This is a major problem (0.00 / 0)

1.  McCain lots of time to prepare for the general.

2.  The if the popular vote winner of this thing does not get the nomination (you know who I'm refering to) the legitimacy and viability of the actual nominee (read Clinton here) will be fately undermined.  

This is bad, bad, bad.

The Politics of Bruno S.

---

by: Descrates @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:19:42 AM CST

At this point, I think this is a highly plausible (0.00 / 0)

scenerio considering:

1. The Clintons'--I'm sorry its true--ruthless determination to gain and hold power.

2. The huge momentum Obama seems to be gaining at this point.

We really need to be worried about this.

The Politics of Bruno S.

---

by: Descrates @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:22:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Cash on Hand (0.00 / 0)

What about Obama's major cash advantage going forward? If Clinton underperforms, she is in deep trouble money wise. Her major donors are tapped out, and she hasnt cultivated the small donor base that Obama has (which Stoller pointed out earlier today).

What happens if Obama wins 12-13 states (which is a serious possibility), plus California?  Would that not potentially end the race? Obama would raise an ungodly amount of money afterwards, while Clinton's campaign would be buried in the media narrative and cash crunch.  

---

by: Mo1239 @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:23:21 AM CST

Seating Michigan and Florida (0.00 / 0)

How about this idea to break the deadlock.  Ask the states of Florida and Michigan to hold a later caucus if they want to have their delegates seated and counted.

Our Dime Understanding the U.S. Budget

---

by: dmineau @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:26:59 AM CST

Good idea (0.00 / 0)

Is this possible? It might fly as a compromise, though whichever candidate does worse tomorrow will complain that they were unfairly victimized by later events. Still, this does seem like the only idea advanced so far to head of a potentially disastrous spectacle at the convention.

---

by: DaveW @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:45:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

So, the penalty for bucking the national party (4.00 / 1)

is to decide the nominee?  

How is that supposed to instill confidence?


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

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:46:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Rules (0.00 / 0)

To be honest, if those states held a later caucus, I think the delegates that are chosen would HAVE to be seated.  The rules were written to revoke the delegates if chosen before the Feb 5th.  However, if the parties write off those results and launch their own caucus, I don't think the DNC could legally keep them from being counted.

As for instilling "confidence".  I suppose you would prefer that certain states don't count.  I guess that REALLY instills confidence in the system.

Our Dime Understanding the U.S. Budget

---

by: dmineau @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:47:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Seems like the DNC should have thought before (0.00 / 0)

they acted - if its not legal to bar certain delegates from particular states from casting valid votes at the convention - why did they even try to "punish" those states that moved up the primaries?  They've painted themselves into a corner - no way out will look good.  It has undermined the system and the Democratic Party "brand".  The fact that they DID IT TO THEMSELVES is particularly sweet.

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

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:57:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe... (0.00 / 0)

Florida and Michigan should've thought of this before acting too!

Our Dime Understanding the U.S. Budget

---

by: dmineau @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 10:59:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"Florida" and "Michigan" are US states not political parties (0.00 / 0)

Doesn't it fall to the state unit of the national parties to set the primary/caucus dates?  Who were the motivators of the "front-loading" of these elections - outside of the MSPs?  or inside?

It is strangly ironic in a kind of symbolic way that the MSP that likes to tout their tolerance and open minded approach ends up being the one that (tried) to impose retribution for ignoring the "rules" (unspoken or otherwise), while the MSP most associated with secrecy and the "rule of law) managed to stay out of that morass.

Funny as hell - even funnier, actually.

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

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 02:04:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Open, not deadlocked (0.00 / 0)

With only 2 candidates the convention will not be deadlocked. It's possible it may go to a floor fight a la Reagan/Ford 1976 , but there will be a winner on the first vote. I agree it's likely the superdelegates will end up making the decision. For exactly that reason, I don't think it's practical to get the convention settled beforehand if neither Clinton nor Obama manages a breakaway soon. I don't see either Clinton or Obama giving up as long as they can potentially negotiate their way to victory with the superdelegates. Both will see themselves as having powerful assets there - Clinton with her connections and Obama with his young/black turnout boost. The superdelegates themselves are a fractious group (this is the Democratic party!) and will be reluctant to give up the ability to make Clinton and Obama come begging to them for 2 months or so.

I'm not sure that a backroom tussle between Clinton and Obama would be bad. They have incentives not to  badmouth each other in public. Having the public  focused on the Dem race with a continual narrative of "the Dems must choose between two outstanding and history-making candidates" is to our benefit.

---

by: FairEconomist @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:36:36 AM CST

Convention not til end of August (0.00 / 0)

Last primary is June 3. There is no way the party will allow all this energy to simmer on a slow burn for 3-4 months. I am convinced a result will be achieved sooner rather than later.

---

by: aiko @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:51:27 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The party can't stop it (0.00 / 0)

Clinton and Obama are both far outraising the DNC. There's nothing in the Dem party which could force Clinton, Obama, and a large proportion of Dem elected official to yield.

---

by: FairEconomist @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:37:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And the delegate count is... (0.00 / 0)

Just for fun, i.e. assuming a state-wide allocation of delegates.

State	Delegates	Clinton	Obama
Delegates	157.5	Proj.	Proj.
Alabama	52	24.076	22.204
Arizona	56	24.64	22.4
Arkansas	35	19.95	5.95
California	370	154.66	148
Colorado	55	17.6	18.7
Connecticut	48	21.12	19.68
Delaware	15	6.6	6.3
Georgia	87	30.537	43.5
Idaho	18	5.58	5.94
Illinois	153	45.441	84.609
Kansas	32	8.64	7.04
Massachusetts	93	44.64	35.991
Minnesota	72	28.8	23.76
Missouri	72	32.544	30.816
New Jersey	107	50.611	42.265
New York	232	97.44	111.36
Oklahoma	38	19.684	13.832
Tennessee	68	28.9	12.24
Utah	23	10.741	7.751
Total Projected		918	820

Cunha for Congress (FL-06)

P.S. I'm not a big fan of John McCain

---

by: madahnuc @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:37:24 AM CST

Obama wins NY? (0.00 / 0)

This is a fun way to break it down, but has some obvious flaws.  First off, I think you have your numbers reversed in NY.

Second, the popular vote is not going to match the delegate allocation across the board.  I think Obama is well positioned to pick up some extra counties as he did in Nevada that will have his delegate allocation outpace his popular vote totals.

Finally, the polls are surging and unless Hillary's cry changes the momentum, they are going to continue to grow.

---

by: jbsloan @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:01:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail (0.00 / 0)

So it's prediction time!

Two weeks ago I thought there was no way Clinton couldn't win.  Then came Obama's huge SC victory, Kennedy endorsement, surge in polls, $32 million (as Jess Unruh used to say "money is the mother's milk of politics) and the energy and buzz of the Obama campaign.  Now I think, resilient as she is, Clinton will have a hard time halting Obama's momentum.  I agree with Matt that he is the odds on favorite.  Here is my fearless prediction (pulled out of you know where).

Clinton: Alabama, Arizone, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee

Obama: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah

Obama wins thirteen states to nine, continues to pile up money and delegates through February, resulting in intense pressure on superdelegates (from people like Ted Kennedy) to declare for Obama for the good of the party.  That's it.  Like the politicians we know and love, I have now put myself firmly on record as predicting at one time or other both a Clinton win and an Obama win.

---

by: historyrocks @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:46:57 AM CST

Wait til Wednesday to predict deadlock (0.00 / 0)

Your Jerome is showing. If this was Wednesday I could see the logic of your post. But its not. I believe that one of the two will come away looking better than other after the results are in. If it is Obama--and he goes on, as is predicted, to win the following seven contests over the next seven days--then I don't see deadlock. If the Clintons come out ahead they will push on. More likely to see a deadlock on the horizon under a Clinton wins Super Tuesday scenario than an Obama wins Super Tuesday scenario, imo.

If the overall outcome is a muddle, as both campaigns increasingly expect, Obama aides see a playing field heavily skewed in their favor in the next round of contests. Three states hold contests on Saturday: Louisiana, which has a large African American population, and Washington and Nebraska, which are both caucus states. Obama appears to hold the advantage in all of them, aides said, a point that Clinton advisers did not dispute.

Obama also expects to win the Maine caucuses on Sunday, and his campaign anticipates that Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia will all break for him on Feb. 12. Clinton strategists plan on having her campaign in all of those contests but are banking on big victories on March 4 in Ohio and Texas.

"She's going to have to sustain losses on four different days in February, over two weeks," said senior Obama adviser Steve Hildebrand. "That's not easy, whatever happens on Feb. 5."

A Clinton adviser conceded: "We could be looking at what is a tough month for us."

It is in the next phase also that Obama's strong financial position will pay off, Hildebrand said. The Obama campaign currently employs 500 paid staffers with 90 offices in the 30 states. It is advertising in all three Feb. 9 states. And it can afford to wage an all-out battle for Wisconsin on Feb. 19, where both campaigns are expected to deploy some of their most senior ground operatives. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

---

by: aiko @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:05:30 AM CST

I like the drama (4.00 / 1)

The fear reminds me of establishment figures who worry that contested primaries in lower races will result in divided constituencies and lower chances of victory.  Hopefully, the GOP nomination will be sewn up soon and our two candidates can audition based on who can best attack John "Reverse Ace" Mcain, the man who can crash the economy as well as he can crash planes (five in his aviator career).

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:05:47 AM CST

Life immitating art (0.00 / 0)

Oh God, it's the last season of the West Wing come to life. A possibly dead locked Democratic convention, and a "maverick" Republican securing the nomination.

---

by: KevinK @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:06:00 AM CST

One small quibble including Mich & Fl. (4.00 / 2)

Michigan and Florida wont be seated at the convention unless Clinton has wrapped up the win going in. The floor will vote whether or not to seat them.

If Clinton has enough delegates to throw out the rules and let them sit, she will have enough to win without them.

If Obama has enough, they will not be seated, and Obama wins the convention.

Nuff said.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:26:32 AM CST

Heyt HoP write more clearly! (0.00 / 0)

You included barred delegates from Fl. and Mich. in delegates you have awarded to Hillary in your table.

Thats what HoP meant. They don't count until its over.  

(note to self: Three previews not two)

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:29:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Silly worries (4.00 / 1)

A few days ago Chris speculated that Obama had a narrow margin of error but I think Clinton may be the one with little room for error.

It's looking less and less like Clinton will win by 100 or more. If Obama loses by less than 100, he has outperformed expectations and can make a strong case for continuing.

If he loses by less than about 70, he has the momentum and undecided Super Ds are given a little push off the fence.

If he loses by less than 40, the dam will start making noises.

If he wins narrowly (a much more plausible outcome today than 2 days ago), the crack in the dam will be visible and dynamic. In all likelihood, the dam will break at some point in the near future, again given the current and future environment.

If he wins by 40 or more, the dam breaks and Clinton will be swept away. It will be all over at that point but the February voting.

That means that the chance of her pulling off a win are low. Her break even range is roughly from +40 to +99. I'd say there is significantly greater than 50% chance that Obama keeps it under 40, given this apparent last-minute momentum.

One more point. I know this has been debated already but in regarding the polls, I'd like to paraphrase Obama: it's not as important to be fair as it is to be right. It makes more sense to figure out which polls are more likely to be wrong and toss them out than to average them together as it's far more likely that someone's flat-ass wrong than that the two polls (or sets of polls) or somehow equally distributed from the truth.

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:40:56 AM CST

Which way will the undecideds go? (0.00 / 0)

You've made this point before, but it bears repeating - given the large amount of undecideds, it is now a larger percentage than the gap between the candidates.

Whichever way undecideds break, well, that's the election.

What would be interesting, if different states break in different ways, so we see 8 or so states break for Obama, 8 states break for Clinton, and the other 9 split the undecideds.

People seem attached to this idea that ALL states are going to break one way or another.  Isn't it possible that different states break different ways, depending on their makeup?

---

by: JC @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:55:58 AM CST

Super delegates are not some council of mystics (0.00 / 0)

These folks will have largely already openly declared by the convention, making a brokered convention in a two-candidate race (minus Edwards' small pile of delegates) a near certainty.

Just because the super delegate picture is incomplete and murky now does not mean that it will continue to be one week from now, let alone all the way into the convention.

This thing's going to be a lot clearer in 36-48 hours time.

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:17:02 AM CST

Oops. (0.00 / 0)

Make that "a brokered convention...a near impossibility."

---

by: Matt H @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:20:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Missing the forest for the insects on the leaves of the trees... (0.00 / 0)

Objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Momentum can shift, but most of the time it doesn't. That's why it's called momentum. Google "trend following John Henry".

Not too long ago Clinton was supposedly "90-10" to win the nomination. Then "75-25". Now Chris forsees a convention disaster. I foresee a probable winner in Barack Obama.  

If Clinton wins solidly tomorrow - and she obviously might do just that - she will win the nomination deservedly.

But if Super Tuesday is a "tie" - whatever that means, but certainly anything within +/- 75 or so - Obama, the superior politician with momentum, will almost certainly win the nomination. The remaining schedule favors Obama. And good politicians recognize great ones; the endorsement rush to Obama in such a scenario would be powerful.

We are at a volatile tipping point right now. Obama is better than 50-50 to win the nomination, but it's tough to say how much better. We will see who gets the vote out tomorrow.  

---

by: Tom Gilpin Jr @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:30:04 AM CST

Really an open convention? (0.00 / 0)

As I understand it, the rules regarding who pledged delegates vote for also depend on state democratic party rules, not just the DNC.  So, is it accurate to say it's an open convention?

Clearly the super delegates can do what they want, but is it really true pledged?

See here too: http://www.slate.com/id/1004841/

---

by: spectatus @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 08:33:49 AM CST

The candidate who gives the most stirring oration in Denver (4.00 / 1)

will inevitably win the hearts and minds of the assembled undecided super-Delegates at the convention, and thus the nomination.

Isn't that how it works?

>slap!<
(pause)
>slap!<

(Shakes head.) Sorry, what? O, yeah, the candidate who can most successfully bribe the assembled super-delegates with influence and federal large$$e will inevitably win the nomination. Since that's what it takes to be President, too, it's probably not such a bad way to choose a nominee.

Before Hillary backers get their hopes up, I should point out that I'm not yet convinced she'll be more successful at suborning support than Obama will.

In the event that the convention is brokered, it will certainly be interesting in 20 years or so to find out how the nomination was won.

---

by: FearItself @ Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 09:51:03 AM CST