the most votes, the most states, and the most delegates. He also has a substantial fund-raising advantage and, in my opinion, a significant organizational advantage.
<
p>Relatively speaking, the achievement of the Obama campaign to date is far more impressive than that of the Clinton campaign.
johnk says
I don’t think she has, this presumptive nominee business is an Obama campaign ploy which has worked. He has lead the entire campaign and is the underdog at the same time.
<
p>It will likely work in the general as well.
bob-neer says
johnk says
with the national polls. But starting in Iowa, hasn’t Obama had the lead in this race and has never relinquished it? I don’t think Hillary has ever had the lead in this race. A testament to Obama, he lead this race coast to coast and will likely get the nomination. I don’t see a scenario where he doesn’t at this point, including whatever the result will be in PA. Yet, he’s still the underdog.
bob-neer says
Yes, that is a good point. My interpretation is that he is the underdog in Pennsylvania because he is behind in the polls there, but with respect to other states where he is in the lead, he is not an underdog there.
noternie says
Doesn’t it sort of discredit this line, though…
<
p>
<
p>..since he’s been in second place since the time before this graph?
<
p>The problem I think he has is that he’s enjoyed the best press, all the momentum, all the fundraising, etc. pretty much since votes started being cast and yet he can’t put her away.
<
p>Forget a 20 point win, you’ve got to spin the fact that she’s even going to win a state at this stage.
papicek says
I think Obama has peeled all the Clinton supporters away that he’s going to. I live with a couple Clinton supporters and she’s definitely their girl.
<
p>It’s a sisterhood thing. It means a lot to them to have a woman elected. I don’t see how any other possible candidate tops that.
noternie says
He takes advantage of all the good press and all the overwhelming momentum he has enjoyed for so long. He parlays that into a situation in which she’s so far from being able to win that the money dries up and the campaign volunteers go away.
<
p>It means he fans stay rabid, but have no effect. And she drops out. Think Kucinich. Or Romney. Or Huckabee. Or anyone who has run for president but is not named McCain, Obama or Clinton.
<
p>I don’t know what’s unclear about it, really.
papicek says
the mind of a single Clinton supporter. The edge he has (60% Obama, 36% Clinton – courtesy Tom Brokaw) bringing new voters and crossover voters to the party seems to be where he got the votes to erase her 20% (plus?) lead there seven weeks ago.
<
p>Nobody’s putting anyone else away. Obama and Clinton are both irresistable forces as candidates.
papicek says
There are a lot of passion for Hillary Clinton “for all the right reasons.” I don’t think those people are changing their minds.
<
p>What’s Obama to do? Trash Clinton and enrage 60% (women) of everyone who vote democrat?
<
p>”Putting her away” isn’t a realistic option. Unless her money totally dries up, this thing’s going forward and Pennsylvania will change nothing.
they says
That graph shows that Obama picked up all of Gore’s voters and then all of Edwards’ supporters, while Hillary supporters have stayed constant, they were for Hillary in 2000 and they’re still for Hillary now and they’ll always be for Hillary. Or is that just a coincidence? Are there any polls that break down where those former supporters are voting now?
laurel says
i’m not trying to change the subject, but you mentioning the “most states won” thing made me wonder if anyone has done an a projection of likely electoral college outcomes? He has done resoundingly well in stated with 5 democrats (ID, etc), which lends to his total states won number. But do dems in those states have a prayer of producing electoral college votes for the dem nominee? And will huge states like OH , TX, CA and PA rally enough behind obama in a general to deliver electoral votes? I’m not trying to ask accusatory queswtions here – I’m just curious where the current thinking is on this subject.
joes says
He is projected to win the electoral college against McCain by a small margin. Hillary is projected to win by a wider margin.
<
p>However, that is all just a snapshot in time, and probably not a fair comparison as there has to be some splitting of the Democratic votes (not really, but psychologically). The issue for the Democrats is the election is theirs to lose, but if they don’t come together they may just do that.
noternie says
<
p>This is the crucial way in which Obama has been “new”?
<
p>Hasn’t reaching beyond the party to independents been the mantra of McCain for several years?
<
p>Didn’t Bill Clinton incur the wrath of the left of the D party by running as a Blue Dog or Yellow Dog or whatever he was? And wasn’t that whole DLC thing criticized for being a club of Democrats in name only?
<
p>I’m sorry, but even in his first campaing, W talked up “changing the tone in Washington” and touting how well he worked with his Democratic Lt Gov in TX.
<
p>Sure, Obama did better on Facebook and MySpace. It’s not a new way to run a campaign, though. It’s just a new version of working the KofC or the Elks Lodge.
<
p>This “new, new, new” just doesn’t sell to me. It presumes there’s never been a reform candidate or candidate that tried to reach across the aisle or do grassroots campaigns.
<
p>Tell me he’s a good candidate and raises oogles of cash. But don’t tell me it’s new.
bob-neer says
First, I offered other examples of differences between the two campaigns in my post: all important. There are others I didn’t mention but which also are important, for example Obama’s relative youth and different life experiences. Second, however, and more importantly for present purposes, the point I made is that Obama’s campaign seems to me to be “new” relative to Clinton’s campaign (“traditional” was the word I used). That’s the important distinction now, it seems to me, because that is the choice on offer in the Democratic primary.
centralmassdad says
You post highlights the fundamentaql problem with Obama and the new/old theme, which strikes me as wishful thinking, see Patrick, Deval.
<
p>I am not particularly enthusiastic. I agree that the nomination appears to be within Obama’s grasp at this point, even if I suspect that 20% might be pro-Obama spin. I don’t think that he is going to perform well as well as advertised in the general, unless, Bush-style, he sticks to friendly crowds and prepared statements; he doesn’t appear to do well when extemporizing.
<
p>With luck, the pall over Republicans is great enough to withstand this.
<
p>But even if he wins in November, I strongly suspect that we will see a Patrick administration on a larger scale. A few nice initiatives here and there, overshadowed by political ineptness resulting in a lot of running in circles.
<
p>I am unenthused. Those who wax rhapsodic about Obama strike me as likely future proof of P.T. Barnum’s theorum.
rollzroix says
“and Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina primary twice!”
trickle-up says
and may its power increase. But the idea that there is some mathematical proof short of someone cinching the nomination strikes me as silly.
<
p>I also note that you assert that Clinton will have “no valid claim to the nomination” without a 20% crushing victory in Pennsylvania, but then you conclude by inviting those who do not share your theory to say how much Clinton needs to win by today.
<
p>These are not the same things by a long shot, and I suspect your conflation of the two is a marker for some assumption with which I would probably disagree if I understood what it was.
<
p>I expect Clinton to stay in until Obama wins 2,024 delegates. That’s her right and may even be a good thing. (You may even think so too come November.) In the unlikely event she should win, it will be fair and square; she does not have the power to cook the books.
<
p>Democracy on this scale is slew-footed, slow, idiosyncratic, aggravating. Deal with it.
bob-neer says
I don’t really know. I haven’t been one of the people demanding that Senator Clinton withdraw. I think a tough race has many benefits. I do think, however, that once things are reasonably clear — and I think we’ll be at that point without a knockout win today by Senator Clinton in PA, which I in my nothingness have defined as 20+ — that the value of a continued campaign becomes questionable. In an epistemological sense, we won’t know who won the nomination until after Denver, but if say Biden and Kucinich were still in the race, I don’t think that would be very constructive.
<
p>Anyway, let’s see what the good people of PA say.
ryepower12 says
Err…. 50%? LOL
<
p>She’s toast. Even I’ve moved on to Obama (not that I was ever that strong for Hill — I was an Edwards guy).
john-from-lowell says
Red State Update weighs in, as only they can:
<
p>
<
p>On the presumptive nominee point, back in Nov. 2006, I’d bet 70% of America would have said; “Barack who?”
<
p>NH and IA help change that!
jconway says
As I said in my own past that she cant win mathematically. Its over. She should have had this sown up. The fact that its a dead heat to a slight Obama win means that Hillary Clinton, the inevitable nominee, the heir to the dynasty, dare i say “the juggernaut!…bitch” has failed miserably at uniting a party and taking a primary she should have had in the bag.
<
p>I also want to clarify one more thing, plenty of people have said its impossible for Obama to win before the convention as well and he will be forced to win through superdelegates as well.
<
p>Yet he will have the popular vote lead, and the delegate lead going in. That AP story proved that unless she wins EVERY remaining primary by 20% or more, an impossible feat, he goes in with the advantage.
<
p>So those who say Hillary dropping out hurts the democratic process for the democratic primary I ask this simple question: If the plurality of the party supports someone else why should she be the nominee and how is that any less democratic than Obama supporters urging her to drop out?
anthony says
..that you are quoting the X-men, but your choice of words is going to get a lot of dander up.
<
p>As far as what is or isn’t democratic, our party chose how to choose a candidate. It is not popular vote, it is not pledged delegates, it is a certain number of electoral votes which are comprised of pledged delegates and independent super delegates. Neither candidate is going to hit the magic number on pledged delegates, so while there is nothing anti-democratic about voicing the opinion that one thinks she should drop out, there is equally nothing undemocratic about wanting her to remain. As far as all the hub-bub about who is, or isn’t damaging the party or hurting our chances in November, no one can claim authority on being correct, even people who may tend to insist that they need to be proven wrong.
syphax says
Except I’m stuck on how someone can be “proven wrong” when “no one can claim authority on being correct.”
<
p>Can we further agree that uncommitted superdelegates should declare their choice some time in June; the earlier, the better? I think the party would be much better off wrapping this thing up in June than in late August.
<
p>Any talk of Hillary dropping out is wasted breath; the only think that could get her out of the race at this point is lack of $.
anthony says
…Super Delegates want to voice their opinions tomorrow, and if they can muster enough support to propel a candidate to victory then the contest can be over tomorrow. They are free to do as they wish. I see no compelling reason for them to sit on their responsibility after the last primary. Heck, if people are concerned about the strength of the party, it is the uncommitted Supers who should get their ire, they are the ones who are going to decide this. It could have been over last week if they wanted.
<
p>I’m still stuck on the “proven wrong” thing myself. You’ll have to go to the source for that one.
<
p>
bob-neer says
“Prove me wrong.”
<
p>I had no idea you liked that kind of music.
stomv says
but its funny NOT WORK SAFE
<
p>
<
p>NOT WORK SAFE
justice4all says
Yeah – I guess all those women who are voting for Hillary NOW won’t be needed by Mr. Obama in November. Keep this up, jconway and you will be saying “President John McCain” come November. Really – calling our candidate a “juggernaut bitch” is no way to make friends.
<
p>The reality, jconway – is that the nomination is not about who can get a simple majority. There’s a very high benchmark for a reason. You guys wanted Hillary out before Pennsylania because her numbers still prove that the guy can’t win these big states.
<
p>So – let Mr. Obama win at the convention, and then it will be fair and square. Otherwise, it will feel as if the stage was set to push yet another good, female candidate aside in favor of a man.
matthew02144 says
20 points is a bit of a stretch, and seems to have been picked out of thin air.
<
p>I’ll say that if Obama loses by more than 5 points tonight he should drop out. It will be clear that he can’t carry big states like Pennsylvania and Ohio that the Dems need to win in the general election.
<
p>A win for Clinton is a win. And the fact that she has been outspent 3-1 by Obama and will still manage to claim victory speaks volumes about how resilient she is and how dedicated her supporters are.
trickle-up says
Quite possible to win the primary and lose the general in any given state. More to the point, the loser in the primary could in fact be the stronger candidate later.
<
p>Less likely in Penn., perhaps, where to vote in the party’s primary you have to, you know, be a member of the party.
<
p>Lots of people have been wasting time with electoral maps trying to apply lessons from the primaries and caucuses. A bigger waste o time I cannot imagine; these things are not the same.
vitallink84 says
Where are Obama’s harlem votes? Why did he get 0?
<
p>Why won’t Philly allow paper ballots and later polling times in Philly where machines broke in Obama strongholds?
<
p>John Bonifaz’s group is suing….
lolorb says
on in the background. All I hear are talking heads arguing over one another in screeching voices. I just want it to stop. If I promise to vote for Obama, can I get them to stop now? Please. Stop. Now. You win. If it shuts up Tweety Bird and Olberman and all the rest, I’m down with whatever it takes. Uncle. OK? Barack Obama is a god. Hillary Clinton is a hideous bitch who must drop out now. I’m there. Just please make the media stop repeating the same shit over and over again in screeching voices!!!
bob-neer says
<
p>2. Turn off your TV.
<
p>3. Engage in the raillery and badinage on BMG.
<
p>You’ll feel much better. đŸ™‚