No Such Thing As A Tie

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 06:47

Words of wisdom:

Otto: You know your problem? You don't like winners.
Archie: Winners?
Otto: Yeah. Winners.
Archie: Winners, like North Vietnam?
Otto: Shut up. We didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie!

There are only two paths to the Democratic nomination now. One path, for Clinton, is based on her maintaining a tie or a narrow lead among pledged delegates, thus allowing her to seal the deal through a rules and bylaws engine that focuses on superdelegates and the Michigan / Florida delegate seating process. The other path, for Obama, is based on him taking a narrow pledged delegate lead, and then slowly building that lead through a string of victories that will eventually make Clinton's super delegate lead a democratic farce, and her Michigan / Florida claims irrelevant. Which situation are we in now? Well, unless one is simply incapable of counting pledged delegates and simultaneously blind to Obama's gaping caucus advantage and resource advantage, you simply have to conclude that the latter scenario is more likely now.

More in the extended entry.  

Chris Bowers :: No Such Thing As A Tie
Obama is going to lead in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday, something that the Clinton campaign does not dispute:

Hillary advisers also disputed the Obama camp's claim of a lead among delegates, arguing that they were ahead when you factor in superdelegates.

Well, whoop dee doo that you lead in super delegates, considering that most of those enodrsements were racked up when your campaign was the clear frontrunner. After this weekend, when three of the four states, and 126 of the 185 pledged delegates, are determined via caucuses (and the rest are in primaries with high African-American populations), Obama will stretch out his pledged delegate lead further. On Tuesday, no matter who actually wins the popular vote in Virginia, Obama will stretch out his pledged delegate lead even further than that by racking up large wins in D.C. and probably Maryland. And then, on February 19th, there is another caucus in Hawaii, and a primary in the non-partisan registration state of Obama's neighboring Wisconsin. Yes indeed, the February calendar is very favorable to Obama.

A campaign that is now on course to be down by more than 100 pledged delegates in two weeks didn't "tie." Just like Mitt Romney, any campaign that is talking about changing delegate allocation rules didn't "tie." A campaign that is plugging its website to try and raise money didn't "tie." A campaign that talks about stopping the momentum currently enjoyed by its opponent didn't "tie." That is a campaign back on its heels. As I wrote last night, this was not a tie, and Obama clearly has the edge.

Now, Clinton can still make a stand in Ohio and Texas on March 4th, where the electorate is much more favorable to her than it is the rest of February. However, if she fails to score victories there, there is no way she can win the pledged delegate count in this nomination campaign, and the floodgates could open for Obama. At that point, her only other path to the nomination would be through super delegates and controlling the Michigan / Florida delegation seating process. At best, that is a backdoor path to the nomination that will force a crisis of legitimacy in the Democratic nominee.

Update: Apart from those listed above, there is also another possibility over which I salivate: Obama sweeps February, but Clinton holds her ground on March 4th, leading to a huge showdown in Pennsylvania on April 22nd. That would be pretty sweet, at least from a political junkie and local resident perspective.  

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

As I posted in a diary... (0.00 / 0)
I think it will all come down to Ohio.  I think Obama has a 50% chance of sweeping all contests up to March 4th, and even if Clinton wins some, it will be one or two at most.  Ohio is very similar demographically to Missouri, suggesting it should be a nail-biter - except that's not accounting for the big mo he's going to have over the next month.  

If Clinton loses Ohio (or even ties it), she's done.  If Clinton doesn't drop out after losing Ohio, we should all be extremely wary of shenanigans.  

Close, but better for Clinton (0.00 / 0)
Ohio has a significantly higher unionized population, and most are blue collar unions that favor Clinton and which have been very active politically over the last decade since Ohio has been so important nationally.  It also has a larger urbanized white and heavily catholic working class, more similar to east coast cities.

The economy will also be king in Ohio, which favors Clinton.

Obama also had endorsements from both Claire McCaskill and Jean Carnahan in Missouri, whereas right now Clinton has the biggest endorsement in Ohio with Ted Strickland.

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

[ Parent ]
On the down low... (4.00 / 1)
With Edwards out of the race, the Steelworkers' executive council is apparently voting on whether or not to endorse Obama.  This could be huge in PA and OH.  Or not.  

[ Parent ]
I live in Columbus Ohio and (0.00 / 0)
And all you say is true. But he also has 2 things in his favor.

1) the student population. Ohio has a number of big schools including OSU the largest university in the country- 40,000 students right there, and most of the students are from Ohio. (I know because I taught there).

Obama has the ONLY student group at OSU, and it is big.

2) Obama also has mayor Coleman's endorsement and active support.

As a local liberal radio pundit put it-- Clinton has the grasstops and Obama has the grassroots.

It will be a tight race.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
Mayors (4.00 / 1)
I think the Super Tuesday races demonstrated that the endorsements of mayors is vastly more important than the endorsements of governors and senators. Clinton won MA and CA where she the support of the mayors of Boston, SF, and LA. Obama won CT, where he had the support of the mayor of New Haven, and MN, where he had the support of the mayor of Minneapolis.

The counterfactual is New Jersey, where Clinton won despite Obama's support from Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark (although Obama did win Essex county, where Newark is located).

Still, this bodes well for Obama in the upcoming races, as, according to Wikipedia, he has the endorsements of the mayors of Seattle, Baltimore, D.C., and Milwaukee.

[ Parent ]
I'm not so sure (0.00 / 0)
I think endorsements aren't very influential at all, because a little is known about the candidates by every voter, so they make up their own minds. I crunched the numbers from Iowa, and there was no notable impact from endorsement in any of the three Democratic CDs.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Coleman isn't just endorsing (0.00 / 0)
He's fundraising and mobilizing.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
You can discount (0.00 / 0)
the value of the Greg Nickels endorsement. There is no political machine in Seattle to back him up. We prefer to govern by clusterfuck.

[ Parent ]
Obama won SF (0.00 / 0)
With the highest percentage in any county in CA despite Gavin Newsom endorsing Hillary.

It depends on whether the mayor has a machine and to what extent s/he puts it at the disposal of the Pres candidate.

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

[ Parent ]
Clinton lost Boston (0.00 / 0)
Cool interactive map

Link here

Click on it

Obama lost Provincetown  - I wonder if Donnie mcClurkin had anything to do with that vote.

And Hillary Clinton lost the Vineyard - so what does all that tell you?

[ Parent ]
much better than 50% -Obama has to be considered the overwhelming favorite now (4.00 / 2)
Clinton's best chance - really, her only chance - over the next couple weeks is Virginia. She has proven to be incapable of winning caucuses against Obama. Louisiana and DC are certainties; Maryland nearly so.

Virginia will go for Obama. Blacks will constitute about a quarter of the vote there. Virtually every major Dem in Virginia has endorsed Obama. He is a talented vote-getter anywhere, but he will play particularly well in suburban DC.

The media is in flat-out crush mode and that won't change without a gaffe or a loss; neither is likely to occur anytime soon. Obama was born to protect a political lead, and he finally has one. Clinton surely must know that she can't go aggressively negative without playing into his strengths. Obama's field will only get stronger, and as we go back to a state-by-state timetable it will be more determinative.

It's not that Clinton has little chance to beat Obama without the help of superdelegates - it's that she has virtually no chance. Does anyone really think that she can lose ten straight contests and then turn it around?

Clinton is tanking in all the political markets. She has little money and little chance to raise enough of it. Last night Obama went from a favorite to an overwhelming favorite, and I'm surprised that more supposedly astute analysts don't see this.  

[ Parent ]
By the way (0.00 / 0)
Obama got about 50% of voters in California, New York and New Jersey who decided during the month before Super Tuesday.

Only Clinton's massive initial advantage gives this race the illusion of being close.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah considering the 1/3 caucus structure in TX, (0.00 / 0)
and the fundraising advantage he seemingly will have going forward, an Ohio win would definitely put it away.

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
Agreed, mostly (4.00 / 5)
It will come down to Ohio, Texas, and (possibly) Pennsylvania.

Obama will open about a 100 pledged delegate lead before March 4th.  If Hillary wins those three big states, though, or wins two by decent margins and loses the other by a hair, then we probably have the following scenario...

(a) Obama with a small lead in pledged delegates (20-60) that is not greater than the amount Hillary would make up with the inclusion of FL and MI delegats.

(b) Hillary with the lead in the popular vote, which will be spun like crazy if it comes down to debate about who the people have really chosen.

I don't see how Obama has any claims to being more authentically democratically elected under that scenario.

So I think your assessment of Hillary's path is a bit pessimistic.  As long as she stays ahead in the popular vote, she doesn't need to win the pledged delegates, only to keep Obama's margin of victory less than that offered by the FL and MI delegates, if seated.

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

Popular vote: weak argument (0.00 / 0)
Claiming a win by the popular vote is a weak overall argument because you can't compare primary wins to caucus wins.  The overall turnout at a caucus is going to be smaller than the overall turnout in a primary.  Therefor a primary win will increase your popular vote totals more than a caucus win would.  Even if the two states are of the same size and delegate count but have differing methods, the winner of the primary would automatically look like the popular vote winner.

[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
obviously its a problematic argument, but so is the delegate argument given the way delegates are apportioned.

It will be spun by both sides.  All I'm saying is that under this scenario it won't be clear that Obama has the mantle of being chosen by the people.

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

[ Parent ]
But how will she respond? (0.00 / 0)
How will she respond to losing 7, maybe more, states in a row? How can she say "oh, I've lost the last seven states, but I'm only behind by a few delegates!". I don't think anyone will be that and she will be pressured to drop out if she doesn't secure big victories on March 4th (or beforehand).  

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

[ Parent ]
Possibly (0.00 / 0)
It is possible, but with 27 days between now and Texas / Ohio, Clinton is going to have a tough time maintaining her leads there. Obama should do well in February, and have a big cash advantage heading into those two key states.

I agree that Clinton can stay in the game if she does well on March 4th. However, if she loses those two states, the floodgates will open.  

[ Parent ]
I agree that the popular vote argument (0.00 / 0)
is weak.  But, if she the pledged delegate counts are close either way after Penn, it really doesn't matter what happens, in terms of the eventual nominee's legitimacy.  Either side will claim the other was chose through undemocratic means.  The only solution will be a dual ticket which Hillary will almost certainly get the top.  

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
This is the most likely scenario (0.00 / 0)
This dem primary has been based on mainly two things -

The demographics (identity politics)
The GOTV organization, and gameplans.

(What's funny is that BOTH strategies have worked for both campaigns.  Obama ran a 50 state strategy, ended up winning more states, and won a lot of those states big.  Clinton ran a big state strategy, and won that, but not enough to put the contest away.)

TX, OH, are very favorable to Clinton in terms of demographics. As, well, Clinton's organization in OH, from what I've seen, is very very good, and has been there for awhile.

So the big question is, will the Feb contests, if Obama wins them going away, affect the narrative enough to either change, or minimize (make close) Clinton's March 4 wins?

[ Parent ]
Why Obama didn't need to win CA, NJ or NY - and what's next. (4.00 / 1)
(this comment is relevant here, so I'm reposting it - sorry for the dup)

"And I went into yesterday thinking Obama had the momentum, was on the rise, and that she was going to get beat in most of the big states. Every single time, she's come back and beaten my expectations, and I think that's a tribute to how well-organized her campaign is and how tough she is as a candidate and the fact that she's been able to hang onto white women voters, even though women voters big change voters, far more then men."

This is the big mistake - Obama DOES have the momentum - you can see it by looking at his soaring trend upward (  This trend will continue, but there just wasn't enough time between SC and Feb 5th for that trend to overtake Clinton's existing lead.  Especially in California.  I don't know why anyone EVER thought he would win California.  He did extremely well there and made up lots of ground, but he hardly even tried in California.  Why do I say that?  Look at the numbers, he has SO much money but was outspent by Clinton in California, she also ran WAY more ads than he did - and she did it with many different ads in many different markets. He had fewer ads and spent less money and wasn't even IN the state.

Hillary had to spend so much money and time to even keep California close.  That says a lot about the momentum that Obama has.  Also, same for MA, she was leading there for months - by huge margins.  Kennedy and Kerry were not deployed ONLY in CA or MA, they were part of the national campaign that helped him win a huge number of states yesterday.

Looking at all the polls over the last few weeks, we should have expected Sen. Clinton to easily win CA, MA, NY, NJ - and she did - but she had to work so hard that she lost her voice, and she had to spend so much money.

Going forward, Clinton now has to survive an entire MONTH of loosing before she gets a possible big win.  And after last night, you can bet that every Obama donor went back online and gave another $50.  That's going to mean that Obama will have 4-5 times as much money to spend - and will easily win at least 5 out of the next 7 contests coming in the next 7 days.  In Washington state alone he has an amazing advantage (it's a caucus, he's raised more money there than any other candidate, R or D).  Think about how all these upcoming wins are going to affect his trajectory in terms of national polling and electability.  He's soaring - and it's only going to get higher.

This might sound crazy, but even if somehow Hillary comes out with more delegates, do you really think that the Obama movement - and the progressives, independents, democrats, etc who have been supporting him are going to support a Clinton nomination that is decided by elites in the party?  No way.

If Obama doesn't get the nomination because of super delegates, 2008 is looking a lot like the convention in 1968.  The democratic party needs to understand that Obama's candidacy has changed this primary from a party primary - to a national primary in the broadest sense.  It is an opportunity to enlist millions of new people into the party - but they will only sign up if it's Obama's party.

Obama's trajectory and his groundswell of support cannot be translated into a Clinton candidacy, if she's the nominee - the excitement dies.

Only marginally like 1968 (4.00 / 2)
There, the electorate wanted a candidate that would stand with them on ONE issue--the Vietnam war.  They elected a candidate who would to that, and that candidate was shot.  The party then nominated a prowar candidate.

This has nothing to do with issues and likely has nothing to do with governing style.  It is a power struggle amongst two insiders.  It will be horrible if superdelegates subvert the will of the voters, in the even thtat Obmama gets, say 60% of pledged delegates or something, but it will be nothing like the betrayal in 1968.

[ Parent ]
Single Issue (0.00 / 0)
I don't have information about this elsewhere - but every voter I've spoken to in NYC was choosing Obama because of the war.

Also, within the anti-war movement, there is even a pledge campaign to 'not vote for hillary' if she's the nominee because of her war vote.  The rationale is that if Hillary is elected, we get a super polarized nation, republicans in congress and then a republican war-monger elected 4 years later.  If McCain is elected we get 4 more years of Bush - and 4 more years of strengthening the progressive anti-war movement.

Granted, they are both saying they would end the war - but from the anti-war perspective my impression is that it looks like this:

Vote for the war.
Voted against the Levin Amendment.
Voted for the original Patriot Act.
Voted for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution.

Spoke out against the war from the beginning.
Campaigning on ending the mindset that got us into the war and the idea that "it should have never been authorized".

Clinton's camp can spin it as 'looking at the past' - but I honestly believe a lot of voters will never forgive her for that vote - unless she admits it was a mistake like Edwards did.

[ Parent ]
Obama would have voted for the war if he were already a senator (4.00 / 1)
Every action he's taken since entering the senate seems to indicate that.  Perhaps he would have abstained, 'nobly' or something.  And every senator not named Feingold voted for the patriot act.  

Obama voted for the blank check Iraq war bills, and talks about border raids into Pakistan.  Some voters might see him as different on the war, but he is not.

[ Parent ]
"Against the war from day one." (0.00 / 0)
1/2 the democrats voted against the "Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq."

I'm certain that Obama would have been one of them because he spoke out strongly against the war as a candidate for Senate in 2002.

He was running for office and spoke out against a war that many democrats (including Clinton) were rallying behind at the time.

That's why I think the campaign can suceed with the judgment argument on the war.

My preferred candidate in Kucinich or Gravel - and Obama has said he's not against "all wars, only dumb wars".  Well, in my opinion, ALL wars are DUMB wars.  But I think he's winning the anti-war vote overwhelmingly because he spoke out against the Iraq war when it was NOT a popular thing to do - and that's just a fact.

[ Parent ]
Wrong: Iran (4.00 / 1)
There has only been one vote that is similar to the one to authorize force in Iraq, and that is the bill to authorize force in Iran.  Hillary was for it and Barack was against* it.

How Obama votes when dealing with the mess we have in Iraq is not equivalent to the first vote.  The Iran vote is much closer.

(Yes, he didn't vote at all.  If you want to take this as evidence that Obama would have simply missed the Iraq vote, feel free.  He still wouldn't have voted for it.)

[ Parent ]
Agreed. (4.00 / 1)

The Iran vote alone should mean that Hillary can go join Lieberman in his party, whatever it's called.

[ Parent ]
Ohio. (4.00 / 2)
I think the Ohio primary is going to be a political throwdown for the ages. The demographics and political culture and history are very similar to Missouri, and obviously that one was a barnburner. And with Hillary having the challenges in the next few weeks of primaries/caucuses that Chris describes, it and Texas will likely be last stand fights for both campaigns.  

Obama swept the midwest (0.00 / 0)
I noted this in Chris' thread below.  He won IL hugely and MO narrowly, plus the 4 caucus states (IA, KS and MN and ND).  Hillary might not win MO or IA or even MN against a McCain/Huckabee ticket.  This makes OH even more crucial.  It seems to me more like MO than any of the other states, though I don't really know it.  

Will it give the party heads some pause that Hillary can't do better in the Midwest, given that it has been so crucial to the Dems in the past?

Also, with Hillary likely trying to outhawk McCain, could the Dems lose their edge on the war?  Does that matter, or are we just looking at folks who want to preserve their place in the hierarchy, not necessarily win the Presidency?

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

[ Parent ]
Ohio and Missouri (0.00 / 0)
I've always considered Ohio to be similar to Pennsylvania, but never thought about its similarity to Missouri.

[ Parent ]
They've all been political throwdowns for the ages (0.00 / 0)
At this point, I think we need to face the fact that it is unlikely that a solution is going to come via democratic processes.  Chris has been more or less visionary here: we need to act now push the party leaders to work out an acceptable compromise within the next few months.  McCain cannot have this much time to consolidate for the general.  

The Politics of Bruno S.

[ Parent ]
Someone should run a pool on how fast (0.00 / 0)
Obama raises money. Like a super bowl chart, with tens of millions down one side, and days down the other.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Since I am old enough to be your mother (0.00 / 0)
I can say this: i love you. No tie!

You Really Think That? (4.00 / 2)
Chris, this is such myopic thinking I don't know where to begin. How about the fact that while Obama MAY have - and at this point we don't know for certain - a slight edge on the regular delegate count, let's look at the overall vote totals where Hillary has won. I look at a map and I see every major Dem state - and I include MI - except for IL that has been contested so far, plus FL, and I see victories by huge margins in Hillary's column.

And let's not kid ourselves. FL and MI WILL be seated. Every vote counts, at least that's what you and Matt are all about, right?

If this goes to a convention and McCain is the GOP candidate, the Dem party elders are going to look long and hard at actually putting Obama at the top of the ticket, as that means NY, CA and FL are then in play. NY, because moderate Dems and independents will go for McCain over Obama, while Latinos will provide the edge for the GOP in FL and CA.

Hillary, on the other hand, starts with a base that includes every state Gore and Kerry won, plus NH, FL, and AR. If she also takes OH, TX and PA in the primaries, exactly what has Obama won beyond the regular delegate count?

Most voters will see the following:

Hillary wins in CA, NY, NJ, MA, OH, TX, FL, MI, PA, AR, OK, TN, NH, NV and AZ at the very least. Last time I checked, the population of those states amounted to more than those where Obama has won, making her victories more representative of America than his.

But Gore and Kerry lost.... (4.00 / 3)
"Hillary, on the other hand, starts with a base that includes every state Gore and Kerry won"

This is the kid of thinking that led us to loose the last two presidential elections.

We need a candidate who can win red states, running as a democrat.  Obama can do this.

I'm talking to republican cops here in NYC who voted McCain in the primary and want to vote for Obama in the general (NY primary is closed).  They would never vote for Hillary (the dislike her unfairly, but it's true).

It makes no difference at all that Clinton won CA and NY - ANY democrat will carry CA and NY.  We really need to be voting with a November strategy in mind - and that means selecting the candidate who carried the entire heartland - Obama.

[ Parent ]
Clarification - Why Hillary can't win.... (0.00 / 0)
I should note here that the numbers show ANTI-WAR republicans are voting for McCain.  I know, it makes no sense.  But here's the thing about Obama as our nominee:

He appeals to anti-war progressives, independents and republicans because he spoke out against the war from the beginning.

He gives the 'correct' answers about defense, and by doing so manages to walk the line between ant-war and "tough on terror".  It's a brilliant combination, which as a strategy, could mean winning a majority of the states in November.

He already has the endorsement of most of the unions that backed Edwards, most of Edwards campaign chairs - and all of the Edwards online groups (so at this point Edwards doesn't even need to endorse him).  And he's scheduled a "community event" in New Orleans on the 7th - I'm sure it will be about Katrina and poverty.

Oh, and one last thing - we can be pretty sure that Nader will run if Hillary is the nominee.  And with McCain (who voted for the war) and Hillary (who voted for the war) - we're going to see the progressive vote lost to a 3rd party spoiler....

[ Parent ]
Nader'll run anyway--Obama and Clinton are extremely close on the issues (4.00 / 1)
why worry about the half a percent he'll draw.  He won't even get the Green party nomination.  I'm sick of the Nader boogeyman.  Let's just vote for the damn nominee we want rather than worry about what voters in Alabama will think, or what effect marginal third party candidates will have.

[ Parent ]
You're mostly right. (0.00 / 0)

Yes, he'll run either way - but he won't get any of the vote going up against Obama.  He won't be able to bring up:

Hillary's 6 years at Wal-Mart
Vote FOR the war.
Vote AGAINST Levin amendment.
Vote FOR original patriot act.

Nader will take a 2000 like percentage from Hillary.  Think about the issues - Gore was WAY more liberal than Hillary is.  Hillary and McCain have very similar voting records on major issues - Nader would actually seem like the democrat running against two republicans.

[ Parent ]
Gore ran a very centrist campaign, building on the Clinton years (0.00 / 0)
in 2000, Nader talked about the Clinton years waaaaaaay more than he did about Gore's influence.  And that's not the metaphor to draw anyway--what influence did Nader have on the 2004 race?

And there'd be plenty to talk about with Obama, like his vote for every war appropriation, his talk about border raids into Pakistan, his vote for the Patriot Act renewal, and the fact that Obama is going to have residual forces in Iraq.  

They are not significantly different.  They are extremely different from McCain.  It is just simply a false claim that Clinton and McCain are closer to each other than Obama and McCain.  They are not.  Since Obama has been in the Senate, he has had a very, very similar voting record to Clinton.

[ Parent ]
If they aren't different... (0.00 / 0)
how do you explain the groundswell of support for Obama - and the numbers from her own state (see below)?

Do you honestly think that people are caught up in a celebrity moment?

Have you compared Obama's technology policy to Clintons?  Obama's technology policy ALONE should have every blogger backing him 100% - it's revolutionary.

It's why Lessig endorsed him.  It would fundamentally change the way Americans participate in civics.

[ Parent ]
Different people are convinced by different things. (4.00 / 1)
I don't pretend to speak for Obama supporters, and you probably shouldn't, either.  And I"m certain that they have come to back him for a wide variety of positions.  Some are convinced by the war, some are convinced by any number of things, and yes, a smaller number are caught up in a celebrity moment, or else no one would talk about Oprah and Caroline Kennedy and so on.  

There are many reasons to prefer Obama over Clinton or vice versa, some more valid than others.  I remain unconvinced that there is much of a significant difference.  Their voting records are too similar in the limited time that they've been in the Senate together, and Obama really does sound almost identical to Bill Clinton circa 1992.  

That doesn't mean that other reasonable, intelligent people can't be convinced to prefer one over the other.  Kyl-Lieberman is one, the mandate debate would be another.  But I am turned off by patent nonsense such as arguments that Clinton is identical to McCain.  

[ Parent ]
Carried NY? (0.00 / 0)
Im sorry but the huge turn toward Obama in Hill's own state is amazing somebody get the numbers but I'm sorry she's their Senator. Look at Obama's crushing win in Illinois for example, thats what a victory looks like. HRC won, but it was no delegate cake for her to take to convention. If you add Obama's delegates just from NY and Illinois together, they beat HRC's delegates from Illinois and NY. Big state win isn't worth what a few ascribe to it.

Richardson, Edwards, Gore lets start a wager on who how long it takes for them to endorse Obama, and which one comes first. I have NO knowledge of their plans, I'm nobody, but it seems if the party wants the momentum to build, if they want a generation of new excited committed members, if they want to avoid an ugly conventional and cries of foul, if they want  to save some money for the general, people are going to start coming forward now, in hours, not days, to endorse.

Eightfold is right, and we need Obama to win soon.

Are ya listening? Step up and Endorse today.


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

[ Parent ]
Yes - Look at the NY county results. (0.00 / 0)

How could Clinton only have a 10 point lead in Manhattan, where she had her 'victory' party?

Look at all these places where Obama got at least 40% of the vote in Clinton's home state!  And check out the last one, Hillary's home county...

Clinton 50%
Obama 48%

C 54%
O 43%

C 56%
O 40%

C 54%
O 44%

C 53%
O 44%

C 57%
O 40%

C 56%
O 41%

Tompinks (Obama WIN)
C 46%
O 52%

C 50%
O 47%

Westchester (Where Hillary lives)
C 52%
O 45%

[ Parent ]
NY Will Go For McCain Before It Goes For Obama (0.00 / 0)
Generally, I would agree that NY and CA are reliably Dem in MOST circumstances. However, McCain isn't perceived by the white male portion as a radical right-winger, who would be inclined to vote for him over Obama. (I have more than a few relatives who wouldn't hesitate to do so.) On the flip side, Latinos and women voters are more likely to be counted on to keep Clinton on the winning side in those states than Obama likely is able to do so.

Despite being the so-called Great Uniter, with the sole exception of IL, Obama lost out to Hillary in every major state with huge urban population centers that all have racial problems (which I actually think of more as a result from class warfare than differences in race relations) to varying degrees. Obama has a huge problem with Latino voters, who more than likely are going to put TX in the win-column for Hillary.

In short, I'll take Hillary's results over Obama's any day as my starting point for the GE.

[ Parent ]
I would be shocked if McCain competes in NY (0.00 / 0)
I lived in the state for 6 years in the 90s and early 00's and it would shock me to see McCain competitive there.  People like Hillary, but it hardly borders on the hero worship that the few right-wing New Yorkers have for Guiliani.  I could actually see Obama doing better than Hillary in the general as there are a lot of moderate Republicans in the greater NYC area and Independents also trend much more moderate statewide.  

[ Parent ]
Just wrong.... (0.00 / 0)
"Obama lost out to Hillary in every major state with huge urban population centers that all have racial problems"

I'm not even sure what this means. Obama won the Latino vote in Iowa decisively.

Do you have any numbers to support your suggestion that Obama wouldn't win the independent white vote?

So far, Obama has always won the white male vote by large margins.

[ Parent ]
Missouri? (4.00 / 1)
St. Louis isn't huge (2-3M people or something in the metro area), but it is a huge part of the state's population, and if you don't think it has racial problems, that means that you haven't been there.  In fact, most of the cities in the midwest/rust belt is still really rippped apart by white flight and de facto segregation to various degrees.

[ Parent ]
re:you really think that (0.00 / 0)
SoCalHillman---while I am sure the Clinton campaign would happily agree with your conception of the public's perception of the race, the facts will trump the spin ultimately and the fact that Obama won more delegates last night (and less importantly but not unimportantly, more states) will become the media narrative. Then there will be the string of victories that Obama will rack up before March 4th. While it is certainly still possible that HRC can win the nomination there is no arguing that the clearer and more likely path belongs to Obama. Good luck to you with your hopeful thinking though.

[ Parent ]
Every vote counts (0.00 / 0)
And by vote margins, the CPSU is the most popular political party in the history of the world!

This isn't that bad, but the context under which votes take place is obviously critically important, and to call the MI and FL primary elections fair under any definition of that word is somewhat insane.  The party needs to figure out something fair to do with MI and FL, but naïvely counting the results ain't it.

[ Parent ]
If Obama wins pledged delegates (4.00 / 1)
can you imagine the level of alienation african-americans would feel if mostly white superdelegates install Clinton.
Supers have to follow the pledged voters.

John McCain won't insure children

[ Parent ]
Check and Mate (0.00 / 0)
All Clinton has to do is appoint a Black VP to solve any perceived African-American problem. The flip side of that is picking Bill Richardson for VP, galvanizing the Hispanic community and basically relying on the AA to either vote Dem or stay home. (They most certainly won't vote GOP no matter what.)

[ Parent ]
Texas caucuses? (0.00 / 0)
Per The Field (Al Giordano), Texas has that old system whereby the district-level delegates are chosen by caucuses after the polls close; caucusgoers must turn in a receipt they got from voting in the primary in order to caucus.  The state-level delegates are determined by the primary results but the caucuses are not bound to follow the results of the primary (which won't be known until the next morning anyway).

Sounds unlikely/too good to be true for Obama.  What's really going to happen?

Texas caucuses. According to (0.00 / 0)
Yes, they caucus but the primary matters more.  There is a typical multi-tiered caucus/convention system to choose the 67 state-level pledged delegates, while the primary determines the 126 district-level pledged delegates.

[ Parent ]
seems like intrade makes it 50-50 (0.00 / 0)

Since Clinton dropped, it would seem that the "investors" also agree the night favored Obama.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

BTD thinks that (0.00 / 0)
Supercalifragilistic Tuesday proved Obama can't win in the big states no matter what he does. I think an obvious and big factor is that he didn't really even try, but at the same time, the point about his coalition being inadequate for these kinds of states is pretty solid. What do you think?

Doesn't matter. (0.00 / 0)
When was the last time in recent history a Democrat had difficulty winning New York and California?

He doesn't need to 'try' to win those in a general.  He needs to win red-state America.

[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 1)
The four biggest states were CA, NY, NJ, and IL. They went Clinton +10%, Clinton +17, Clinton +10, and Obama +32.

Cumulatively, Clinton won the four states by about 100,000 votes out of about 8.7 million votes cast. That's approximately 1.2%.

Obviously, the argument that Obama's "coalition [is] inadequate for these kinds of states" is not only not "pretty solid"... it's flat out wrong.

And Obama is rising.


[ Parent ]
The deficit was actually closer to 150,000 votes (about 2%) - the point stands (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
BTD's analysis is pretty off (4.00 / 4)
The Obama hype going into Super Tuesday was a bit ridiculous.  I never once thought he would win California.  1/3 of the ballots were cast more than 2 weeks ago, before South Carolina.  Obama got 40% of the New York vote.  New Jersey also had a large number of early voters, who overwhelmingly favored Clinton.  Massachusetts was the only real disappointment for Obama, but SurveyUSA had him down 37 points 2 weeks ago (and SUSA's polls really shined last night).

But BTD's biggest flaw in his analysis is that he discounts the hill Obama had to climb in 2 weeks in a national primary.  Of course Clinton would have an advantage.  The vast majority of primary voters just started paying attention.  Obama can't organize his supporters in 22 states at the same time.  Now, the contests become more spread out.  Obama will likely sweep through February.  He has his South Carolina organizers in Texas already, and I assume his Chicago-based Iowa team will be running it in Ohio.

Now that Obama can concentrate on a state-by-state basis, the he becomes the slight favorite.  With his money and activist advantages, I just can't see how BTD's "Obama is done" take on last night makes any sense.

[ Parent ]
If you think that's crazy... (0.00 / 0)
If you think that BTD's analysis is senseless - take a look at TalkLeft.

They're just saying Clinton won and Obama is done - but without any facts or reason to back it up at all.  It's amazing...

[ Parent ]
There is no 'they' at talkleft (0.00 / 0)
Its just big tent himself, he left talking to himself. There are lots of opinion holders and a few opinion makers. btd is a holder.


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

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
That would be my own impression. But given my own bias (heavily pro-Obama), I'm trying to look at things from multiple perspectives.

[ Parent ]
a question (0.00 / 0)
Why does Obama do so much better in caucuses than primaries?

he's got better field people (0.00 / 0)
he started out as an orgranizer, and organization helps more in caucuses than primaries.

[ Parent ]
One word - volunteers. (4.00 / 2)
Also - he's got so many people volunteering with the campaign.

Here's an example, I was at Union Square last night for about 4 hours.

This is primary day, in Sen. Clinton's home state, in the city where she's having her 'victory party':

There were 3 Clinton volunteers with a HUGE fancy sign and full color flyers attacking Obama.

There were 15 Obama volunteers with home-made and campaign made signs, with kinkos flyers - and as people came up out of the subway, they started joining the Obama supporters, helping to hand out flyers and holding signs and chanting and reminding people to vote.

It was the perfect representation of the campaigns - Clinton is a big machine with a few people - Obama is a million people who are building a machine.

[ Parent ]
plus intensity (4.00 / 1)
Organization is the main reason, but it appears the Obama camp has more intensity than the Clinton camp, which helps in harder to attend caucuses.

[ Parent ]
I don't think it's that clear; (4.00 / 2)
he did lose Nevada. In Iowa, he just plain out-organized everyone. For Feb 5, I don't think Clinton made any effort at all in the caucus states, while Obama made a very solid one, so he dominated. But in Nevada, according to reports, it was Clinton who organized better (plus she had the state Dem machine), and Obama did not enough or early enough.

So Obama is better at this organizing thing, but if Clinton actually tries, it's likely to be a lot closer.

[ Parent ]
Well... it depends on what you mean by "tries" (0.00 / 0)
Actually  in NV, the Clinton people closed polls 1/2 hour early and locked the doors - among other things.

Take a look at the official complaints filed against them with the state party.  Google.

[ Parent ]
Florida or Michigan: Imagine if... (0.00 / 0)
Imagine if the influence those states would now have if they had decided to hold their primaries AFTER SuperTuesday.


And I say this as a Florida voter who felt disenfranchised by the fiasco created by party leadership (state and national).

And to make matters worse, that fiasco now may be used as unfair leverage in the nominating process. I'd be for HRC's intention to seat the delegates--if the candidates had taken the time to campaign for FL votes. Instead, it was a bastard process for which no candidate should receive delegates.

I think it would be most fair that the FL (and MI) delegates count for naught. The candidates succumbed to pressure and chose not to campaign here; they should have to abide by the consequences.  

court battle? (0.00 / 0)
perhaps it will come down to a court battle over the Michigan and Florida delegates - McCain would love that, I'm sure.

[ Parent ]
D party loses all control of the primary/caucus schedule... (4.00 / 1)
if they seat MI and FL delegates. Their threats next time around will have zero credibility. All candidates compete everywhere no matter what the national party says.

[ Parent ]
Y'know, no offense... (0.00 / 0)
But I've had it with Florida.  First the 2000 fiasco and now this.  What the hell's going on down there?! :)

[ Parent ]
the big key (0.00 / 0)
is a gore endorsement, which rumor has it may happen soon, before Wisconsin.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.

Beyond Pennsylvania on April 22nd (0.00 / 0)
In the update, Chris writes "Apart from those listed above, there is also another possibility over which I salivate: Obama sweeps February, but Clinton holds her ground on March 4th, leading to a huge showdown in Pennsylvania on April 22nd."

Definitely a possibility, but why end there? There are a whole bunch more primaries in May and the very beginning of June --- if there is no certainty  that March 4 or Pennsylvania resolves things, it could be on to primaries in:

May 6: Indiana and North Carolina
May 13: West Virginia
May 20: Kentucky and Oregon
June 1: Puerto Rico
June 3: Montana and South Dakota

While I hope we wrap things up before then, it certainly could be fun from a political junkie viewpoint.

Imagine (0.00 / 0)
if it came down to Puerto Rico!  Tancredo's brain might actually explode.  Granted, it would be a pretty small explosion...

[ Parent ]

Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox