End Of The Nomination, At A Glance

by: Chris Bowers

Sun May 18, 2008 at 17:00


This is the final nomination at a glance post that I intend to make. Tomorrow, the 2008 Presidential Election Forecast, which I will update just about every day between now and November, will replace it

The Democratic nomination campaign is over, and there is no need to keep a running, updated count anymore. Massive pro-Obama superdelegate movement, combined with the John Edwards endorsement, were the final straws. At this point, Obama now holds a commanding lead, even if Florida and Michigan are seated exactly as the Clinton campaign hopes they are.

Best-Case Clinton Delegate Count
Type Obama Clinton Edwards Remaining 50% + 1
Pledged 1,612.5 1,442.5 20 189 1,627
Super 305.5 288.5 0 257 --
Florida* 69 105 11 0 NA
Michigan 31 47 5 45 NA
Total 2,018 1,883 25 491 2,208.5

* Two Edwards delegates in Florida have now indicated they will support Obama

Even if Michigan and Florida are seated based entirely on the results of the January "primaries," which is extremely unlikely, then Obama leads by 135 delegates even without the remaining 25 Edwards delegates and 19 Michigan uncommitted delegates added to his total. There is simply no longer any path for Clinton to reach the nomination. This is probably why Obama is poised to declare victory on Tuesday night:

Senator Barack Obama has chosen to spend Tuesday night not in Kentucky or Oregon, the two states that will be holding their primaries that day, or even at his home in Chicago. Instead, Mr. Obama's staff announced on Saturday, he will be returning to Iowa, where he won the Democratic caucuses way back in January and has at least two good reasons to revisit now.

Much more than nostalgia seems to have motivated that decision. If things continue to go as well for Mr. Obama this week as they have so far this month, with a romp in North Carolina, a strong showing in Indiana and daily growth in his support among party superdelegates, he could actually end up with enough pledged delegates to proclaim, without fear of contradiction, that he is now the Democratic nominee for president.

They should change the "could" to "will" in that article. As a result, it will be exciting to live blog Tuesday's returns. Here are a few more notes on the end of the nomination at a glance series:

  • On Tuesday night, Obama will also be able to secure victory in a metric that has long been important to me: the popular vote. Even if Michigan and Florida are included in measures of popular participation, notions to which I am actually quite open because no other delegate selection events were made available to the residents of those two states, about 260,000 more participants in Democratic delegate selection events preferred Obama to Clinton. While the uncommitted vote in Michigan and lack of popular totals in four caucus states make a final count impossible, exit polls and voter turnout estimates among those groups provide conclusive, incontrovertible evidence that more participants in Democratic delegate selection events supported Obama than Clinton. This metric might not matter to you, but it even with all the imperfections in the process it does matter to me, and I am very glad that our presumptive nominee will finish ahead in this category. (See here and here for more information on this.)

  • Biggest Upset Ever. The enormity of Obama's accomplishment should not be underestimated. He succeeded where Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart and Bill Bradley failed: defeating a candidate with overwhelming institutional support to win the Democratic nomination. Going into this campaign, the Hillary Clinton had fifteen years of power building at her back, and Obama was able to edge her out in only fifteen months.

  • Best Nomination Campaign, Ever: The three nomination campaigns I remember when I was growing up were 1984, 1988 and 1992, all of which were lengthy, unpredictable contests with numerous twists and turns. The next three Democratic contests, 1996, 2000 and 2004 were incredibly weak and boring by comparison. For quite some time, I have longed for a campaign when everyone got to have their say, not just Iowa and New Hampshire. I longed for a real contest over who would lead the Democratic Party, and even though the ideological component of this campaign was mainly identity-based, we finally got another one of those. As a blogger and a political junkie, I wanted few things more than to be able to become a leading expert on delegates and delegate counting. Over the last four months, I have relished that role about as much as I have ever enjoyed anything as a blogger. Truly wonderful.

On balance, the nomination campaign was overwhelmingly positive for the Democratic Party. Three million new Democrats were registered. Democrats took a huge lead in partisan identification. Our small donor and activist bases were greatly expanded, with twice as much money already being raised from donors of $200 or less than the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates raised during the entire cycle. And, despite all the attacks, Obama's lead over McCain is as large is it has been in nine months.

It has been a hell of a ride, and I like where we are. It is time for delegate math to be but aside, and for electoral math to take center stage.

Chris Bowers :: End Of The Nomination, At A Glance

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Popular vote (0.00 / 0)
Could you elaborate a teensy bit more on why you think he will cinch the popular vote on Tuesday ?
I understand your past calculations as to why he will come out ahead in the end but what is the thought process behind the confidence Tuesday will put him out of reach ?
What if KY is 25 points and OR say, 7 or 8 ?

I am not keen on using the popular vote metric myself but since it is a talking point of theirs ...


If Obama still leads by 150,000 or more (0.00 / 0)
and he probably will, then Clinton can't make up the difference in my count with only Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota left.  

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 1)
This Primary will probably go down in history books, hopefully as a prelude to a General Political Realignment Election!

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

Isn't it funny (0.00 / 0)
but I hated hated hated every moment of it since Feb 5th. I have gotten outraged, mad, sad, very very upset and nervous and could not wait for it to end.
But now that I know the ending, and I see how little is going on now, I almost am sad it is over LOL

[ Parent ]
Political Realignment? (0.00 / 0)
Exactly what is that? Can you describe it?

[ Parent ]
Popular vote + moral legitimacy (0.00 / 0)
I've always wished the sky were green instead of blue. Green means more to me than blue does.

I also hate the electoral college. When you do your electoral math counts, Chris, please also do the popular vote count because that is the morally legitimate count. Never mind that that doesn't win elections. Being someone's version of morally right is more important.


Nice (0.00 / 0)
If all I cared about were winning, and if I had no values, I'm sure you would fine this blog and my work valuable.

And your analogy sucks anyway. It is possible to change electoral formats. It is not possible, however, to change the color of the sky. That you would equate political change with changing the color of the sky is extraordinarily cynical and depressing.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It is a real campaign, and a lot more doable than changing the color of the sky. But I guess since it has nothing to do with winning I shouldn't bother.  


[ Parent ]
Yep, analogy sucked (0.00 / 0)
I will be more direct: I am bothered by the 'popular vote equal morally legitimate' phrase and implications. The system currently in place says the person who wins the most delegates wins the nomination. It seems petulant - during the campaign - to argue for what you deem to be a morally superior way to recognize the 'winner'.

Or maybe it's just that arguing a preference for the manner of vote counting in terms of something being morally legitimate is irritating to me. The term moral legitimacy is trivialized when it's used for something so..well, trivial as which way we recognize a winner in a primary election. Had you used the phrase 'more democratic', I probably would not even have posted a comment.


[ Parent ]
and yes (4.00 / 2)
Expect me to write about the popular, national vote during the election season. Count on it.  

[ Parent ]
Not sure I get this "moral legitimacy" (0.00 / 0)
of the popular vote.

Why does having earned more votes by a candidate make that candidate "morally legitimate?"  This would only make sense within a true democracy.

We have a process, a system for electing individuals to office.  The candidate that wins within the rules of the system is the legitimate winner, both technically and morally.

What makes for a less-than-moral winner is abuse of the process (say, like Gore v Bush at the Supreme Court), not winning with less popular votes.

And I too used to hate the Electoral College and wanted a pure popular vote election, but I have mellowed on that over the years and have come to very much like the proportional system used in the Democratic Primary.

This is a more likely fix, changing the College from a winner takes all to a proportional system based on states' popular votes.  

That would make for a much more tactical campaigning process.  And a lot more fun to watch.


[ Parent ]
Okay (0.00 / 0)
I guess the long primary wasn't that bad. I hope.

Enormousnesses (0.00 / 0)
I believe (and hope) you intended to use the word "enormousnesses" rather than "enormity".

sPh


Obama does not lead (0.00 / 0)
in the popular vote -- Hillary does, already.  And her margin will be even higher at the end of the primary process in June.  Where you're getting this I don't know.  

BTW you can't map caucus results onto the popular vote.  See for example the caucus vs. the primary in Nebraska; Obama got far less in the popular vote than he did proportionally in terms of delegates.

Obama isn't the nominee; and it's 'presumptive' to describe him as such and declare the race over.


Read his posts (0.00 / 0)
Chris links to two posts in which he explains clearly the fallacy of the claim she leads in the PV.
The only calculation in which she leads by a few thousand votes is if you count FL where noone campaign, if you count MI but do not coutn any uncommitted vote to him (huh ?) and do not count four of the caucus states (how is that fair, I have no idea).

In other words, BS.


[ Parent ]
People voted in those states (0.00 / 0)
you can't just make it "not count" because there has been no process to replace it.  That is the election that took place there, and you cant discount it.

[ Parent ]
Right... (4.00 / 2)
Again, in case you missed the point of the post you were replying to:

The only possible way Sen. Clinton can lead in the popular vote is if you:
a) Include all of MI's votes for Sen. Clinton but attribute 0% of the Uncommitted vote to Sen. Obama.
b) Do not include 4 caucus states.

So, to apply your statement, people in MI voted for both candidates; Sen. Obama following the direction of the DNC rules committee and removing himself from the ballot and Sen. Clinton's disobeying the committee should not result in punishment for Sen. Obama.  We all know that the most motivated of his supporters voted Uncommitted (and the rest stayed home, but I'm ignoring that for now), so giving Obama none of those is pretty incorrect.

Four states held caucuses to elect their delegates that Sen. Obama won, but Sen. Clinton does not count them - why not?  That is the election that took place there, and you can't discount it.


[ Parent ]
I should remind you (0.00 / 0)
that Obama did not have to take his name off the ballot in Michigan; that was his choice.  You don't take your name off the ballot if you're running for President, period.  And in Florida, all names were on the ballot.  

How would you count caucus results in terms of the popular vote?  As I've said, those results are nowhere near what the popular vote would be, because of the magnifying effect of activists in caucuses, lack of a secret ballot, etc.  Caucuses count for delegates, and that is it.  Besides, the point is that Clinton has more support, and more support where it counts (yes, swing states that we must win in November).

I think it would be fair to give Obama a portion of the uncommitted vote in Michigan, but his name was on the ballot in Florida and its results should stand as is.

The point is that they have to be counted and taken into account before Obama can "declare" himself the winner.


[ Parent ]
In case someone hasn't reminded you (0.00 / 0)
Caucuses count for delegates, and that is it/blockquote>

The entire primary contest counts for delegates. That's it. If Clinton wants to - once again - change the rules and  count the popular vote for those states that held primaries - than it is fair game to count the votes in the caucus states.

Unfortunately - you cannot make the claim that she has had more support without distorting the facts and twisting the rules.



[ Parent ]
Enjoy Your Party While You Can... (0.00 / 0)
This is not over. And if you think - for one teeny-weeny second - that it is, you are either deaf, dumb and blind, or you just.don't.care about the people who are being disenfranchised each and every day when you and other Obama followers continue this meme.

Additionally, you can intellectualize a GE "win" in November, which is about all I've seen in the so-called progressive blogosphere, or you can face reality: GE's aren't caucuses.


I am so interested in the dynamic and how it plays out (4.00 / 1)
So Obama declares victory and Clinton ____? Everyone knows now that it's over, even Clinton, but does she vow to fight on? Does she get out? Does Obama have inside information? Are they on the same page?  

A "hell of a ride" is right. And though I think the nomination is decided, I'm not sure the ride is over.


I think (0.00 / 0)
Obama declares victory on Tuesday night.  On Wednesday, Pelosi, Carter, and the rest of the Pelosi Club endorse Obama and make a plea for the Party to unite and start the campaign against McCain.  On May 31st, the Party resolves Fl and MI in a way that doesn't affect the outcome of the race.  That night, a fundraiser in honor of Al Gore is another unity pitch.  June 3rd the Primaries end. By the end of that week either Hillary endorses Barack and joins him or the Party moves on without her.  

What world (0.00 / 0)
are you living in?
By the end of that week either Hillary endorses Barack and joins him or the Party moves on without her.
Sorry, but 'the Party' will not move on in unison as you imagine.

[ Parent ]
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