Obama Catches Clinton Nationally; Brokered Convention Looms

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Feb 01, 2008 at 08:16


There can be no doubting Obama's momentum now:

Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as close as they have been since the polling program started at the beginning of 2008. Forty-four percent of Democratic voters nationwide support Clinton, while 41% support Obama, within the poll's three-point margin of error. The data suggest that Obama has gained slightly more -- at least initially -- from John Edwards' departure from the race. In the final tracking data including Edwards in all three days' interviewing (Jan. 27-29 data), Clinton had 42%, Obama 36%, and Edwards 12%. Since then, Clinton's support has increased two points and Obama's five. Tomorrow's release will be the first pure post-Edwards three-day rolling average.

In their post-Edwards polling, Gallup and Rasmussen now have nearly identical numbers, showing Clinton up by about 2% nationwide. In such a close campaign, it will become virtually impossible for one candidate to reach 2,025 entirely via pledged delegates, since there are only 3,253 pledged delegates. When only 2% separates the candidates nationwide, no candidate can possibly win over 60% of the pledged delegates. So, unless Clinton's early voting advantage will overwhelm Obama on Tuesday, it certainly looks like Super Delegates will decide who wins the Democratic nomination.

Long-term, right now I think the most likely scenario for the nomination is that Clinton and Obama remain pretty close in pledged delegates, but through early voting in February 5th states, super delegates, and arguments over Florida and Michigan, Clinton eventually cobbles together enough support to seal the nomination sometime in March. The best analogy might end up being the way Mondale, despite losing almost all of the final primaries to Hart, eventually sealed the nomination via Super Delegates in 1984. The party will be divided, and the Republican nominee will be strong. And so, despite having the most favorable national electoral outlook Democrats have seen in over thirty years, we will actually be significant underdogs in the presidential campaign.

It sucks and in many ways is truly baffling, but it seems to be the situation we face nonetheless. If we lose the presidential election, every single Democratic leader in the party committees and the Congress should resign. While the DNC is specifically tasked with the Presidential campaign, all of our leaders have contributed to the political environment where a screw-up of this magnitude is possible. Anything short  of a Democratic trifecta in 2009, and the whole lot of them should step down.

Chris Bowers :: Obama Catches Clinton Nationally; Brokered Convention Looms

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Catches Clinton Nationally; Brokered Convention Looms | 67 comments
Brokered Convention (4.00 / 2)
I don't think the 1984 analogy is appropriate, since Jackson's involvement made it a 3 person race. He won 485 delegates, making it far harder to anyone to win a majority in the primaries. Also, I still believe that eventually either candidate will gain a significant advantage in overall momentum - maybe even on February 5. Finally, the polling numbers vs. McCain by July will have a significant effect on uncommitted superdelegates.
Does anybody think (0.00 / 0)
Hillary can not take Obama as her VP if this is the scenario?
Joining forces (0.00 / 0)
If both candidates wanted to do what was right for the party, they would join forces right now. Obama would drop out, and Hillary would anoint him as her running mate.

Can't see Obama really doing that, though. Not sure Hillary would either - I imagine she feels like she needs to pick a white male.

[ Parent ]
I don't think either needs (4.00 / 1)
to do that...actually I think John McCain will be forgotten in a prolonged Clinton-Obama battle.  And, if Obama wins, he will come out the giant slayer with a head full of steam.  If Clinton wins she will have crushed the hopes of millions of young people, and be hard set not to take Obama as her VP.
[ Parent ]
interesting idea here (0.00 / 0)
We all assume that a prolonged primary would be bad, but the continuing contest would pull far more media attention.
[ Parent ]
Curious (4.00 / 3)
Why would Obama need to drop out? Why would anyone need to drop out? I think the risks of a badly divided party are overdrawn, and that we should just let the primary contest work itself out. Whoever wins, wins.
[ Parent ]
Obama won't leave (4.00 / 1)
Obama dropping out prematurely would cause the people he's brought in to disengage on a level far worse than him simply being defeated by Clinton, or even losing the nomination in a brokered primary. He's not going to do it.
[ Parent ]
??? (0.00 / 0)
If Obama dropped out I would be so pissed - I am a supporter of his and I expect to be able to have my vote counted on Tuesday.

I am a VERY strong supporter of Obama's, but like everyone I know I will work very hard to get either he or Hillary elected.  Everyone wants a Democratic President.

As much as he would like to be McCain is no Ronald Reagan.  And Clinton and Obama are much stronger candidates than Mondale. 

[ Parent ]
Obama Leads in Delegates (0.00 / 0)
Obama leads in real pledged delegates and Hillary leads in imaginary polls... why should Obama have to drop out?

Now that being said, I think the SDs will put this scenario into place if this looks like its going long... they will tell the candidates one of you is pres, one VP (probably whoever is ahead) and go form there.

[ Parent ]
No Brokered Convention (4.00 / 1)
The super delegates will reflect the voters.  They are politicians and they won't risk alienating voters.  If they sense risk, they will stampede toward the candidate with the most votes.  Also, though it was razor close, Mondale did get more votes than Hart in 1984 but something like 100,000 if you added up each state.
[ Parent ]
But (4.00 / 3)
the problem is, there might not *be* a clear mandate from the primary voters. Theoretically, somebody could calculate who ended up technically earning more votes when all the primaries are compiled, but that's hardly going to send superdelegates stampeding to whoever happens to come out ahead. It's not even clear that such a determination could be made, if you're going to include caucuses.
[ Parent ]
It should be clear but... (4.00 / 1)
I agree with Jason.  The will of the voters **might** not be clear but that is more likely to happen in a 3 or 4 way race, not a two person race.  I just think it's probable that one candidate will wrap it up well before the Convention but anything is possible.  For what it's worth, in my home area of Washington, DC I'm hearing rumors already of super-delegate switches if Obama wins the primary.
[ Parent ]
Momentum doesn't reverse on a dime (4.00 / 2)
Hillary has essentially been bleeding support since summer. Obama had lots of mo after Iowa, but she was able to stem her losses sufficiently to pull out a close victory in NH.  The NV caucus ended in either a draw or Obama edge in terms of delegates.  Then came So Carolina.  Florida is not a reversal of Obama momentum because of the anomalous situation.

Since So Carolina, Kennedy endorsed Obama, Edwards has dropped out, and many more endorsements are coming Obama's way--apparently even Chris Dodd, it seems.  Latino endorsements are piling up in CA, along with SEIU and MoveOn.

In short, Obama's momentum has increased dramatically since people started paying attention, as shown in the national polls and polls in states where voting is coming up.

That isn't going to turn around, barring some totally unforeseen revelation or misstep.  People who want to support Hillary already do.  Those choosing because their candidate has dropped out or because they didn't know Obama are coming his way.  Obviously his momentum will slow.  But there is simply no way that elected officals look at those trendlines at Pollster.com and go for Hillary. 

In 1984 Hart got a much later start, IIRC.  This isn't the same, although it has some of the same feel.  Plus, Mondale didn't have the negatives.  He was just logical, because he had been Carter's VP, and ran in 1976 and 1980 as VP.

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

[ Parent ]
This solves all the party's problems in (0.00 / 0)
my opinion.  Consider all that will flow from a Clinton/Obama Ticket:

1. Clinton 90's economic legacy + Obama's inspiration for political renewal.

2. Obama's appeal to young and independent voters will certainly draw independents away from McCain. 

3. Huge African American turnout. 

4.  Obama as a VP campaigner.  Bill Clinton assumes the attack dog role.

5.  The party is unified.  Thus, the ticket can focus on appealing to independents, rather than mobilizing and unifying its base.

6.  Obama's credibility on Iraq, which--I'm sorry--was demonstrated conclusively last night.  If Hillary goes into this election and Iraq is a major issue, her flacid positioning is going to contrast badly with McCain.  Obama won't solve this problem, but he will at least help. 

Personally, I think the Iraq section of the debate last night was damning for Hillary.  She--and Bill--are going to have a very hard time with this.  I have a hard time seeing how she does fall into the Kerry situation and McCain in the Bush one.

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
please! (4.00 / 4)
When is the last time charisma did anything on the VP ticket?

If anything it causes buyers remorse.

  You want your charisma candidate at the top of the ticket and your experience candidate in the VP. The only thing Obama as VP could do is help heal a rift, but all of those young voters and all of that intensity isn't going to show up to pull the lever for VEEP. If I were Obama I would rule this out now. Vice Presidents are where magic and vision go to die.

[ Parent ]
Need Clark for national security cred (4.00 / 1)
While a Clinton/Obama ticket might be strong on domestic issues, the party cannot run away from national security with 150K troops fighting in the ME, Russia and China in the ascendancy, and lots of radicalized people in the ME probably itching to launch terrorist strikes to rival 9/11.

One of the hardest jobs of the next president will be to explain to the American people that the US's post-WWII supremacy has ended, in all spheres (economic, military and moral), thanks to the disastrous presidency of GWB.  Elections have consequences.

[ Parent ]
UM (0.00 / 0)
Hate to break it to you, but Hillary's message for a year is she IS STRONG on foreign policy/national security. 
[ Parent ]
That's the problem with the Clintons (0.00 / 0)
Ever since Bill's transparent draft-dodging, they've been scared of the military.  Hillary needs someone like Clark to tell her to ignore the admirals when they ask for more aircraft carriers.  Read up on what Eisenhower thought of the military.

In the general, in a country that remains as gender-biased as this (and anyone who disagrees has been sleeping through this primary season), she will need someone like Clark's credentials to be taken seriously on national security.  In fact, she might be less inclined to pander on national security (which is how I read AUMF) if that flank is covered for her.

[ Parent ]
Letterman (0.00 / 0)
Obama said he wouldn't be anyone's VP on the Letterman show but I'm not sure how reliable that is.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
Clinton/Obama (0.00 / 0)
is my first choice but Clark may be more realistic.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
Old + New = Mixed Message (0.00 / 0)
I don't see how being associated with Clinton style politics would help promote the issues that Obama is promoting.
[ Parent ]
So it's a momentum-less momentum, is it? (4.00 / 1)
If Obama has enough 'mo to do that well on 2/5, then he'll have Super D 'mo as well.

And his 2/5 'mo would no doubt translate into some solid February wins, given the schedule, which in turn would give Super Ds lots of time and opportunity to jump on the Obama bandwagon.

A 2/5 Obama win (however it is properly defined) will act like a positive feedback mechanism and pretty soon we got ourselves a snowball rolling downhill.

I hasten to stress that that is assuming a very successful 2/5 for Obama.

This would be true, but.... (0.00 / 0)
The election is not happening today.

Either Obama's momentum will continue, propelling him to a convincing win by means of primaries and super delegates, or it will fade, in which case Hillary grinds out a victory, with the DNC probably folding and seating Michigan and Florida so as to pacify key states for the general election.

Also worth noting, her money is probably going to dry up. How many $2,300 donors are really out there?

 

The sexism wasn't "truly baffling" (4.00 / 2)
Look, the inherent sexism of the national media was a huge factor in bringing Clinton into a virtual tie with Obama at this late date (not the only factor, but perhaps the biggest). It's the great, vile story of this campaign and it's been disappointing that her opponents didn't repudiate it, but allowed it to meld with "Clinton hatred."

So don't be baffled - it's the single biggest reason there's been such acrimony in the campaign. We've let the national media do this to us, as usual.

That said, I thik she can unite the party even after winning a brokered convention.

Don't think so (0.00 / 0)
The sexism of the media may have carried Hillary to victory in NH, and it may do so again in the future. Just let Chris Matthews loose on Monday with a video of the so-called 'crying' incident. Instant Hillary victory.

I think people are quite capable of recognizing sexism. Republicans aren't, but they're not voting for Hillary anyway.

[ Parent ]
Obama benefited from sexism? (0.00 / 0)
Considering that Obama does better in states where the voters are exposed to more of each candidate (Iowa vs. Florida and Michigan, where all they had was the national media), I don't think this is true. The media bought Clinton's "experience" campaign and repeated the Madrassa smear.
[ Parent ]
You're an authority on sexism? (0.00 / 0)
Obama won 80% of black women.  Obama wins younger women.  Obama wins high-income women.  While she got some sympathy from Chris Matthews and the others piling on her, she lost it all when Bill went after Obama.

It is much more complex and multi-dimensional than sexism.

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

[ Parent ]
Mmmhmm (0.00 / 0)
I totally agree.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
One thing that's different... (0.00 / 0)
Clinton and Obama are both very popular among Democrats. We'd love to have either as our nominee. Even if the race continues until the convention, we'd still be a very strong party united behind whoever gets the nomination, IMHO.

I think you're reading your crystal ball wrong. Isn't it a little to early to be forecasting what will happen in August when we haven't even hit Super Tuesday yet?

It's also likely that Obama and Clinton will come out of 2/5 effectively tied, and Obama will sweep the rest of the contests to win the nomination. It's possible that Clinton will have a lead after 2/5 and do better than expected in the other February contests and win a majority of the pledged delegates, forcing Obama to drop out.

You assume that the state of the race today will be the state of the race for the next six months. I think it's much more likely for one or the other to shoot past their opponent and secure the nomination.

I'm not sure how this argument goes (0.00 / 0)
Unless Hillary steamrolls on 2/5, which looks increasingly unlikely, I think Obama has a good chance of running the table the rest of the month given the states that are voting.
Wake up, Democrats (4.00 / 3)
Obama is just a more talented candidate than Clinton, ideology aside.

Ironically, many focused on electability in '04 when there really were big ideological differences between the candidates and little evidence that any of the candidates was an extraordinary politician.

Now no one wants to talk about electability very much... maybe because of a few inconclusive matchup polls and some (legitimate) regret at the electability focus in '04.

The big picture is this: Barack Obama is the most talented Dem pol to come down the pike in decades. Again and again, the more the electorate sees Obama, the more votes he gets. I knocked on doors for Edwards in NH and learned that the hard way. 

That's the biggest reason why we will see the party unite very quickly if Obama wins this race, and why there will be real division if Clinton wins.

Yes, Clinton has run a good campaign and I am more enthusiastic about her chances now than I was months ago. 

But people are starting to realize that you don't keep Babe Ruth on the bench just because you already have a pretty good right fielder.

the media will turn on Obama (4.00 / 3)
with McCain as the GOP nominee. I think Obama will come crashing to earth, and it won't be pretty for Democrats.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
[ Parent ]
That's a possibility (0.00 / 0)
Certainly it's unfortunate that McCain looks to be the Repub nominee. He's their best politican (of the candidates).

The media has already turned on Clinton and they're not coming back. If you're worried about media coverage, I can't imagine that you look forward to a Clinton-McCain matchup.

The media may or may not turn on Obama. If and when they do, we will have an exceptional modern retail politician with which to fight back. "Retail politician" is a catch-phrase, so I'll be more specific about what I mean by it.

First - and more importantly - apolitical people see him for 10 seconds on CNN airport tv and vaguely like him. That's huge. W, Bill Clinton and Reagan all had it, the latter two in spades. GHWB didn't but, of course, neither did Dukakis. Mondale, Gore and Kerry all emphatically didn't have it.

Second - Obama is probably the best speechgiver of any of the modern presidential candidates except for maybe Reagan. 

Anyways, point well taken and we'll see. Or we'll just be smacking our heads and desperately hoping as Clinton runs a Kerry/Gore campaign for 51%. There was a popular site in 2004 called www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com. Fun. 

By the way I really enjoy your posts here, and thanks for the response. 

[ Parent ]
Right, like the savior (0.00 / 0)
wouldn't run a 51% campaign too?

Gimme a break! It's going to be a tough 51-49, 52-48 race no matter who the nominee is. Unless you think this mythical movement will sweep the right wing?

[ Parent ]
Right wing is only 30% (0.00 / 0)
Maybe as much as 35%, though I doubt it.  It is about coterminous with the number who still support Bush, although soem right wingers have deserted him.  It certainly isn't any 48-49%.  I see Obama running a campaign that appeals to the 70% and gets more like 55%.  He most certainly would not run a 51% campaign.  That is the whole point of his message.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
? (0.00 / 0)
Look, Obama's no savior. He has a job, which is to get people to vote for him (am i cynical? you bet. a cynical idealist.). He is very, very good at that job.

Tim Kaine genuinely thinks Obama can win VA. I grew up there and know a bunch of local pols there, and I do too. Clinton in VA? I can hope, but not with any optimism.

There are those who cannot imagine an 08 race that isn't close. Unsurprisingly, they tend to support Clinton.


[ Parent ]
Kumbaya, My Lord! (0.00 / 0)
Kumbaya - you guys are dreaming. Obama will be hit and hit hard, if he's the nominee. It's literally laughable to talk about not running a "51% campaign" and running a "55% campaign"  because it's part of some hazy "message."

This is the USA - we have two major parties, and one of them is evil and will stop at nothing.

Just keep on putting flowers in the muzzles of their rifles, fellas....it's gonna be the summer of love. Oh yeah. Fired up.

[ Parent ]
What are you responding to? (0.00 / 0)
Notwithstanding your post, I'm not at all saying that Obama is running a kumbaya campaign. The truth is nearly the opposite. Obama's campaign has been surgical, but brutal. He has shown incredible adeptness at sticking the shiv into Clinton's back ("past vs future", "not factually accurate", etc) without leaving fingerprints.

He has done so with such ruthlessness that he is on the verge of beating Clinton without running either to her left or to her right (either of which, as I noted in a diary a while back, would have been nearly impossible). 

Of course he would be hit hard in the general. Elections are fights. The question is whether or not we will nominate our best fighter.

[ Parent ]
Early Voting advantage? (0.00 / 0)
I really doubt that early voters will give Clinton any significant advantage. I think the overwhelming number of early voters are people who are totally committed to their candidates and would not have changed their minds under any circumstances. I think the people who are undecided are likely to wait and that is where Obama will continue to make gains. The commited Edwards voters who might want to change to Obama will be lost but I think this will be a very small factor.

I also think that the super delegates will not want to go for Clinton if that means ignoring a groundswell for Obama. Clinton has already done a lot to alienate her Afro-American base and I doubt that party leaders would help her continue to do that.

If Obama's momentum continues to grow at the slow pace we have seen lately I think he will get the nominataion.

Polling trends (0.00 / 0)
I agree with the notion that unless HRC is way ahead after 2/5 Obama has a good chance of riding this current wave of momentum right through the month of Feb and on to the nomination. All the polling seems to suggest a wave of Obama support that should make the big states a lot closer by 2/5 and maybe even lead to a surprise (CA?) or two. If they are essentially tied after 2/5 I believe that Obama will have the upper hand.
Let's see... (4.00 / 3)
So the scenario is: a virtual monopoly of press coverage on the Democrats and their arguments; tens of millions of dollars being spent advancing the Democrats' message; two candidates who, between them, inspire and display a mastery of policy; and John McCain wandering around, talking about how great that war in Iraq is going, and wouldn't another 100 years of that be just the thing, if he's even noticed at all.

And this allows the republican nominee to grow... stronger?

Tone (4.00 / 3)
If they can keep anything like last night's tone, the extended primary will only help the Democrats.  I agree with the others that Clinton/Obama  easily solves the problem.  I love Clark, but I'd rather see him as Sec. of Defense (need waver from congress, but no big deal) than as VP.
Mark's Right (0.00 / 0)
With the right tone, an extended primary season could be more like one long, extended infomercial more than anything else.

There's only one safe predication, so far as I can tell: almost all predictions were be proven horribly wrong.

No, wait, make that two safe predictions: nothing will be learned from this orgy of mass humiliation, and it will all be repeated again, next time around.

(God, I hope I'm wrong!  Not a chance in Hell, but God, I hope I'm wrong!)

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Except that it should be (0.00 / 0)
Obama at the top of the ticket.

Obama/Dodd?  Like that?  Think about who you want debating Huckabee.

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

[ Parent ]
I Wasn't Saying Anything About The Top of The Ticket (0.00 / 0)
Just the big-picture dynamics.  While I think that Obama would be better, I think that having Democratic ideas batted around for the public to hear for a couple of months would have a beneficial effect no matter who ended up as the nominee.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Agreed. (0.00 / 0)
Contested primaries are not so bad because they generate coverage and interest.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Superdelegates are going to vote CYA (4.00 / 1)
Pragmatism is going to creep into the process. What is better for the Senate map? What is better down ticket? Michigan and Florida aren't going to get seated without the nominee being settled. Michigan and Florida Obama supporters will go to court to have the federal ruling in support of the DNC upheld. It's not going to be pretty but I think you misread who comes out on the winning side of a brokered fight. John Larson and George Miller are in Obama's corner. Who else could possibly be in his corner from the House? Does Harry Reid have more clout than Ted Kennedy in the US Senate? What will Gore say? Bill Richardson? Won't every living Democratic nominee not named Clinton endorse Obama? What about Jimmy Carter?

The Democratic Party is bigger than the Clintons and I think you'll see that if it goes to a brokered convention.

John McCain

the numbers are always misleading in this (0.00 / 0)
campaign, so I think there is no stopping the momentum---He is going to win the nomination by winning on Tuesday, after Richardson, Gore and Boxer endorse him during the Super Bowl on Sunday. He's a winner, they all see it, I think Clinton will remain a week after, but then the road is open --- to the White House.

Just won't happen that way Chris... (0.00 / 0)
This isn't some low-information primary election for a ward alderman where these anti-democratic tricks are going to work.  Those sort of shenanigans happen in "gimme" elections with no significant threat from Republicans anyway.  Most super- delegates are first and foremost partisan Democrats - not die hard Hillary fans.  They can change their endorsement at any time. 

The nomination battle may well last to Pennsylvania, but the party powers will come down hard on the loser if they continue to drag it out past then.  And given today's media climate, it's hard to see the press not crowning a "winner" then or earlier - or to see the pressure build on the other candidate as the stink of loser builds and super-delegates drop off like flies. 

This Is Probably Quite Likely If There's A Clear Winner (0.00 / 0)
But we don't know that there will be.

Too many possibilities.  Too many alternative timelines.  Much more Dr. Who than Star Trek.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Pessimism (0.00 / 0)
This is kinda pessimistic, but I think if Clinton clinches the nomination with anything that's popularly percieved as "insider maneuvering" (which some will see no matter what happens) it could be very divisive and harmful.

A lot of it depends on how Obama handles it.

And, one if them could still very easily break out or slip up and gain/give away an outright victory.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

No way (0.00 / 0)
I really respect your insight, Chris, but this is a creepily pessimistic scenario. I think that the superdelegates are going to flock to whichever candidate has a noticeable advantage in pledged delegates, and do it sooner rather than later. That will, in turn, lead to the withdrawal of a candidate, probably no later than March 5th, and a resulting rout for the surviving candidate à la Kerry in 2004, with a lopsided pledged delegate majority ultimately echoing the party's judgment of the preliminary delegate lead.

"And life is grand And I will say this at the risk of falling from favor With those of you Who have appointed yourselves To expect us To say something darker." -- Camper Van Beethoven
A Long Campaign is a Good Thing (4.00 / 1)
I actually disagree with the idea that the party will be divided. I think one of the benefits of the Bush administration for Democrats (and McCain tying himself to Iraq) is that almost every Democrat will support anyone with a D by their name just to end this nightmare.

I am an Obama supporter and think he can bring more people into the fold, but the fold, as it exists, is going to vote and vote hard for any D.

I also think a long battle is great for the Ds for a few reasons (most already mentioned in this thread):

1. Free advertising.
2. Forces Dems to build up organizations and/or campaign in every (or nearly every) state.
3. Gets the candidates in fighting shape.
4. Vettes both candidates.
5. Keeps our voters energized and donating money.
6. Allows our candidates to build up a strong loyal base.
7. Gives us two candidates and their surrogates hitting McCain.

And most importantly...

8. Prevents the right wing noise machine from making a unified attack. Once we settle on a candidate, they will be able to smear in earnest. Right now they are divided: do they want Clinton because it would help them downticket? Do they want to avoid Clinton because they hate her so much? Do they want Obama because of the e-mail/muslim/middle name thing? Do they want to avoid Obama because he could be a game changer? Right now they have divided opposition with some of them trying to bolster each candidate, and that prevents them from going on a full out attack.

Once they do get a candidate it's bombs away.

But... it takes time for a negative message to sink in. It may well be that by the time we have a nominee, they won't have time to effectively smear them (particularly Obama - Clinton may already be smeared. But even with Clinton they may not be able to smear her enough with moderates and independents in that short a time).

FOX Poll (0.00 / 0)
FOX Poll has Clinton up by 10 points.

First poll w/o Edwards:

http://www.foxnews.c...

Obama's bounces have never demonstrated durability.

Methinks you are jumping the gun...

Look closer (0.00 / 0)
Gotta compare apples to apples.  Compared to the last Fox News Poll, Obama closed the gap from 29 points to 10 points.  That's a 19 point jump.

FYI -- Everyone should read Mark Blumenthal's post explaining the highly involved methodology of the new Gallup tracking poll.  It seems clear that, at minimum, the new Gallup is the most methodologically sound public poll out there right now.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/...

[ Parent ]
I'll be for all those Congress critters (0.00 / 0)
resigning, as soon as, Bowers and Stoller shut down this blog and go to work at their corner gas stations.  Until then, not so much.
A second ballot could nominate anyone if it wanted to, right? (0.00 / 0)
Not that it would or should happen, but if someone from on high got the superdelegates to all go for Edwards or Dodd or someone, and prevented a majority on the first ballot, then the convention could go nominate Al Gore or something, right?
Not a brokered convention (4.00 / 1)
I remain convinced that we will have a clear leader by sometime in March

Feb 5th is not going to settle this thing, but at this point, if Clinton doesn't win by a notable margin, she will have lost the expectations game and the momentum will seem to be shifting the Obama.

I think that is reasonable (based on polling and various reports) to think that Obama will come out of Feb 5th with wins in Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah - that's 11 of 22 Feb 5th states. I'm not counting on all of those for Obama, but none of them would be considered unlikely based on latest information. If Clinton takes more than a couple of these, she's having a very good night.

Another bunch of states have Clinton with narrow leads (at least in some late polls) but could conceivably turn to Obama  - Arizona (38-32 in latest poll). California (43-40), Delaware (? no polls), Mass (43-37), Missouri (48-44), Tenn (36-31).  Whoever wins these states, the margin will be narrow -- if they break for Obama, he's going to get big headlines as the "winner" - if they break for Clinton, she's doing well (more so if she takes some of the 1st group as well), if, as is more likely, they split some of them, they'll both be walking out with roughly even delegates. 

Clinton can be counted on to win Arkansas, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma. (I had Tennessee in this category until I saw today's 36-31 poll). There's no polling in New Mexico, but let's assume Clinton based on Latino votes so far this year. Clinton will win the largest chunk of delegates in these states. but NY and NJ will show respectable Obama totals.

The rest of February presents a really friendly calendar for Obama - Louisiana primary, followed by Nebraska, Washington state, and Maine caucuses, VA, MD, DC primaries, and ending with Wisconsin primary and Hawaii caucus on Feb 19th. It is very conceivable Obama could sweep every contest after Feb 5th -- which would definitely put a dent in Clinton's campaign.

So a reasonable Obama nomination scenario could be painted if he performed somewhat above current expectations on Feb 5 (say won in some of CA, MO, TN, MA, AZ), then ran the board in Feb. The narrative would be that Obama is on a role, and Clinton is losing. Party leaders would start to pressure her to get out, and national polls would shift in Obama's favor.

(Alternatively, Clinton cleans up on Feb 5 -- winning all the close states and having a couple hundred delegate lead. She takes the air out of Obama's ballon, and picks up some of the February states, and then finishes him off in March in Ohio, Texas or April in PA.)

I honestly think that, unless Hillary has an very good night on Feb 5th, the momentum and calendar make it look very good for Obama.

Whichever,  there will be a point at which political gravity starts to drag one candidate down and lift the other one up.

In the end, the superdelegates will rally around whoever is taking the lead in the primaries (and whoever is polling best against the Republican), and ensure that while the convention may be spirited, it will not be ugly. The debate last night showed that both campaigns understand how essential it is to keep from ripping the party apart. I have trust that sense will allow us to go to the convention with a clear nominee, Michigan and Florida seated in one form or another, and a united party for the general.

For the first time this season I believe that the calendar and momentum make it more likely that Obama is the nominee.

Obama Catches Clinton Nationally; Brokered Convention Looms | 67 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

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

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox