IA-03, NJ-Sen, Montana and South Dakota: What's At Stake Tonight

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 14:27


Several elections tonight. In the Iowa 3rd, we have Bush Dog incumbent Boswell vs. progressive challenger Ed Fallon. In New Jersey, we have Incumbent, machine-bakced, but generally progressive Frank Lautenberg vs. corporate challenger Andrews. And, of course, we have the final presidential primaries in Montana and South Dakota. I will begin live-blogging returns here at Open Left at 8 p.m., when the first polls close in South Dakota and all polls close in New Jersey. All polls close in Montana and South Dakota at 9 p.m. eastern. Polls close in the Iowa 3rd at 10 p.m., eastern.

What Is At Stake Tonight

  • Momentum. Currently, Barack Obama is precisely tied with John McCain in national polls, and effectively tied with McCain at the state, electoral college level. The ideal scenario for Obama to pick up momentum this week is to win both primaries tonight, reach the magic number tomorrow, and for Clinton to give her "acknowledging reality" speech on Thursday. That would give Obama three consecutive positive days of press coverage, and allow the nomination campaign to end on a positive note for the nominee.

    The nightmare scenario for Obama is if he actually loses one of the two primaries tonight. As unlikely as it seems, this is actually possible. Poblano predicts Obama to win South Dakota by only 5%, and ARG predicts Obama to only win Montana by 4%. (Granted, Poblano predicts a Montana blowout while ARG predicts a South Dakota blowout.) Given that the Clinton's have been campaigning in the two states much harder than the Obama's, it is not out of the realm of the possible for Clinton to sneak out a victory tonight. This would be terrible for Obama, since wrapping up the nomination after a loss is exactly the sort of "stumbling across the line" scenario that has hurt Democrats, such as Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter, in the past. So, a double victory for Obama tonight, while not important in terms of winning the nomination, is important in terms of positioning for the general election.

More of what is at stake, along with my personal predictions, tonight in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: IA-03, NJ-Sen, Montana and South Dakota: What's At Stake Tonight
  • Delegates: Montana's 16 delegates are split into two five-delegate districts, four at-large delegates, and two PELO delegates. The winner of each of the two five-delegate districts takes a 3-2 split, but 70.0% is required to earn a 4-1 split. The latter is highly unlikely, just as it is highly unlikely that Obama will reach the 62.5% needed at the statewide level to win the at-large delegates 3-1. Overall, the most likely scenario is for Obama to win both districts 3-2, for the at large delegates to split 2-2, and for the PLEO delegates to split 1-1. Look for a 9-7 Obama delegate victory.

    South Dakota's 15 delegates include a single, statewide nine delegate district, four at-large delegates determined separately, and two PLEO delegates. Even though all of these delegates are apportioned based on the statewide vote, they are calculated separately. The winner of South Dakota earns an automatic 8-7 delegate split. If the winner reaches 61.112% of the two-candidate vote, the split is 9-6. If the winner reaches 62.501%, the split is 10-5. My money is on Obama winning 8-7, thus picking up 17 for the night. As I type this, those 17 delegates would put Obama within 15.5 delegates of the nomination.

  • Popular Vote: My latest calculation currently gives Obama a comically narrow lead of 357 votes in the "popular vote." If he ends up ahead by 24,000 or more, then he moves outside the margin of error according to this count. Reaching that number will probably require Obama to win the two states by an average of around 9-10%.

  • Bush Dog vs. Grassroots Test Case. Yesterday, Matt had a great summary of what is at stake in the Iowa 3rd tonight. Here is an excerpt:

    So now, this is the rawest test of an internet fueled grassroots campaign with none of the bells and whistles of a Donna Edwards or Ned Lamont, up against everything the establishment can throw at a candidate.  It's an interesting test case of paid media - this primary will demonstrate what percentage of primary voters have moved their information and political habits away from low information broadcast channels, and towards internet and a more social form of politics.

    Big time stuff. As much as I would love for Fallon to win, I predict Boswell by 9%.

  • Corporate Dem vs. Progressive, Machine Incumbent: On the other side of the coin, tonight in New Jersey I hope that an older, machine-backed incumbent holds off a primary challenge. Senator Frank Lautenberg is facing a primary challenge from the hard to stomach Rob Andrews. While Lautenberg is expected to win easily, hopefully he will deliver the sort of crushing victory that will make it much harder for Andrews to run for this seat in 2014 when it will likely become open. I say Lautenberg by 18%.

What say you? Give your expectations and predictions for tonight in the comments.  


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Andrews v Lautenberg (4.00 / 3)
Andrews is not angling for 2014 Senate. He's angling for 2009 Governor. Let's make sure that doesn't happen.  

Let's not go nuts... (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, obviously, it would be best if Obama won both states tonight.  But the reality is that it flips all of 1-2 delegates.  I just don't think this is going to make a big difference in, say, about 2 weeks.

Dont you think .. (0.00 / 0)
that if Obama thought they were in danger of losing SD .. they would have put more effort into it? .. Do you really think Obama wants to end this with a tie(meaning winning MT & losing SD)?  They have shown they know what they are doing so far.  Besides, just think of all the egg on Daschle's face if Obama lost SD.

[ Parent ]
Not sure (0.00 / 0)
It does seem to me that the Obama campaign has not hit these last few states with the laserlike focus they were hitting every single state with just a month ago.

[ Parent ]
Think they were just eager to get into GE mode... (0.00 / 0)
And it may have cost them a few points here and there in the primary race.  I'm not sure if it was the right strategic decision or not, but clearly Obama has been in GE mode since NC/IN.

[ Parent ]
What's at stake for Clinton (0.00 / 0)
I think the MT & SD results won't matter as much in reality as in perception among political activists, if Obama loses one.  If he wins both, he'll get a nice media boost, but if he doesn't, the important will fade away within weeks and I think it really won't matter.  However, in the first few days, a lot of committed Democrats (including bloggers) will think that it matters a lot, and as a result, be more upset at Clinton than they otherwise would've been.  That will make her exit less "graceful".

Clinton has been burning a lot of bridges in the past couple of months, and I think more is at stake her for her future in the Democratic party than for Obama's presidential campaign.  If she wins one of these states, she strikes a blow against herself by solidifying the burnedness of some of those bridges, and diminishes her chances of future advancement (either as a leader in the Senate, or as a presidential candidate).


Not Confident (0.00 / 0)
Ideally, Obama wins both Montana and South Dakota handily, picks up momentum from those final wins and puts any popular vote arguments to bed.  Ideally, Lautenberg crushes Andrews and Fallon sneaks by Boswell.

I'm not confident of any of those, except maybe Lautenberg winning comfortably.  But, as much as I'd love to see Fallon take out Boswell, I'm pretty skeptical of it happening.  I'll certainly be keeping my fingers crossed, though.  As for Obama, I'm certainly worried he'll lose South Dakota by a few points tonight.  I really have no handle on these states.  I definitely don't want him going out on a split.

If he does lose SD or--I don't really want to think about it--SD and MT, then the effect on his momentum coming out of that has to be based, I would think, at least somewhat on how Clinton concedes.  If she does it without talking about final wins or popular vote arguments, then I don't know if it hurts him much.  It might push the media away from those narratives.  If she concedes while talking up these points, the media will obsess on it and that will definitely hurt Obama's momentum.  Considering he's tied with McCain right now, that's not a happy thought.

Still, I think he gets a good boost out of Clinton's concession unless it absolutely seems dragged out of her.  A couple convincing wins tonight, however, would really help with momentum and with bringing Clinton supporters over into his camp.  It should be an interesting night.


nobody will care about South Dakota in November (4.00 / 4)
This would be terrible for Obama, since wrapping up the nomination after a loss is exactly the sort of "stumbling across the line" scenario that has hurt Democrats, such as Walter Mondale and Jimmy Carter, in the past.

Give. Me. A. Break. Carter (double digit inflation, Iran hostage situation) and Mondale (running against a popular incumbent during a strong economy and promising to raise taxes) lost for many reasons the least of which were how they ended the primary campaign. Nobody will remember by next week let alone November that Obama lost South Dakota should that even happen. It would at most be a story for a couple of days pushed by the usual media concern trolls (Scarborough, Matthews).


Actually (0.00 / 0)
Carter stmbled badly at the end in 1976 losing in California and NJ but winning solidly in Ohio.  He won with 297 electoral votes in the fall including Ohio and 12 out of the 13 southern states.

The biggest thing that's happened since March 5 is that the media has focussed on Obama and Hillary and mostly ignored McCain for 3 months.  It's been a help as measured by the electoral college outcomes on the side of MyDD.  Six more weeks of keeping McCain out of the front pages would be a further plus.


[ Parent ]
"corporate challenger Andrews" (4.00 / 1)
Not sure I understand what makes Andrews "corporate." Conservative, okay, maybe -- his past votes, especially on Iraq, support that -- but corporate? This seems like a vast over-simplification of the dynamics of this race.

What About California? (0.00 / 0)
We have our Congressional and legislative primaries today, and there should be some interesting numbers coming back in terms of prospects to flip seats in the general election.  Also, Kevin Johnson is running for Mayor of Sacramento.  Yeah, the former Phoenix Suns point guard.  We'll be liveblogging the returns at Calitics.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.

Since I'm stuck in NYC (0.00 / 0)
I'll have to stay up late to know what happens with the Leno-Migden-Nation race.  

Can it happen here?

[ Parent ]
Nothing to do with results (0.00 / 0)
But I think tonight will also be an important messaging battle between the general election candidates.  Obama will not just be declaring victory, he'll also be declaring war regarding the general election.  That's why he's in Minnesota, and I expect (hope) that after the standard round of victory hurrahs and pleasant words for Clinton, he's going to offer a strong message regarding the general election.

McCain is also giving a major speech tonight.  He clearly doesn't want to yield the spotlight tonight and let Obama's messaging define the general election going forward.  This portion has already leaked:

You will hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I'm running for President Bush's third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it's so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it's very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false.

We also have news that the RNC has just begun to circulate its first video ad attacking Obama's experience using Clinton's Commander-in-Chief threshold quote.

I think the gauntlet is being thrown down.  It will be fun to watch.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."







Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search