Nomination At A Glance: Paths to the Nomination

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jan 21, 2008 at 16:12


As I see it, right now four candidates have viable paths to presidential nominations: Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama, and Mitt Romney. Four other candidates, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson, can still influence the outcome of their party's nomination, but are unable to win it themselves. In the extended entry, I summarize the paths for each candidate as I currently see them.
Chris Bowers :: Nomination At A Glance: Paths to the Nomination
  • Hillary Clinton:  Win South Carolina on Saturday, and it is all over. Failing that, the first thing she must do is make sure she wins California, since it is her only must-win on February 5th. Assuming she does that, then she needs to hold Obama's win totals and delegate totals down as low as possible on February 5th. If Clinton can hold Obama to six or fewer wins on Super Tuesday, and if she can amass a pledged delegate advantage of 200 or more, then she will finish Obama off on February 5th. Given Clinton's 100-vote edge in Super Delegates, and her first dibs claims to the 313 pledged delegates from Michigan and Florida, a pledged delegate lead of 200 or more after Super Tuesday, with only 1,374 pledged delegates left, would be impossible for Obama to overcome,

  • Barack Obama: Obama faces a must-win in South Carolina on Saturday. Assuming he pulls that off, he can immediately even up the nomination on February 5th by winning California. A win there would be a huge momentum boost heading into a very favorable schedule for him the rest of February.  However, if he wins South Carolina, but loses California, then he needs to take as many delegates and states as possible in order to survive for the favorable February schedule. Staying within 100 or fewer pledged delegates of Clinton, and winning as many of the following ten February 5th states as possible are key: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri and North Dakota. Those are the ten February 5th states where I think Obama has a good shot if he wins South Carolina. While he can still be close to Clinton in delegates even if he doesn't win many states, the reality of our nominating process is that the national media narrative and Super Delegates will anoint Clinton as the nominee should she win two-thirds or more of all February 5th states. It isn't just about delegates: Obama must appear viable according to the media dominated rules of our nominating process in order to keep going after February 5th. The only way to do that is to win a bunch of states, probably seven at a minimum. If he manages to win nine or ten of the states I listed, he then has the potential to rack up wins in February, and take the national lead heading into the mini-Super Tuesday on March 4th.

  • John McCain: McCain's path is dependent on three factors. First, make sure Giuliani is finished after Florida, so that he can take New York, New Jersey and Delaware on February 5th. Second, he needs to finish off Huckabee and Thompson in Florida, so that he can win Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma and Tennessee on February 5th. Third, he needs to do one of the following against Romney: beat him in Florida, beat him in California, or break Romney's hold on caucus / convention states. While he needs to pull off all three of these in order to win, the first two seem doable even if he doesn't win Florida (as long as Romney does), and there are three different ways to pull off the third one. In fact, he can accomplish all three at once by winning Florida, and isn't finished even he loses Florida. Overall, I think McCain has about a 65% chance of succeeding in this path, maybe even more.

  • Mitt Romney: Back from the depths, the dream of a Romney nomination is alive and well. His path is five-fold. First, he needs to maintain his stranglehold on caucus / convention states, which heavily clog the Republican schedule from January 22nd through March 1st. Second, he needs to win Florida, without which he might be finished. Fortunately, he leads in post-Michigan polling in Florida. Third, on Super Tuesday he needs to win Utah and Massachusetts, which should be easy. Fourth, he needs to win California on Super Tuesday, which is doable. The most recent poll from California shows him down only 7% to McCain, and that was taken just before Michigan. With money and momentum, Romney can absolutely scoop up all 173 delegates in this closed, winner-take-all primary. From that point, when McCain is broke and close to his spending limits, Romney can win the nomination on March 4th with wins in Texas and Ohio, the fifth and final stage in his path the nomination.

    If Romney pulls this all off, he will have over 900 pledged delegates after March 4th. Throw in his advantage among unpledged delegates, and that he will have first dibs to the 87 delegates from Michigan and Florida that are currently not being seated, and he will only be about 150 delegates away from the nomination with 450 left to be determined. The keys for Romney are holding onto Florida, winning California, and holding into caucus and conventions states. I give him about a one in three shot of pulling this off.

And those who can't win, but can still be a factor:

  • John Edwards can hang in the campaign, and still be positioned to take about 100-200 delegates to the convention. While a longshot, it is possible that amount of delegates could prove decisive, making Edwards the kingmaker in the event of an Obama vs. Clinton brokered convention. Also, even if he doesn't go all the way to the convention, by staying in the campaign, he improves Obama's chances in South Carolina and several February 5th states.

  • Rudy Giuliani also can't win, but he can throw a wrench into the Republican nomination if he takes Florida. Doing so would seriously damage McCain in New York, New Jersey and Delaware, and seriously damage Romney in California. If Giuliani pulls out Florida, Huckabee hangs onto the South, and Romney hangs on to caucus and convention states, get ready for a brokered Republican convention.

  • Mike Huckabee can't win, because he needed a big boost from South Carolina, because the insider's don't like him, because he doesn't have much money, because the media doesn't take him seriously, and because he only seems to do well among evangelicals. He can, however, win Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, and Oklahoma on February 5th with a focused campaign and a little luck. If he does that, if would seriously damage McCain, and also potentially allow Huckabee to bring a few hundred delegates to what might be a brokered convention.

  • Fred Thompson obviously can't win the nomination. However, he can still win Tennessee, which would influence Super Tuesday. He can also drop out and endorse McCain, which would be very useful to McCain.

So, that's a quick summary of how I see things right now. If I could only choose one outcome, I would choose Romney winning the Republican nomination, since it should lead to a big Democratic victory in the general election. For my money, that is a lot more important than the differences between Clinton and Obama, and a lot better than struggling to try and scratch out a narrow, come from behind win against McCain.

 


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I can't decide if (4.00 / 1)
McCain in the general is actually scary, or is scary in an 'Oh, no, if Fred Thompson jumps into the R race, we're all dooomed!' sorta way.

We do seem to get all bothered about R candidates without much reason. Has Markos stopped worrying about Huckabee yet?


It is not just worrying about McCain (4.00 / 2)
It is also salivating over Romney. Right now, Obama leads Romney by an average of 21.4%, but trails McCain by an average of 1.3%. Also, Clinton leads Romney by an average of 12.0%, but trails McCain by an average of 4.0%. So, we are talking about swings of 22.7%, and 16.0% respectively. That is enormous, and that it what I am talking about here. It the difference between another election like the ones we saw from 2000-2004, and instead having the one we saw in 2006.

[ Parent ]
McCain's name recognition has got to be higher nationally (0.00 / 0)
Surely that cross-correlates with the head-to-heads

[ Parent ]
Partially (0.00 / 0)
But it doesn't account for such large swings. Not even by half.

[ Parent ]
This is crucial--who the opponent is (0.00 / 0)
Obama, I think, will do best against another "outsider" like Romney (Mormon), while he does worst against McCain.  McCain is the most serious opponent for Obama because both appeal to indies and the less partisan (the Dem base seems to dislike Obama while the GOP base hates McCain) but if it is Hillary-McCain he will get much better press.

Hillary-Romney probably goes to Hillary.  Hillary-Romney is the press' nightmare.  McCain would get much better press than Hillary, but with Romney in there too, political reportage may just disappear.

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


[ Parent ]
I disagree about Obama v McCain (4.00 / 1)
Obama is well-positioned to run against McCain - especially on the war(s) issue (current ones in Afghanistan and Iraq - looming one in Iran). Obama's maon weakness in this regaerd is his support for budget supplementals to fund the current wars, which he could turn to his advantage vs McCain's out-right support (and near-victory dance) for the "surge".  The point is the the "surge" is (being gracious here) only a half-success (at most) because no progress has been made on the diplomatic end.  Obama can play this as "I gave them a chance, but they failed, so its time to end this fiasco", while if Clinton troies that tack, it will lead right back to her support for the AUMF, making it appear that she has given the hawks chance after chance after chance.

Obama's youth and "outsider" position also improve his chances agianst the oldest person in the race.  Further, should McCain start sounding "pissy", Obama's level-headed approach will provide stark contrast.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
my guess also (4.00 / 1)
is the Obama fairs better against McCain than HRC.

with HRC vs McCain, it's "competence" vs "competence"
with Obama vs McCain, it's "youth/change" vs "old/establishment"


[ Parent ]
McCain is scray looking (4.00 / 2)
I think that the *name* McCain is really good right now, but I just don't think his elderly, jowled face and strange way of speaking will go very far once people actually have to listen to him.

On the other hand, Romney's name either carries negatives or lacks recognition, but people will be impressed with his appearance.


[ Parent ]
Polling question (0.00 / 0)
Everyone talks about Obama's advantage among African Americans, and Hillary's advantage among women.

How are African American women voting?

John McCain won't insure children


Depends on age, I think... (0.00 / 0)
But then, I'm one of those people who think the age gap is bigger than the gender or race gap...

Anybody got some polling?

Further Reading


[ Parent ]
For Texas (0.00 / 0)
In my Jan 10 poll, the Clinton/Obama ratio was about the same (3-7) for both genders, but AA women were about 25% undecided.

[ Parent ]
Age and "establishmentness" (0.00 / 0)
There was a bit on CNN this am about this.  It does seem that older Af-Am women like Hillary, younger like Obama.  Those in the political establishment seem to have largely signed up with Hillary early on, but many women aren't playing follow-the-leader this year.  I should say people in all groups don't seem to be this year.  Look at the unions.

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

[ Parent ]
So Chris (0.00 / 0)
What are the % chances you give for Clinton and Obama to win the democratic nomination?

Thanks Chris (0.00 / 0)
Good analysis.  Very, as we say at Open Left, reality based.  Nine to one odds on Hillary seem a little generous to Obama, but we'll let that slide. Mike still thinks he has a chance if only he would follow Mike's constructive criticism.  Do you think he can do anything to change the dynamic?

[ Parent ]
Diversity on Feb 5 (0.00 / 0)
Not much talked about is the diversity of primaries on Feb 5.  As I recall, there are a clutch on upper-Atlantic states (CN, Mass, NJ, NY), several midwestern states (IL, KS, MN, MO, ND) a few southern I can't remember, some Southwestern (AZ, CO, NM) and CA.  I can't see how the campaigns can hit all of them, and will be relying on surrogates, paid media and organization. 

Several midwestern figures have endorsed Obama, and he did well in IA.  Will he repeat in these states?  Will Hillary take the upper-Atlantic?  Obama the southern?  The Southwest and CA are interesting as well.  Janet Napolitano endorsed Obama.  Is Richardson campaigning for  Clinton?  CO is a caucus, if memory serves.  CA will have lots of absentees, and they are telling people to mail ballots in early or they won't be counted until Feb 3. 

I don't think that there will be quite the cascade effect Chris sees, but maybe he sees the states he mentioned as harbingers--if Obama takes SC he would take the other So states because of similar demographics.  Same with Hillary and NY.  He didn't mention the 5 medwestern states.  Any ideas on whether they would vote like IA?  I imagine Obama takes IL in any event, and if McCaskill is right, he takes MO too.

I tend to see it as still fluid after Feb 5. 

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


Colorado is a closed caucus state (4.00 / 1)
There is no primary at the presidential level, although primaries will decide contested seats for other positions.

Colorado has a small African American population, and a larger Hispanic population, but voting percentages are low for both groups. Even if the excitement this year increases attendance, older and female voters are likeley to be over-represented.

The party establishment and state politicians (aka super delegates) lean toward the DLC and Clinton.

Party activists tend to be pretty liberal. This favors Edwards more than if we had a primary where name recognition would favor Clinton.

Challengers to the establishment can also do well in Colprado caucuses which favors Obama. He has received rock-star receptions as well as good fundraising in the state. At one time, he was out-raising Hillary, but I don't know the recent numbers.

If they feel Edwards is hopeless, my hunch is that the Edwards supporters may decide to support Obama out of a dislike for Clinton. I think his image as a new voice goes over well. I'm not sure that Obama's conservative rhetoric has tarnished his liberal image.

In the absence of polls, my hunch is that Hillary bests Obama, but only 55/45.


[ Parent ]
California isn't winner take all (4.00 / 4)
"The most recent poll from California shows him down only 7% to McCain, and that was taken just before Michigan. With money and momentum, Romney can absolutely scoop up all 173 delegates in this closed, winner-take-all primary."

In the California Republican primary it is winner take all only at the congressional district level. For Romney to take all 173 delegates means he has to win in 53 separate congressional districts. That's not going to happen.

Apparently, San Francisco gives about as many Republican delegates as San Diego despite the radically different number of Republican voters in each city. So you can forget about the statewide polls.

Heck, Ron Paul fans have been organizing heavily in very liberal congressional districts like in San Francisco knowing that just a small dedicated Ron Paul turnout there could mean winning delegates in those clearly non-Republican districts.

http://youdecide08.f...
http://www.sfbg.com/...

http://www.dailykos....

No one will win 173 delegates in the California Republican primary.


WTAP (4.00 / 1)
Yeah, the Republican's choice to use WTAP (winner-take-all primaries) at the CD level -- but then to weigh a state's CDs equally is truly strange.  Before 9iu11iani's collapse, that was a clear plus for him that no one talked about.

At least we give each CD a weighted number of delegates based on how Democratic it votes.

CA-R:


  • Each of the 53 CDs gets 3 RNC delegates, awarded to the first-past-the-post winner of the CD.  This equals 159 delegates.
  • Further, 11 at-large RNC delegates are awarded to the statewide first-past-the-post winner.
  • Total: 170 delegates awarded based on the Feb. 5 results.

  • 3 further delegates will attend the RNC as unpledged California delegates based on their roles as party leaders. 

So also note that while CA has 173 delegates in its delegation, only 170 are actually selected based on the primary election.

[ Parent ]
Sorry, I don't understand (0.00 / 0)
all our races are proportional.  If Obama keeps within 5-10% of Clinton, he is going to end up with enough delegates to come so close that it will be a brokered convention.  Momentum and popular vote don't matter.  I mean for heavens sake, who won NH and NV.  There was one delegate difference between Obama and Clinton. Momentum, winner, that is media narrative.  It is the Rethuglicans who have winner take all primaries

Please explain what I am missing


What you are missing (4.00 / 1)
Is what happened to John Edwards in Nevada. When people don't think candidates can win, they stop voting for them. When Super Delegates think it is over, they line up behind the presumptive nominee. The former will happen to Obama, and the latter will happen to Clinton, if Obama doesn't win a decent amount of states.

[ Parent ]
But (0.00 / 0)
I understand that but there is a significant difference between splitting the vote 20 37 43 and splitting it 10 42 48
or 5 47 48  That is if they continue to be within a couple of delegates of each other, I think people will start to see beyond the popular vote excitement. Again, I agree with what you said but I think this is turning out to be a different race than I can remember.  People are more sophisticated (Democrats are looking higher information IMHO). 

[ Parent ]
we don't have winner-take-all primaries any more (0.00 / 0)
Chris, you write as if we still have winner-take-all primaries.  Early on, winning states counts for bragging rights, but on Feb. 5th what counts is the number of delegates.  So if someone wins California, but barely wins it, the delegate spread isn't that large.  Trouncing an opponent in a smaller state could be worth more than a narrow California win.

Obama's certainly in trouble if he doesn't win SC, but if he loses in a squeaker, he's still roughly tied in delegates.

But "six or fewer wins" is meaningless.  The question is what the delegate score looks like after Feb. 5th, and whether any candidate builds up a near-insurmountable lead.

The public is likely to resist efforts to declare a winner too soon, as long as a reasonable case can be made that the second place candidate is viable.  People will say "hey wait a minute, I want to vote!"


On Obama and viability -- changing the rules (4.00 / 1)
Chris,

I think most of your analysis here is right on, but I find the argument that Obama needs to perform to a set level or be crushed by viability arguments to be... off key.

First, Obama's message and persona -- imagine the speech Obama will give after his loss on Feb. 5th. You know you want to hear it. He hasn't even given it yet, but it's already making me a little teary (and I'm voting for Edwards).

Everyone will say he's finished and there'll be rumors that he's dropping out as he takes the stage. But when he does, he'll give the same speech he's been practicing for four years. You know the drill: 'They said we couldn't do it, but we have the audacity of hope. Our forebears had it, and that's why they moved mountains. The pundits say you can't move mountains, but we have unity and hope (and change). You know, setting out for distant shores and singing freedom songs and all that.'

Second, consider the identity of Obama's ideal constituency. They are all people who will relish the chance to tell the media to take their "electability" narrative and their "momentum" narrative, and shove it. Obama will make every naysaying pundit into a direct appeal for his candidacy. There is an untapped potential for Obama's message to strike a deeper chord when the "adversity" he speaks of is more palpable, when the choice of turning back or pushing on ahead is more than just an abstract construct, but a real choice discussed and debated every day.

I don't know if it'll work that way, but I see it as possible. I see Obama's potential to change the rules, and when he tries, and when the media tells him he should give up, I think his natural constituency will come out of the woodworks.


McCain doesn't have "spending limits", AFAIK (0.00 / 0)
He took out a loan before NH against his "campaign assets", planning that if he loses, he takes federal funding and pays them back; while if he wins and his fundraising takes off, he can pay them back that way and be free of limits. The latter has happened.

McCain No Problem (0.00 / 0)
Even HRC, our weakest general election candidate, will solidly beat McCain, and the results might even be a landslide.  There are two reasons why this is true.  First, the present political environment is actually the high point for Republicans.  We are clearly headed into a recession and there is no way that the Republicans can escape the blame for this.  What is McCain's answer for the economy?  More tax cuts?  This will only make him sound more like Bush.  Second, McCain will almost certainly draw a right wing third party challenger.  The Republican Christian Conservative base is the most pampered in American politics, yet they still feel ignored by the Republicans.  Having McCain run will prompt some right wing nut to run and siphon of a couple of percentage points off McCain. An Obama nomination would be even a larger landslide and set the stage more easily for a progressive realignment, but even HRC will win handily.

The problem with this scenario, if you're a progressive, is that while all possible factors are there to create a Democratic and progressive realignment, our likely nominee is a DLC-centrist.  Literally, everything is there for this to be close to a 1930s type shifting of political forces.  And the next President does not even have to have the political gifts of a FDR.  The only requirement to cement a prolonged progressive realignment is for the next President to govern as a progressive.  That HRC, whose political mentors are Bill Clinton and Mark Penn, will not do this will be a tragic waste of an historic opportunity.


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