Clinton Faces Insurmountable Pledged Delegate Deficit

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 16:33


Here is some more context to my conclusion in today's nomination at a glance post that the Democratic nomination campaign is pretty much over. Using the poll averages from that post, here is the best possible delegate scenario for Clinton between now and May 6th:

State Date Obama Clinton P. Delegates Clinton Poll Margin
P. Delegates Jun 7 1,194.5 1,032.5 3,253 --
Ohio Mar 04 64 77 141 +7.3%
Rhode Island Mar 04 8 13 21 +13.5%
Texas P Mar 04 63 63 126 -1.0%
Texas C Mar 04 38 29 67 --
Vermont Mar 04 9 6 15 -25.0%
Wyoming Mar 08 7 5 12 --
Mississippi Mar 11 18 15 33 --
Iowa* Mar 15 7 7 14 --
Pennsylvania April 22 68 90 158 +14.0%
Guam May 03 1 3 4 --
Indiana May 06 41 31 72 -15.0%
North Carolina May 06 62 53 115 -8.7%
Total NA 387 391 778 --

I derived all of these numbers by taking the current polling margin in each state, multiplying that margin by the number of pledged delegates in each state, and then rounding up favor of Clinton. In the case of caucus events, for which there are no polls, I used the numbers from Maine, Clinton's best February caucus states, as a proxy. In the case of Mississippi, I used the delegate results from Alabama, which Clinton only lost by 2 despite a 14% popular vote defeat, as a guide. (The three delegate victory for Obama in Mississippi comes from that state having a higher percentage of African-Americans in its primary electorate than Alabama.) In the case of Guam, I used American Samoa as a guide, and then heavily rounded up in favor of Clinton.

However, even in this favorable scenario, the delegate math still does not add up for Clinton. Obama still ends up with a pledged delegate lead of 158.5 after May 6th, at which point only 217 pledged delegates remain (plus another 23 still floating around from states that have already held nominating contests). Overall, it is extremely unlikely that Clinton will be able to reduce Obama's pledged delegate advantage to below 150 before the convention. If things go exceptionally well for her and surpass even these already rosy projections, then she will still have to make up at least 130 delegates from Florida, Michigan, superdelegates and Edwards delegates. That doesn't seem very likely in and of itself, but it is still her best case scenario based on current polling.

Clinton now faces an insurmountable pledged delegate deficit. At this point, her only path to the nomination is to vastly outperform polling in  most remaining states, and then utterly dominate Obama among superdelegates / uncommitted delegates and also to receive favorable rulings from the credentials committee. However, Obama has more regularly outperformed polling than Clinton, the credentials committee is largely controlled by whoever wins the most pledged delegates, and even all of the superdelegate momentum is in favor of Obama, where he has reduced Clinton's advantage by a net of 33 superdelegates in just two weeks. All of these contingencies are unlikely on their own, but Clinton needs all of them to combine in a perfect storm.

Given all of this, I have conclude that Obama has greater than a 95% chance of winning the nomination at this point. It now feels to me as though we are just killing time, or perhaps engaging in a one-week farewell tour, until the inevitable takes hold. Clinton might continue on to Pennsylvania, but at this point I can barely see how that will make any difference for her chances. The Obama campaign has simply proven too effective in too many ways. My proverbial hat goes off to them.  

Chris Bowers :: Clinton Faces Insurmountable Pledged Delegate Deficit

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Wow...I think that Chris just called the race... (4.00 / 6)
I agree and looking back it will be the entire month of February that did it to the Clinton campaign.  their inability to keep it close in the contests after Super Tuesday allowed Obama to no only build a pledged delegate lead that is insurmountable.  It also allowed him to build the momentum necessary to win with the Super delegates.   Hopefully it will end on a positive and unifying tone for the sake of the party and the democrats chances in November...which has been the end game all along.  Continued thanks to Chris and Matt whom make this site one of the most objective and where an open exchange of opinions can be had.  Props and looking forward to the general when we take back the House, bigger majority in the Senate (Goodbye Joe Lieberman...) and the White House...

I did call the race (4.00 / 5)
Natch catch. I did call the campaign. I've been wrong before, however, since I called it for Clinton once back in late October. I'll still follow the campaign just be be sure.

I think there were three main factors that consolidated Obama's support. First, there was his massive activist army, which gave him the money needed to compete everywhere, and the activists on the ground needed to dominate caucuses like Iowa. After Iowa, the next big step was when he consolidated African-American support. This first happened by proving he would be viable by winning Iowa (for which he can thank his activists and organization), and then with the post-New Hampshire discussion on race. From that point, a perfect storm of a massive South Carolina blowout, the Kennedy endorsement, and a well-timed campaign departure from Clinton gave him the momentum he needed heading into Super Tuesday.

Overall, it all started with having the right candidate who could appeal en masse both to creative class activists and to African-Americans. No one else could have done it but Obama. Combine that with a lot of organization and a little bit of luck, and it appears that Obama has accomplished the impossible: defeating Clinton in a national Democratic primary campaign.  


[ Parent ]
Cutting Edge Commentary (0.00 / 0)
Are you going to post a play-by-play of how we got here?

[ Parent ]
I believe so (0.00 / 0)
I'm getting into the habit of thinking out loud on the subject of my next post in the comments.  

[ Parent ]
There is a good list (0.00 / 0)
going on the last Nom. At A Glance thread of turning points.

[ Parent ]
Chris but you have to admit that this was the (0.00 / 0)
Clinton's campaign to lose and they did just that.  I never thought that Obama would over take her as he has.  Hopefully this keeps up all the way through Nov.  He did ride the perfect storm in though.  Seems to be the case with all of his races in Illinois as well.  Luck, skill or both?  

[ Parent ]
If McCain implodes (0.00 / 0)
because of either the sex scandal or the FEC, that'll be a remarkable coincidence. Obama's opponents imploding seems to be a curious pattern; Clinton is actually the exception, I think.

[ Parent ]
I would agree...on the McCain thing, there might be (4.00 / 1)
more to that story than the sex thing... which is the direction those investigating should go in...as far as Hillary and her campaign, they have made some tactical mistakes.  Wasting money, ceding the month of February, message has been all over the place.  Which is surprising, because if you would have told me that this were the case 6months ago, I would have laughed at you.  

[ Parent ]
On another sex scandal, too (0.00 / 0)
That'd be...odd, to say the least. Anyone else thinking "Jack Ryan"?

[ Parent ]
Classic Military Aphorism (0.00 / 0)
"Victory goes to the general that makes the fewest mistakes."  The Obama campaign made a few (the McClure thing, overconfidence in NH), but they made fewer, and less severe ones, than their opponents.

[ Parent ]
I have to disagree with that because (4.00 / 2)
it discounts not only Clinton's strength (in her financial, institutional, and party machinery capacities and her near 100% name recognition, which has really towed the line for her with low information voters) but how truly phenomenal Obama's campaign has been to overtake Clinton with all her advantages from so far behind and next to no name recognition of his own prior to the campaign. I think in this context, we can really see how big of a wave the Obama campaign has created and that he is winning voters more than she is losing voters. For comparison, imagine that for some reason Obama had pulled out of the race after New Hampshire and Edwards had stayed in. I believe that by now Clinton would have dominated and been the de facto nominee instead of the epic battle unfolding at present. Her strategy was a numbers plan - not a motivation plan.

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

[ Parent ]
It was a convergence of all those....I would agree. (0.00 / 0)

Leon Panetta just gave an interview to the observer and he seems to get it just right in taking a look at what went wrong...I think that if Edwards had stayed in for Super Tuesday, Obama does not do as well.  He was able to consolidate most of the Edwards votes...it just seemed that there was no contingency plan.  I am sure people with be analyzing this for the next year...

http://www.observer.com/2008/p...


[ Parent ]
Well I will give you that because Clinton was sure (4.00 / 1)
she was going to be the nominee at the time she was organizing her campaign, and because she thought she could blow everyone else out of the water with her fundraising capacity, she staffed her campaign with loyalists (who would not leak information in a hold-the-fort mentality) rather than highly competent people. Aside from what that might suggest as to her governing style, the combination of financial mismanagement, strategic blunders, no Feb-6 and beyond plan, a comparative inability to connect with new voters, schizophrenic messaging, bipolar laudatory/attack language, and a very high initial negative rating certainly combined with the chance course of events and all the things Obama was doing right. At the same time, she was the presumptive nominee for a long stretch, had all the advantages of an early Super Duper Tuesday that massively favored her big money campaign over anyone else, near 100% name recognition, Bill Clinton's record as borrowed equity upon which to build her own brand, and a large number of political favors and entrenched party machinery to get her way. On balance, I'd say the biggest factor still was the irresistible force of the Obama movement hitting the almost immovable wall of the Clinton machine.

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!

[ Parent ]
I felt this way too for a while, but on reflection (0.00 / 0)
I felt for a long while, before Iowa, that it would be just about impossible to beat Clinton. But I came to that only after concluding I must have been crazy for an earlier thought. But now I am going back to that first thought I had which was, America dislikes Hillary too much to vote for her. I'm starting to re-think that I was right before - the Obama insurgency has been anchored by males and independents and african americans. If Hillary won the nomination I think those males and independents would have gone to McCain. But they first made an attempt to scuttle Clinton in the primaries - the perfect storm was that the alt candidate was a charismatic black candidate who is pulling 90% of the african american vote, and so she is getting knocked out early. Hillary supporters can be thankful that they won't have to live a Kerry repeat in November. I don't mean that to be too mean, I  mean that be a frank analysis of how risky a Hillary nomination is.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
oopps--Edwards, not Clinton (0.00 / 0)
I meant "a well-timed campaign departure from Edwards," not Clinton.  

[ Parent ]
Obama's invisible hand (0.00 / 0)
At the time, I thought Edwards' departure helped Clinton, not Obama.

Maybe this stuff was lucky, but "luck is the residue of skill" seems like a particularly relevant aphorism, in this case.


[ Parent ]
I think you often make luck from opportunity - (0.00 / 0)
first having to identify the opportunity and then utilizing the skill to make use of it.

Opportunity without action is seldom seen as luck. You could buy a winning lottery ticket but if you never bother to check the numbers or cash it in, it's just a printed piece of paper.

I completely agree that it's not just luck that favored Obama, but his skill in dealing with the opportunities presented to him.

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!


[ Parent ]
Wow. (0.00 / 0)
This is incredible if it really does happen.

I will be watching for a highlight diary of the year-- blow by blow big mistakes from Clinton and big leaps by Obama.  

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


This Begs the Question (0.00 / 0)
What does the Clinton campaign see that we are missing?  

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

Ever seen "Dumb and Dumber"? (4.00 / 8)
    Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?

   Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.

   Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?

   Mary: Not good.

   Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

   Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.

   [pause]
   Lloyd: So you're telling me there IS a chance.


[ Parent ]
I have to say - this is the best reply I have seen (4.00 / 1)
in a long long long time!

Well quoted bmozaffari... Well quoted...

Help support "CRASHING THE STATES"--a Netroots Film!


[ Parent ]
that's easy (4.00 / 3)
She needs the polls to move in her favor.  Chris's analysis assumes that nothing major changes.  Maybe Obama blunders.  Maybe Clinton's attacks actually work.  Maybe facing the moment of truth, voters get afraid.  Maybe a Chicago scandal materializes.  [I'm not predicting any of these things.]  Until Ohio and Texas have voted, they can keep hoping and trying.  



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
Yeah, that is pretty much it (4.00 / 3)
she still has a chance, just not a very good one. After all the work the campaign has put in, of course they are going to keep working to see if they get really lucky.  

[ Parent ]
Major changes (0.00 / 0)
Waiting for Obama to falter is not a strategy. Maybe it is if you're Huckabee and the candidate you are chasing is as flawed as John McCain. She would be smarter to pull a Romney and suspend her campaign after March 4th. If Obama REALLY blows it, naturally she is the nominee. But what does she intend to do in the meantime? Tear down the presumptive nominee every chance she gets for weeks on end until Penn votes? Longer?

It would be a different story if her attacks actually worked. Maybe we will get a glimpse of her intentions tonight. If she is planning to scorch the earth, tonight would be a great time to start. Let's just hope she doesn't

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


[ Parent ]
I agree with you 100% (0.00 / 0)
I think it is reasonable to fight through March 4, but after that the chance will be so small she should withdraw.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
I'd say the race can probably be called at midnight tonight... after the debate. (4.00 / 2)
The debate (and the spin war afterwards, if there is one) is the last big, realistic, not-grasping-at-straws chance to change the narrative.

In particular, this worries me:

Howard Fineman of MSNBC:  "There is a gathering sense in the media that Obama has gotten something of a free ride."

Dan Balz of WaPo: With All Eyes on Clinton, Time to Question Obama, Too

"Can he truly be the candidate of MoveOn.org and red-state politicians alike? Have those at different ends of the Democratic political spectrum attributed to him positions -- on issues ranging from Iraq to health care to the economy -- that are compatible with their own views, but not with the other's?

Is there any major issue upon which he parts company with the big labor unions, or has he adopted their agenda in totality? More broadly, where has he shown a willingness to take on some of his own party's constituencies, and if he's not willing to do so, how can he suggest that he can bring Republicans and independents into a governing coalition?

Does his anti-NAFTA rhetoric of the past few weeks reflect his true feelings about trade, or has this been a mostly tactical exercise to attack Clinton? Is he turning his back on what has been a general consensus on trade issues and turning toward a significantly more protectionist stance for the United States?"

he goes on like this for three more paragraphs.

Meanwhile Clinton's camp is advancing the "media is unfair to us, too nice to Obama" argument even further.  And Tim Russert is moderating.

So, if Tim Russert pulls Obama into the wrong kind of gotcha -- a stumble that reinforces existing unknowns or weaknesses of Obama, and gives the press something to sink its teeth into -- that could send Texas, Ohio, and a lot of momentum back in Clinton's direction.

Alternately, tonight is probably the last chance it can happen.  The odds of Obama committing a major unforced error in any other venue between now and the 4th seem pretty low.

So I'd say, 10:30 PM Eastern tonight is probably when this race can be called, unless the debate trap actually is sprung, in which case the fallout over the rest of the week will be determinative.

And it's worth noting that this last danger scenario isn't something Clinton can pull on Obama, but rather something the press can pull on him.  He's out of her reach at this point but he's certainly not out of theirs.  Which says great things about this country of course.


[ Parent ]
Oh, and MSNBC may feel compelled to go out of their way to be hard on Obama (0.00 / 0)
given the conflict between them and Clinton in the past.

There are several bad elements coming together at this moment for Obama.  He'll probably be fine, but tonight is riskier than normal, given the mood of the press, the MSNBC angle, Russert's history, the Clinton camp's arguments, etc.


[ Parent ]
The Balz article... (4.00 / 2)
   ...focuses on issues, which is a perfectly fair way to scrutinize a candidate, and one that Obama's very much ready for. If the media takes that tack I'm not too concerned.

  If Russert goes Nedra Pickler on Obama tonight, though...

  I get the feeling that the DC establishment is getting worried -- Obama wasn't supposed to win this thing, after all. So expect a London blitz on Barack over the next week. And that's the main reason I'm just not as sanguine as most of the other posters here regarding Barack's chances.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Wildly optimistic (0.00 / 0)
These are wildly optimistic projections, because they ignore the realities of the even/odd delegate allocation in congressional districts, particularly in Texas/Ohio. With small (< 12%) leads, districts with even numbers of delegates wind up tied. This greatly reduces the chances of gaining the in delegate count, because the majority of districts have an even number of delegates. The only real chances of delegate pickups are in districts with an odd number of delegates. Also, in a close vote, there isn't much of a split in delegates awarded at large (proportionally). Ohio has some of these, for example. My best case analysis of Ohio, for example, shows Clinton only picking up +6 delegates, using today's SurveyUSA numbers.

This is why letting Obama run up the score in all the smaller post-super-tuesday states was such a mistake. His delegate margins increased far larger in those states than Clinton has any chance of making back in these 2-3 big ones.

So it's actually quite a bit worse than Chris says above, which is pretty devastating in itself...


On the quick hit (0.00 / 0)
It's amazing really that the pledged delegate count is only off by 12 -- that's within 0.5% given the numbers above.  Given all the talk about delegate districts you'd think the number would be off by more.  In a poll of 1000 people you'd expect random variations of 3%.  

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

In other words... (4.00 / 1)
It's in the refrigerator: the door is closed, the lights are out, the eggs are cooling, the butter's getting hard, and the Jell-O's jigglin'?

Hope that doesn't mean tonight's debate is garbage time.


I don't know what that means (4.00 / 4)
But it still seems like a pretty cool metaphor.  

[ Parent ]
It was used by the Lakers long-time announcer (4.00 / 1)
who said that when the game was effectively over.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Not garbage time (0.00 / 0)
Is anyone else frightened about tonight's debate? Sure, she could stick to her script and give another solid debate performance - but we all know that isn't going to cut it. She can move back towards the conciliatory tone she closed with during the last debate - it's a tricky strategy that cuts both ways (graceful exit or emotional ploy). Or she can attack, attack, attack.
A Clinton has their back against the wall - which option do they choose?  

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

[ Parent ]
she needs to not go postal for a variety of reasons (0.00 / 0)
Least of all is the November election.  Going out classy will be a way to help preserve what is left of the Clinton Legacy.  Hopefully it will not get ugly...but honestly I don't think so.  I got the same feeling over the weekend and on Monday with the tactics that they were using...similar to S. Carolina.  Enough of that crap (and it looks like McCain will run an ethical, no Swiftboating type of campaign after he unloaded on that jerk that introduced him this afternoon).  Hopefully it will be as positive of an exchange of ideas between the candidates and no personal mudslinging.  People are sick of it.  At least I am.

[ Parent ]
It depends on Russert (4.00 / 1)
   It would have to be a pretty major ambush to trip up Obama, but the media's more than capable of that.

  I think everybody's misreading what the photo flap's about. The issue is not whether or not the Clintons were behind it -- that's just inside baseball. The intent of the photo "release" was to get as many eyeballs as possible to see a picture of Barack Obama as a Scary Muslim. The "controversy" over whether the Clintons did or didn't send that picture around is simply an excuse to get the media to SHOW that picture -- one well-placed visual has far more impact than an hour of chattering. And it's been everywhere.

  The media knows exactly what it's doing. I'm concerned Russert's going to morph into Nedra Pickler tonight.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
corporate media (0.00 / 0)
The media's just savage Obama after he wins the nomination. Hopefully his campaign has learned from 2000 and 2004. Given his response to the "is he patriotic enough" article it seems like he has, but maybe that's being too optimistic.

In particular, his media proposals and the way he's bringing huge amounts of people into politics that make me think he'd be unacceptable to them.

Hopefully he can overcome it.  


[ Parent ]
If Clinton wants to win by the margin she needs in OH and TX (0.00 / 0)
It'd BETTER be garbage time. Seriously, the current meme on the Clinton campaign is the idea that the campaign has many faces, and that there's even MORE disorganization than was previously reported.

If so, it'd be bad to repeat the last performance and seem at some times happy and united and at others, vicious and snippy.  That'd reinforce the "multiple personality" idea and not really help at all. If Sen. Clinton wants to keep the same face the media has been reporting on since the last debate, she HAS to go nuclear, or there will be stories about how she was nice at the TX debate and then went negative and then reverted back to being nice. I don't see how that produces positive headlines for Sen. Clinton.


[ Parent ]
DCW delegate history tracker (0.00 / 0)
Damn! Wish I had seen that before I did all my diary work. My bad for not digging deeper.

The DCW margin, BTW, has dropped from 64 down to 59.


Bleak. (4.00 / 2)
You lay out a good case re why this is so tough for Clinton, but I don't think it's quite that bad. If she does end up surprising folks and winning the popular vote by decent margins next week, which is hardly impossible, the media will give her a huge "she's got the momentum" boost, which will stop the super delegate erosion as folks hunker down and wait for PA. If she then beats him in PA, she will have both a good set of talking points and momentum as they scramble for super delegates. Obama would still be ahead in pledged delegates, but it would be close enough that the Clinton team has leverage to twist folks' arms and call in old favors.

Mike have you seen the Survey USA numbers that came out (4.00 / 1)
last night.  Her erosion of support in Texas is more like a tidal wave.  She lost 20% of the Latino vote in 1 week.  And that is just one example.  I just don't see it.  She might be able to hold on in OH...but give Obama 5 weeks and the numbers in PA will look the same.  It has been the case in every state since South Carolina.  

[ Parent ]
The dam burst (4.00 / 4)
Super Tuesday.  Remember how most of us were saying Obama had to win six or seven states On Feb 5 to stay in the race?  How important California was?  Well, when it was over he won 12, California wasn't that important (except to keep Clinton alive) and he came away with the wind at his back.  Then Hillary's money problems surfaced.  During the rest of February the Clinton team stunned by Super Tuesday, facing unfavorable states for the most part, and low on cash essentially campaigned as if nothing had happened.  It's always easy to second guess, but while the Clintons were saying early on that "we're in it for the long haul" it looks like they were in it until February 5th.  And when they woke up February 6th, they seemed unable to face the new reality.  If they were low on money, they could have made a few quick and dirty decisions to jettison most of the states left in February and put all of their money and campaign time into two or three (maybe Washington, Maine, Wisconsin). Or perhaps it was time to take a dramatic stand on issues that might change the dynamic of the campaign.  Instead, caution prevailed and they campaigned just enough to lose each and every state by wide margins. Imagine what things might be like if Clinton had gone into Texas and Ohio following a win in Wisconsin?  Maybe there was nothing she could do and Obama was just such a unique candidate that it wasn't to be. Sometimes the clock never strikes 12.  Even if I have serious reservations about her, I have a lot of respect for anyone who has accomplished what she has and is willing to put themselves out there day after day.  After all the effort, losing is a bitter pill.  Hopefully, John McCain will experience that medicine in the not too distance future.  I'll have considerably less compassion for him.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners -- Albert Camus


Remember (4.00 / 2)
Remember how most of us were saying Obama had to win six or seven states On Feb 5 to stay in the race?

I sure do! I remember thinking that CA was a longshot, but maybe the only route Obama had to the nomination. I remember thinking there was a VERY GOOD chance the campaign would be over on Feb 6. I remember seeing lots of predictions on how many states Obama would win, usually in the 5-10 range. Just like we now debate what states Hillary needs to win to stay in the race, we were having those same discussions about Obama.
I hope we can keep proper perspective when looking back on this race - it has been an upset of historic proportions.

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

[ Parent ]
Better than that: (0.00 / 0)
remember Chris Bowers arguing that Nevada and California would be determinative?

Clinton won both.

This isn't to pick on Chris, just part of the general reminiscing.

Obama winning Northern Nevada, and his two landslides in South Carolina (winning the black vote by SO MUCH, and doing well among the young white vote and still taking a quarter of the white vote in a three-candidate field) both helped a lot: they were inside baseball, but the press knew about them, and it kept him alive in the press narrative, which in turn kept him alive in the Super Tuesday states.  Clinton's two weaknesses in South Carolina -- her weakness in the white vote (a lot went to Edwards) and her husband's foolishness there -- also helped weaken her in the press narrative.  And finally, the Kennedy endorsement was incredibly well timed: three days of positive press coverage right when he needed it, and right after a big win.


[ Parent ]
It's over... (0.00 / 0)
Maybe we oughta go ahead with that endorsement after all...

Don't jinx it, Chris! (4.00 / 1)
It now feels to me as though we are just killing time, or perhaps engaging in a one-week farewell tour, until the inevitable takes hold.

 Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad word!!!!   :)

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


The most common mistake (4.00 / 2)
political observers make is underestimating the amount of volatility in a particular race.  

Chris's analysis makes this mistake.  Were Clinton to win 3 of 4 next Tuesday, and then take PA, the dynamic of the race would change quickly.  My guess is that the polling in the May 6th states would close dramatically.  

Should she win both states on May 6th the race for the nomination would look very different than it does right now.  

In close primary fights in the past, buyer's remorse has often created significant surprises.  The best examples of this were in 1980 when Kennedy won New York (despite trailing by 20 in polling) and in 1984 when Hart won Indiana and Ohio.  If you go back and read accounts of those contests, you will find reporters writing that voters in those states believed that supporting the front runner would effectively end the race, and they didn't want the race to the end.

I have spent some time reviewing the last 36 hours in New Hampshire, and have concluded that a similar dynamic was behind Hillary's comeback there.  

Voters in Texas and Ohio are now being told that if they vote for Obama, the race is effectively over.  This raises the bar for Obama, as it did for Carter in '80 and Mondale in 1984.  

Do not be surprised if in the end voters decide they are not ready for the race to be over.  


but I think fhe difference this time is a couple of things (0.00 / 0)
One, the race had barely started in NH.  Voters thought it was too early. I think that this time around the voters seem ready to end the race...or not...we will know by next Wed AM...

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
I know I want this race to be over. And I live in Texas, even.

And really, if NH was a case of buyer's remorse, it was perfectly rational. Obama hadn't really been through the grinder yet. But now?  


[ Parent ]
You may be right (0.00 / 0)
my sole point here is that voters tend to step back a bit when the are told their vote will be decisive.  

[ Parent ]
That mistake would never and has never.. (0.00 / 0)

....been made here.

Count on it.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


[ Parent ]
Recced for the volatility comment -- I strongly agree. (0.00 / 0)
I think the difference though, is that in the two examples you cite, the incumbent or de facto incumbent was about to put the challenger away, and the voters of New York, Indiana, and Ohio didn't let them.

This is a little different.  This is the challenger about to put away the de facto incumbent.

There will be some caution, I think especially in blue collar parts of Ohio, to let this be over in favor of the challenger.    Particularly this challenger.

I think Texas on the other hand will ratify and join the wave -- the pattern really, repeated on the national level and individually in each state, of Obama closing on, overtaking, and finally beating Clinton.

I think he overperforms Texas (it's a pretty prosperous state, really), and while I don't know about Ohio, I think he underperforms the true Rust Belt parts of it pretty badly.  I think those are the precincts that will be unwilling to let this be over in favor of the unknown challenger, and I don't think they'll be enough to stop him either.

Caveat: a big debate gaffe could stop Obama in his tracks in Texas.  The state, I think, is willing and likely to move his way, but it's not a lock, and he needs basically the same press narrative he has right now to make it happen ("successful insurgent").  If the press turns on him, he loses Texas and the fight rolls on.


[ Parent ]
This is exactly the kind of crap (0.00 / 0)
that keeps me coming back to this site. Far more, and better, in-depth analysis than you get anywhere else.

I hereby take back (playfully) calling you a "big pussy" back in November 2006 for getting nervous about how many seats we were going to pick up.


assuming it ends after Ohio.. (0.00 / 0)
thank god for Obama. After watching the epic failure that has been the Clinton campaign, I have serious doubts she could have beat McCain. It would have been 2004 all over again, or worse.

Clinton- Leave now and be relevant (0.00 / 0)
She can leave now and keep some relevance some dignity and a place in the party. Or she can drag this out and humiliate herself and become the crazy aunt in the attic that no one wants.  

Donate to Open Left








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

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

   

Advanced Search