The Delegate Count: Clinton's Firewall and a California Showdown

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 14:36


( - promoted by Matt Stoller)

Obama now clearly seems headed toward victory in New Hampshire. Here is an average of the five New Hampshire polls conducted entirely after Iowa:

Obama: 35.4%
Clinton: 30.8%
Edwards: 19.0%
Richardson: 4.8%
Kucinich: 1.8%
Other / Unsure: 8.2%

Mason-Dixon and Zogby also have polls that are partially post-Iowa, both of which show Obama ahead in the post-Iowa data. Obama is clearly ahead in New Hampshire right now. With only two days left and the momentum overwhelmingly on his side in the state, it is very, very hard to see how he doesn't win New Hampshire.

For a long time, I have argued that Obama is poised to sweep to the nomination in the event that he sweeps Iowa and New Hampshire. However, now I am not so sure. In a development that has flown under the radar, it now seems to me that, as long as Clinton wins Florida and California, she will be ahead in delegates after February 5th no matter what happens in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. There are three basic reasons for this:
Chris Bowers :: The Delegate Count: Clinton's Firewall and a California Showdown
  • Clinton holds a sizable Super Delegate lead. Nearly 20% of the delegates to the DNC are not elected in either primaries or caucuses. In that group, Clinton looks pretty good:

    The party has 797 superdelegates.

    Most were undecided before the Iowa caucuses, but among those who have endorsed a candidate, 160 picked Clinton. Barack Obama has the support of 59 while 32 support John Edwards.

  • Michigan and Florida will be seated at the convention. Anyone who thinks that the key swing states of Michigan and Florida won't be seated at the Democratic convention is foolish. Jerome Armstrong has been pointing this out for a while:

    It seems to be lost on some here that the delegates from Michigan and Florida will be seated at the DNC convention. For those of you who believe the nonsense that MI & FL delegates will not be seated at all, I would appreciate a historical precedent (would it be too much to request that it's from the last 100 years too?). The truth is, MI & FL will be seated.

    Jerome is right. Sources of mine in the DNC admit this. There is no way that Michigan and Florida won't be seated. Since neither Obama nor Edwards is on the ballot in Michigan, this means that all 128 of Michigan's pledged delegates will go to Clinton. This further pads her delegate advantage.

  • Four Clinton "home states" on Super Tuesday. The Super Tuesday states are very favorable to Clinton, featuring four states where her lead might be unassailable to only one for Obama. Clinton has oversized leads of at least 25%, and sometimes 35%, in Arkansas, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. Together, these states have 422 pledged delegates, to only 153 for Illinois. Thus, on top of her Michigan and Super Delegates advantages, Clinton thus has a large, built-in February 5th advantage.

Collectively, Clinton's advantage in Super Delegates, Michigan, and February 5th home states provides her with roughly a 500 delegate advantage on Obama. If she were to also win Florida and California, which combine for 555 pledged delegates, it would be impossible for Obama to be ahead on delegates after February 5th. He could win every other state between now and February 6th, and never make up that sort of delegate deficit.

Now, there are several complicating factors to this scenario. First, while the DNC admits that it will seat Michigan and Florida, one of the main purposes of the threat to remove their delegates is to insure that Michigan and Florida's delegates won't be included in the running delegate count for any candidate. In other words, the basic DNC plan is to maintain the threat to not seat Michigan and Florida until the nomination is decided, thus denying Michigan and Florida an impact on the nomination process without denying them a seat at the convention. However, once the media starts maintaining running delegate counts of their own, it isn't clear if they will comply with this plan.

Second, there is no guarantee that Clinton will be able to maintain her hold on unpledged, "Super" delegates if Obama starts to rack up wins. If Clinton supports start to defect, Obama will close the ground in the Super Delegate count. Also, Obama could start to pickup undecided Super Delegates if he continue to win early states.

Third, Democratic primaries do not have winner take all delegate systems. Most of the pledged delegates will be dished out on a proportional basis and a congressional district basis to candidates who receive more than 15% of vote in a congressional district. For example, only 376 of the 1,688 unpledged delegates to be had on Super Tuesday will be allotted to the winner of individual states. The rest will be determined not on a winner take all, state by state system, but on a proportional, congressional district by congressional district level. So, even if she sweeps Arkansas, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, Obama will still score a decent number of delegates in Clinton's four home states. Then again, Clinton will also score delegates in Illinois, just as she will also score delegates in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

However, the overall point still stands. If Clinton is able to win Florida on January 29th and California on February 5th, it is very hard to see how she falls too far behind in the delegate count. In fact, if her Super Delegates are combined with victories in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York, it is hard to see how she falls behind in the delegate count at all. She might very well maintain the national strength to pull this off, too, since Rasmussen's national post-Iowa tracking poll shows Obama only gaining a single point on Clinton, with most of the movement actually going to Edwards. The latter isn't really surprising since, at long last, Edwards is finally getting some national coverage due to his second place finish in Iowa.

Obama is headed to victory in New Hampshire and, after that, South Carolina. Clinton, however, will still win Michigan, and still has good chances to take both Nevada and Florida. All told, this should be enough to keep Clinton in the game nationally, and allow her to hold down her four home states. All of this should render California a key battleground that might very well decide the nomination. The nomination isn't over, not by a longshot. While a quick and decisive nomination victory appears to have slipped from Clinton's grasp, it would be wise to disabuse ourselves of any notions that Obama can finish her off by sweeping Iowa and New Hampshire. There is a seven-state path for Clinton that would keep her in the game after Super Tuesday, and the only real doubts for her in those seven states are Florida and California.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Latinos? (0.00 / 0)
I think that attention hasn't been paid to the potential role Latinos would play if Clinton were to come back on Obama. (Nevada, California, Florida) You are the poll master, I'd like to see a discussion of Latino preference. The last polls I remember showed Clinton with a commanding lead among Latinos.

I think the dynamics of the race changes (0.00 / 0)
If Obama wins SC, NV as well as NH, then the dynamics change and she may not win California. If she loses California what then. Also if she loses states like MO. OH, PA and TX as well as Georgia and Arizona, how do you deny Obama THE NOMINATION.

[ Parent ]
Observations (4.00 / 1)
I think the Superdelegates are more fluid.  As you, I think, pointed out, much of Hillary's support from elected party leaders is kind of "machine inertia", where they stick with the conventional candidate, at least at first.  But if Obama is surging, it then becomes about other factors, like patronage.  At least some will go the way uncommitted voters who liked Obama but weren't sure of his electability will go.

It's too late for anyone registered Independent or DTS to reregister to vote in the CA primary.  All those whom you (rightly) deride as "too cool for the Dems" can't now vote to stop Hillary.  OTOH, the Schwarzenegger vote showed that the CA electorate will take chances on candidates who inspire.  I'd peg the Latino vote as critical.  Outreach is key, as a Feb primnary is a total unknown here.

There has been zero TV campaigning in CA except on some Indian gaming measures.  We aren't even damp, let alone saturated, at least not now.  We haven't mattered since 1968, when at least half the electorate hadn't even been born.  Hell, we hardly got ANY commercials during the last 2 Presidential (general) elections.  This may be enough to keep people, especially new people, interested enough to vote.

Things are fluid, but I don't think Hillary can pull it off if she keeps promising us more of the same and deriding those who promise more.

Edwards' money problems may come into play.  He may also be looking to his future.  I don't sense it is with Hillary.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


California and 1972 (4.00 / 1)
A nit regarding your comment with which I generally agree:

Re: "We haven't mattered since 1968, when at least half the electorate hadn't even been born."

Actually, the primary in 1972 was the last "winner take all" primary in California and it mattered a lot. To both McGovern and Humphrey, it was the most important state and made or broke their campaigns.  After McGovern won, Humphrey challenged the apportionment and won in pre-convention committee.  The floor fight over the challenge to Humphrey's California delegates (that McGovern won) was all that saved the nomination for McGovern.  (Indeed, it is why the nominee was not known until the middle of the convention.) 


[ Parent ]
Howard Dean (0.00 / 0)
I think the Superdelegates are more fluid.

I just remember four years ago at this time, I seem to have some quite clear memories of sitting down just after Iowa+NH and realizing that Dean was still so far ahead on superdelegates that if you took an absolute delegate count Dean was ahead-- the number of committed delegates Dean had outnumbered the Iowa+NH delegates Kerry had. Didn't seem to count for much, and I doubt those superdelegates voted for Dean in the end...


[ Parent ]
California DTS (0.00 / 0)
Decline-to-state voters in CA can vote in the DEM primary (but not the Republican).

FYI.


[ Parent ]
Daley and more (4.00 / 1)
The big historical precedent for not seating elected delegates, of course, comes from 1972 when George McGovern and much of the rest of the party got revenge on Chicago Mayor Richard Daley (the real one, not the current version) and seated 58 delegates elected at semi-secret meetings around Chicago.  I lived in Chicago at the time and even vocal liberals thought this stunk.  Daley got his revenge by sitting on his hands come the general election (the margin from Chicago was cut by more than 50% to a weak 202,000). 

Now this was presented under other guises.  The Daley slate was predominantly white, male, and included few younger people.  Still, the Daley slate was ordered seated by an Illinois judge.

Superdelegates have generally gone with the leader.  They will this year which means Obama will get the lion's share.


Yes (4.00 / 1)
Superdelegates have generally gone with the leader.  They will this year which means Obama will get the lion's share.

One would hope they would refrain from endorsements until a nominee was close to sealing the nomination. The large, early migration of superdelegates to Hillary reeks of aristocracy.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


[ Parent ]
McGovern and Daley (0.00 / 0)
Actually McGovern supported a compromise that wouod have seated all of Daley's delegates and all of Jesse Jackson's delegates, giving each one half of a vote.  Daley refused and forced a convention vote.

There were also other problems with Daley's delegates.  Vote fraud and other election law violations were rampant and documented.


[ Parent ]
The long fight (0.00 / 0)
I agree that there is still a chance that Clinton will be fighting for the nomination late in the process.  She keeps saying that this will be decided on Feb. 5 and I expect that she will drop out if she does not win more delegates on Feb. 5 than Obama.  Obama for America has had offices in a majority of the Feb. 5 states for a while they are not unaware of the playing field.  The need to do well in CA and hold Clinton to a marginal win in NY state.

It is easy to predict that Obama will do very well in the small mountain west states, but hard to guess how CA will vote until we see some post Jan. 8 polling.  Hilary may still win NV and has a chance in FL since there will be no campaigning at all.  I think that uncommitted may do very well MI if voters are reminded that that is a choice.  SC will go heavily for Obama it had already started leaning that way before Iowa.

Here in PA the Obama folks are planning with an eye on the possibility that Feb. 5 will not end the race and we might have to win it for Obama here.

I do think that Hilary's lead in super delegates evaporates now that she is not inevitable, and the proportional system will mean that there is no way that Obama is out of the race until the convention for any realistic results out of Feb 5.  The delegates from MI and FL get seated when there is a nominee, not before.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama


The existent polling data just isn't that relevant... (4.00 / 1)
I looked on pollster.com for data about New York, California, etc., and all of the polls are weeks, if not months, old.  In the two most recent Quinniapac Florida polls, the most recent of which was taken in mid-December, there was a net shift towards Obama of 14 points.  Clearly, opinions in these states are fluid, and if Obama has won all of the contested primaries before Feb. 5th, and if he doesn't make any big mistakes, it is hard for me to see how support in the Feb. 5th states doesn't shift drastically in his direction...

But, of course, we will need to watch the polls in these states in the coming weeks.... 


California and New York (4.00 / 2)
Chris, I have the greatest respect for your analysis, but I really do think the dynamics of an Obama win in New Hampshire, and then in South Carolina, and (I predict) Nevada, will overwhelm Clinton. I live in New York and the people I know all stongly supported Clinton in her Senate campaigns. NONE of them would vote for her over Obama in the New York primary. I also lived for a time in California, and I predict that Obama will win easily in California. All the polls taken before Iowa are old news now. If Californians think Obama has a chance to win, Hillary's lead will evaporate like water in the California deserts. I am not saying that Clinton is out of it if she loses New Hampshire, but she will have a very hard time holding on.

personal anecdotes mean shit (2.67 / 3)


For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
Anecdotes (4.00 / 2)
Just as empty comments like yours do.

[ Parent ]
I disagree (4.00 / 3)
Respectfully, Chris, I think you are overestimating Clinton's chances.  If Obama wins New Hampshire, particularly if he does so decisively, the whole dynamic will start to change.  The party will start to consolidate around him.  Pressure will start to be put on Hillary.  Bradley just endorsed Obama today.  Look for bigger names (like Al Gore) and vanquished foes (John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd) to endorse Obama if he wins New Hampshire and South Carolina.

All of those developments, combined will all the media coverage, will swing the polls in Obama's favor in California and elsewhere.  They're just lagging indicators. 

That could all change, of course, if Hillary can pull out a New Hampshire victory or if Obama makes a bad unforced error, but I don't think Hillary can realistically do well on Feb. 5 without winning in NH or SC. 


The Edwards factor (0.00 / 0)
There are two things that stand out to me here:

1. Okay, so Chris has the math to show that Clinton can lose all these states but still win on Florida and California-- but can Edwards? Edwards doesn't have the superdelegates; his campaign's focus was so heavily on Iowa that I'm not sure he has the resources to continue campaigning past January; and if he's going to pick up any state via a last minute strategy it's certainly not going to be Florida, where he's pledged not to campaign. If we get to Feb. 4 and Edwards has not yet won a state, does he stay in? Why?

(I'm going to just assume, for purposes of the rest of this post, that Edwards wins no January states-- if Edwards does catch a second wind, then I think we've diverted from Chris's scenario already and none of this applies.)

2. Let's say Chris's theory is right. If so, then by Feb. 4, everyone else will realized this too. Chris's observation here differs from CW not because Chris has some insight or information everyone lacks-- it's because Chris is considering possibilities (Florida going to Clinton and florida+michigan being seated, the race being undecided by February, superdelegates going against the popular vote) most people are (although they're not too outlandish) right now assuming nonviable. But if these possibilities are viable, it will be by February obvious that they are so. This will be very dramatic, so it will get a lot of attention. Which means that every single Californian voter will be going in to the voting booth with the full knowledge that the election is down to Clinton or Obama, and that the results in California directly decide the election nationally.

At that point, it doesn't really matter whether Richardson, Edwards, etc are still in the race. At this point it becomes very very easy for either leading campaign to make the argument, look, the math says this is a two-person race now, if you don't vote for me then the other person wins. I can imagine scenarios in which Edwards is still in the race by then-- someone in a comment below mentions that he might be trying to grab as many delegates as possible in hopes of trading them for something at the convention, though that sounds kinda bizarre and risky-- but under that scenario I don't know what kind of argument he could possibly make to voters to convince them to vote for him with full knowledge that they're abstaining from an opportunity to decide the national nomination race.

So if you take Chris's idea seriously, the question becomes, can Clinton win in California in a two person race? It seems like the dynamics of that race would be very different from the one that's running right now.


[ Parent ]
Florida Delegates (4.00 / 1)
If they're going to seat the Florida delegates, they had better announce it before Florida votes – because if the nomination turns on whether or not those delegates are seated, there's no force that could hold the party behind Clinton if that decision is made at the last minute.

If Florida and Michigan (0.00 / 0)
flipped the nomination from Obama to Clinton, we would almost certainly see a third party run if Bloomberg was still interested and even if we didn't, Clinton would probably lose because she wouldn't get much of our base -- i.e. She would probably lose Illinois and any state where she needs big turnout among African-Americans (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida ... ).  Man that looks bleak.

[ Parent ]
Pelosi has already said Michigan and Florida will be seated (0.00 / 0)
Nancy Pelosi, who is the Permanent chair of the 2008 convention, has already stated the delegates will be seated:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has let the cat out of the bag and said what everyone has known all along: The Democratic National Committee's removal of all of Florida's 2008 convention delegates for violating party rules about scheduling state primaries before Feb. 5 is meaningless.


DemConWatch

[ Parent ]
Clinton Second In Iowa Delegates (0.00 / 0)
The delegate count did not fly under the radar for this guy. The delegate count was readily available on CNN.com for Iowa on the 3rd and as this quote says:

An AP analysis of the Iowa caucus results showed Obama winning 16 delegates, followed by Clinton with 15 and Edwards with 14. In the overall race for delegates, Clinton leads with 175, followed by Obama with 75 and Edwards with 46.

http://www.iht.com/a...

As for the super delegates - they are pretty savvy people politically for the most part and deal on facts and not emotion which seems to be what most Obama voters in Iowa dealt with. His is an emotion driven campaign.

With the states ahead as pointed out by Chris and the super delegates who have a firm footing in the realities of the world and can separate substance form rhetoric it is clear Clinton is not out of this. As long as she keeps drawing the contrasts between her and the others as she did last night she is well in the game.

Again remember she was only one delegate behind in Iowa. You can't get any closer to that than a tie. And NH only has 22 delegates (pledged after the primary - plus 8 unpledged) and as close as the race is in NH it is likely, even if Obama were to win, that she will be within 1 delegate there also.

Bottom line in Obama's lead is not as large as the brain dead media is playing it up to be. And count on Clinton bringing that up at the appropriate time to change the landscape.


Clinton's whole schtick is electability (4.00 / 5)
Experience and inevitability.  Obama has shown that for a large part of the electorate, particularly those born after the 1960's, Obama's message resonates, while she is promising "change" under the guise of returning her and Bill to the WH.  Ain't going to work.  If he keeps pulling in new people, it would be suicidal for the Superdelegates to force her on the party.  It would suddenly be 1968 instead of 1960.

And remember, Obama appeals to a lot of us who do personally remember 1968 and 1960. And we are neither stupid nor naive.


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
As Richardon said last night (0.00 / 0)
What's wrong with experience? Clinton has it - the other two don't.

I suppose when you need a doctor you prefer an inexperienced one but whose words make you feel good.

I suppose when you need a auto mechanic you prefer an inexperienced one but whose words make you feel good.

I suppose when you need a carpenter you prefer an inexperienced one but whose words make you feel good.

I suppose when you fly on a plane you prefer an inexperienced pilot but whose words on takeoff make you feel good.

I suppose when an employer hires for a job they should shun experience and look for one whose words make them feel good.

Yeah experience sucks. Waxing poetic is where it is at.


[ Parent ]
It's bigger than that... (0.00 / 0)
You can tout all of the "experience" you want, but if much of that said experience involves being a DLC Dem, I'm not interested.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos, but why would you want to?

[ Parent ]
You See The Problem (0.00 / 0)
with people like you is you ignore Clinton's record. You refused to hear last night the short-list of liberal accomplishments that she has promoted. You refuse to go to any number of progressive sites that rate our reps and see that Clinton has a stellar progressive rating.

Progressive Punch rates her with a 91.29 'lifetime' progressive rating which is 16th out of and 100 in the Senate. Kennedy and Boxer come in at 95.29 and 95.03 respectively polling at numbers 7 & 8 just to give you some perspective.

Clinton on individual issues:

Aid to Less Advantaged People - 97.53

Against Corporate Subsidies - 100

Housing - 100

Fair Taxation  - 97.27

Health Care - 97.65

Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful -  93.56 which is #14 in the Senate

But no! You and others ignore all that.

Instead you either like Obama's inferior 88.76 rating which is only 24th in the Senate or Edwards' dismal record when he was in the Senate.

So go ahead and falsely paint her DLC when the record shows otherwise. This is politics after all which means you can lie and just make stuff up.


[ Parent ]
Hillary is Status Quo (0.00 / 0)
For me it is simple: Clinton voted for the war.  Read her speech on the Senate floor from that day - it is B.S.  Read Brent Scowcroft's op-ed before the war - a lot of people knew going to war would be a huge, huge mistake.

How can I discount a whole career because of one vote?  Because it was the single most disastrous decision the US has made in my lifetime.  Edwards at least has apologized - Hillary? nope. 

Obama is the right man at the right time.  He is more than just a smooth talker with a pretty face - he is extremely bright with an incredible life story.  JFK and Hillary's own husband didn't have much experience either. He is not perfect - but he is making progressive arguments in a way that American people are connecting with.


[ Parent ]
Obama didn't have to vote (0.00 / 0)
And in 2004 he said in a magazine article that he was unsure of how he would have voted had he been in the senate at the time. He also defended Kerry and Edwards' vote and said there was room for disagreement. In addition he made the point that he did not have access to the classified intelligence that members of Congress saw, and he might have voted differently if he had.

After all that - saying he was against the war - then defending Kerry/Edwards - then saying he might have voted differently - to subsequently voting TO FUND HE WAR...

One can surely say he is an agent of change. He changed his mind from being against the war to actually funding the war he said he was against but didn't know if he would have voted differently!!!

Well if after he was in the Senate he continuously voted to fund it it is a safe guess that he would have also voted for it had he been in the Senate.

So yeah you can be myopic and be a one issue voter - that is your option. But I bet if people judged you on one thing they didn't like and didn't judge you on all your merits you would feel that they are not being fair with you and are just picking on one thing because they consciously don't want to like you so they pick one thing to base that dislike on. And you would be right - people shouldn't base their opinion of you on just one thing. And that works two ways.


[ Parent ]
On the importance of experience I have two words (4.00 / 3)
Dick.  Cheney.

Politics isn't just experience living, it's what you've done, the varieties of experience, and above all, how it has informed your judgement, and your vision. The latter are as important as experience per se.  Again, see Cheney, Dick.

Obama has been a legislator longer than Clinton.  Her experience, other than as a lawyer and Senator, is deriviative of her husband's.  Obama has as much total legislative experience, and he has experience as a lawyer, though not as long or for as high-paying clients as hers.

More importantly, hers has unfortunately largely been in DC and she has succumbed to the conventional wisdom.  See her votes on Iraq and Iran.  She's tried so hard she has lost her authenticity and her imagination.  Too bad--she is smart and talented.

I do expect Obama to consult people with a variety of expertise to advise him.  But on the vision thing, no one can give it to you, and he has it all over her.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Edwards' support (4.00 / 2)
If Edwards doesn't place a strong second in New Hampshire, I think he'll leave the race.  Judging from last night's debate, Edwards clearly understands that the best way to bring about the change he desires is to support Obama if Edwards cannot win himself.  Therefore, I think there's a very good chance that Edwards will be out by Florida.  If Edwards endorses Obama, hopefully most of his base will also support Obama.  I think that easily puts Obama over 50% in Florida.  From what I've seen, the anti-Clinton sentiment in the Democratic Party will defeat Hillary if it unifies behind a single candidate. 

Sadly, I hope Edwards leaves the race after New Hampshire.

Obama '08.

Rudy is a Tyrant


Edwards surges nationally - Clinton Drops - Obama no change. (4.00 / 1)
http://www.rasmussen...

This race isn't over, the leader has not been chosen, a week is forever in a campaign. If you need confirmation about what little we know and how people might react. Look to this new national poll.
Weird I guess if you expect things to go the old way, but it is Edwards who has the bump nationally not Obama. Rasmussen polling has 6 point jump for Edwards a small decline or flat for Obama and a 5 to 6 point drop for Clinton.

Clinton  Obama  Edwards  Date

36%  -  25%  - 23%  -  1/6/08

38%  -  25%  -  20%  - 1/5/08

38% -  26% -  18%  - 1/4/08

41%  -   24%  - 17%  -  1/3/08

42%  - 23% - 16%  -  12/30/07

This isn't a win for Edwards yet, but it's a huge leap forward, at the expense of Clinton, and no national jump for Obama yet.

If you are a National Union waiting to see if its time to pump up your support for John Edwards -these are convincing numbers. If you had been waiting to see if John was going to become viable, and it was time to come out, or contribute, the answer just became yes.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
I understand your hope, but let's be practical (0.00 / 0)
I have only given money to a political campaign once so far, and it was to Edwards.  I had my checkbook open and ready to give him more money after he won Iowa.  Didn't happen.  I'm awfully down about it too.  But, I'm not going to let Hillary Clinton become the nominee because my guy didn't win.  Do you expect progressives to gamble on Edwards' national poll numbers in the hope that he will come out of Super Tuesday with a win?  I don't see him winning any of the states before Super Tuesday - possibly Nevada, but that's it.  Meanwhile, the only candidate who looks poised to win needs all the momentum he can get before Super Tuesday.  I don't want to wake up on February 6th with Clinton as the nominee because of meaningless national polling.  Edwards lost Iowa.  He is a distant third in New Hampshire, and he hasn't got a prayer in South Carolina without a New Hampshire win.  He's done.  All he can do now is split the anti-Clinton vote. 

I care more about the progressive movement than I care about a single candidate.  That means the establishment of the Democratic Party, i.e. Clinton, must be stopped.  Edwards has lost his chance to do it - the only one progressives can turn to is Obama.

Sorry, but think in terms of movement not personality.

Rudy is a Tyrant


[ Parent ]
Ironic (4.00 / 1)
Sorry, but think in terms of movement not personality.

Do you not see the irony in making that appeal on behalf of Obama?


[ Parent ]
Yes, I do see the irony (0.00 / 0)
Actually, as I was writing that last sentence, I was thinking exactly what you have written.  However, there is ample evidence that Obama is starting a movement regardless of his personality.  The proof:  Look at the Iowa turnout.  Look at the numbers of Independents and young people that the Obama campaign brought to the Democratic caucus.  I'll qualify it and say that it's not ALL Obama's doing, but the numbers show that Obama is providing a focal point for a fundamental political realignment to the Left in this country.  Again, I wish Edwards were the focal point, but as far as the numbers are concerned, it's Obama.

Rudy is a Tyrant

[ Parent ]
a week is a long time (0.00 / 0)
The numbers are what we watch. I'm hoping for real change not more of the same. I hoping for a mandate to make the changes necessary to protect not just the middle class, or the economy but democracy.

I also feel it in my guts that huge oil, pharma and insurance etc. have a strangle hold on democracy.

America wants and needs more than a new face and new style. I don't know what helped JRE 'get it', but his eloquent forceful argument, last night in the debate, on removing troops from Iraq withing 9 months of taking office is proof enough, to say nothing of his description to the American heartland of the political and economic landscape.

No one has so forcefully and directly explained the predicament that America is in. It isn't rhetoric, because now Americans can see directly where they stand in the fight, and they can see who stands there with them.

The fact that after John's explanation of where Americans stand, what Americans want and deserve, there is no putting it back in the bottle.

I expect Iowans, and others who have heard John to commit to him very strongly.

And Rasmussen numbers are fascinating. Significant that it's now the subject of Jerome's new blog

Thank you for your friendly troll explaining how we should all just lie down now.

I dont think its in the cards.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.


[ Parent ]
California (4.00 / 1)
I don't have any scientific data to back me up, but I just don't see Californians voting for Clinton if Obama stays on his roll.  He already has a very active campaign office up an running here in San Diego - people are pretty excited about him. 

On the Sunday shows this morning most talking heads were sounding as if Clinton had already lost the nomination. They kept saying things like, "The Republican race is MUCH more up in the air than the Democrats." If Clinton wins in New Hampshire, she my have a fighting chance - but if she loses both in New Hampshire and South Carolina I really think she is finished. 


Florida and Michigan (4.00 / 4)
What I'm hearing--in Michigan--is that, sure, they will seat our delegates with the understanding that those delegates will support the nominee who has already been chosen. So if Hillary wins in MI but Obama wins nationwide, then those delegates won't get seated until those delegates agree to support the party nominee who has won in all the other states.

Furthermore, I wouldn't be so sure about MI. Party insiders are ALL talking about voting "uncommitted." So even assuming they'll seat delegates reflecting the vote as it happened, there will still be a significant number who will be to the eventual party nominee.

Also, note that only one of the MI superdelegates have committed, Conyers to Obama, and only two of the FL superdelegates have committed, Wasserman Schultz and Hastings to Hillary. That suggests that in MI and FL, the party leadership is generally withholding their vote, which was part of the whole point behind moving the primary up. I suspect they're not going to award in droves to Hillary, which would effectively make the primary more meaningless than it already is, not least because those who understand what happened are likely to get even more cranky at state party leaders who screwed us with their gamesmanship on the primary in the first place.

Finally, no one is accounting for MI's very easy cross-over voting. My vote next week is meaningless if I vote in the Democratic primary (and I've got no meaningful primary to vote for). But the Republican contest is likely to be rather interesting, with Mitt's ties to MI and McCain's success here in 2000 (with huge numbers of cross-over voters). That doesn't change the fact that Hillary is the only one on the Dem ballot. But high information voters who are likely cast a meaningless Democratic ballot for the most part know to vote "uncommitted," whereas low information voters are much more likely to cross over and vote for one of the people running ads on teevee.


For the record (0.00 / 0)
Didn't see this one before I posted mine, though I'm not sure it changes anything in the (admittedly unlikely) scenario that Obama and Clinton are essentially tied going into the convention.

[ Parent ]
Uncommitted will be important (4.00 / 1)
I would expect the Obama and Edwards people to promote the Uncommitted selection, so I don't think you can just assume Clinton will get all of Michigan's delegates.

DemConWatch

[ Parent ]
Michigan (4.00 / 3)
I agree that it's hard to imagine, under practically any normal circumstances, that the Democrats would refuse to seat Florida and Michigan. But, if Michigan's delegates somehow wind up being the decisive difference between an Obama Nomination and a Clinton nomination, we're not in normal circumstances anymore, and I don't know what would happen. I do know that Obama supporters would think, rightly, that it would be fundamentally unfair for Obama to lose the nomination because he followed the rules of the nominating contest.

Dare I say that this is a 'brokered convention' scenario? Time to by Gore shares on Intrade?


exactly (4.00 / 3)
Really, can you imagine the Democratic party denying the nomination to an African-American who won the popular vote based on superdelegates and two delegate slates already ruled out of order by the DNC? It would, and should, destroy the party.

I'm not saying Clinton might not win enough delegates in the Feb 5 states and beyond, but that scenario is too frightening to contemplate.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
Hmm, denying the prize to the winner of the popular vote based on a screwy delegate apportionment system and insider skulduggery; mass disenfranchisement of the majority of Democrats. You got it: Bush v. Gore 2.0, except this time, it's the Democratic party that would lose any claim to the moral high ground.

[ Parent ]
the superdelegates (0.00 / 0)
are not going to deny Obama the nomination if Obama wins the largest share of the Democratic vote. It's just not going to happen.

I don't know that Connecticut and South Jersey remain home territory for Clinton. (4.00 / 1)
I know the polls at one point indicated it, but if Obama wins NH and SC, and especially if he wins NV too, then I would assume CT and South Jersey at least follow suit.  Only one of five CT districts are in the NY media market.  And even if they all were, just being familiar with Hillary from TV doesn't make one a lock to vote for her.

The NYC and North Jersey machines I'm sure can deliver a hell of a lot of votes to Hillary, but even NYC let's look at.  If SC votes for Obama, aren't the black neighborhoods of NYC gonna follow?  Aren't the white liberals in Manhattan and Brooklyn?  I don't know NYC politics that well, but depending on how Obama looks in late January, he should be able to poach voters from right under Hillary's nose, no matter what the machine politicians and hack preachers are saying.  He won't win New York, but I don't know that he'll get blown out either. 

California is still the super X factor though.  The entire establishment has endorsed Hillary, but what exactly will that be worth?  A lot in a machine state, but how much?


Hillary in New York (0.00 / 0)
Living here in Brooklyn, it seems to me that while Hillary is popular in New York, it is not a loyal or fervent popularity, and I could easily see Obama defeating her.

Interesting, but I disagree. (0.00 / 0)
In your previous analysis of the polls you were talking about the cumulative bounce out of Iowa and New Hampshire and how it would affect Nevada.

If the bounce affects Nevada such that Obama should win it, why would it not affect Florida or California the same way?

I think that the bounce will matter and I think that Obama will have a significant fundraising advantage by the time February 5th rolls around. Obama still has the donor counter on his front page and he has gotten 20000 new donors since January third. 20000.


chris keep drinking mark penn's kool-aid (0.00 / 0)
oh ok now....miss inevitable loses iowa & nh, nevada & sc....
but somehow mounts a comeback in california?????

after obama wins sc the only dems NOT on board with obama will
be hrc, jimmy carville, terry mcauliffe and jerome armstrong.

what the fuck do you think GORE is gonna do????

gore will put the final nail in her coffin AFTER sc, he would do it now
but if it ain't broke don't fix it....


Not Fair (0.00 / 0)
Chris accurately predicted an Obama-Edwards-Clinton finish in Iowa.  He's understandably nervous about Clinton's strength on Super Tuesday.  There's noting wrong with staying keen and worried.  It's a good motivator.

Kudos on the end of your second paragraph.  I'd like to shout it from the rooftops, but I fear being banned.  What the hell has happened over there?

Rudy is a Tyrant


[ Parent ]
Would Clinton carry Illinois in the general if (0.00 / 0)
Illinois Democrats and particularly African-Americans felt cheated?  Would she carry states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida where African-American turnout can be decisive?

What a silly analysis (0.00 / 0)
Bowers,

I find your analysis, frankly, pretty silly.

First, as others have pointed out, if they simply decided to seat delegates from either of those two states, knowing such a decision effectively punishes the candidates who played by the rules -- it would tear the party apart.  Almost all the players would look for every alternate scenario possible to prevent this from happening.  And barring a solution, you can bet it would end up in court.

Second, you assume un-breachable Clinton strength in firewall states based on polling nearly a month old, where they won't be voting for at least another month.  We won't know for at least 10 days to 2 weeks what impact dual wins by Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire  could to the next round of state numbers (not to mention another likely win in SC, under that scenario).  But to assume they won't have an impact at all is just naive.

Lastly, you put a lot of weight on the power of superdelegates for Hillary, when she barely has 20% of them in her camp.  This is hardly an argument for a huge superdelegate advanatage should this nomination fight come end up being close. 

If anything, her institutional strength should have given her a larger edge, and the fact that it hasn't really points to a scenario where the undecided superdelegates, if decisive, actually go with the candidate who either got the most votes, most states, or offers the best chance in the general election.  None of the those three reasons naturaly favor any specific candidate at this point.

Winning creates momentum, it always has -- you have constructed an analysis to suggest the opposite, based largely on completely flawed thinking.


Do you realize... (4.00 / 1)
we could very well be looking at a brokered convention. 

If I understand it correctly, Clinton only wins if she gets a majority(50%+1) of the delegates.  At the present time, it's close enough that no one candidate will get that majority of delegates on the first ballot. 

I see no reason for Edwards to drop out yet, or at all.  He could conceivably become the king maker at the convention by pledging his delegates to the front runner(s) that makes the best deal for him. If he stays in, it splits the field into approximate thirds, not reaching the majority threshold.  Granted, if he doesn't get some big wins his slice of the pie becomes smaller as we go on.  But if it keeps the others from getting 50%+1 delegates, he wins a whole lot of leverage. 

I'd disagree with Jerome's contention that it's a foregone conclusion that FL and MI will be seated at the onset.  If there is a chance that this will become a brokered convention, then I don't see all other candidates letting Clinton get that advantage, at least not until the brokering is done.  They're frozen out until after the nomination is decided, then they get seated for the platform voting.  I don't think anyone thought this might become a brokered convention. We're too used to having a clear front runner (i.e. already has the delegates to win) going into the convention. That may not happen this time around.

Damm, this could lead to some real fun and excitement down the road.  Good old fashioned politics.


No brokered convention (0.00 / 0)
You say "At the present time, it's close enough that no one candidate will get that majority of delegates on the first ballot. That makes no sense. 45 delegates have been picked, with over 4000 to go. (A couple of hundred with superdelegates who have announced an endorsement). Only way you get a brokered convention is if you have all 3 candidates stay viable through the spring. I don't see that happening. Edwards is already getting questions about when he will get out. There will be a lot of pressure on whichever of the 3 candidates is in overall 3rd place to get out of the race, especially if its Edwards because he has less money. And once you have only 2 candidates, a brokered convention becomes very hard to pull off.

DemConWatch

[ Parent ]
Brokered (0.00 / 0)
the nominee needs 50%+1 to get the nomination.  I think that this race is now divided between the three front runners and if it continues no candidate will have the magic 50%+1 to get the nomination on the First Ballot.  That's when it goes to a brokered convention. 

[ Parent ]
Good analysis (0.00 / 0)
This is a good 'what if' analysis that assumes a lot of things would go Clinton's way. It certainly is possible (~but not likely) for her to win the nomination after losing the first three states by 10+ points.

Missing out on a lot of things (0.00 / 0)
The superdelegate lead is completely not credible.  Superdelegates are extremely fickle, and they'll go to the leader, as has been said.

California's primary is somewhat proportional by Congressional district.  It's not winner-take-all.  Also, voting starts tomorrow by permanent absentee, and so the Obama surge is happening EXACTLY as Californians begin to vote, and the beliefs are that over 40% of the votes will come this way. 

And what I'm hearing on the ground is that Obama is already up at least 7-8 points here, and Hillary down 5-7.

If Hillary wins Florida, maybe there'll be a chance.  Right now I'm not seeing it.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.


I can't see California going for Clinton. (0.00 / 0)
her support here is a mile wide and an inch deep.

National Polls Lag, Iowa & NH Lead... (0.00 / 0)
It's really that simple.  Out in the great wide open, real people are just beginning to focus -- the Obama pictures are great, the Clinton pictures look awful and Edwards is just hanging on to even be in the picture.  BTW I stand by my prediction of a few days ago of Obama winning NH by at least 15%.

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search