* = Totals include a handful of Clinton pledged delegates from primaries that have since switched to Obama. In other words, Clinton's lead in this category was actually larger.
** = Caucus events include AK, AS, CO, HI, ID, IA, KS, ME, MN, NE, NV, NM, ND, TX, VI WA and WY
*** = These numbers are only for the pledged delegates from Florida and Michigan
**** = According to current DNC rules, Edwards left the campaign with 32.5 delegates. The delegates Obama has since won in Iowa, and the endorsements he received from other Edwards delegates, are included in this total.
Without the caucuses, the Edwards delegates, and the supers, Clinton holds a narrow lead of around 45 delegates. Without the caucuses, Obama would have never taken either a pledged delegate lead or an overall delegate lead. As such, the supers would not have flocked to Obama, and Clinton would have maintained her once sizable and longstanding lead in that category. Similarly, without the caucuses and the superdelegate endorsements they resulted in, Edwards would never have endorsed Obama, further padding Clinton's lead. Finally, without the caucuses, and the super and Edwards delegates they resulted in, instead of a handful of Clinton pledged delegates flipping to Obama, we probably would have witnessed movement in the other direction. In other words, without the caucuses, Clinton would have won the nomination campaign by about the same amount that Obama ended up winning it by. The caucuses undeniably put him over the top.
Some may argue that Obama would have won the caucus states anyway, and so he would have led in pledged delegates if every state was a primary. While it is probably true that Obama would have won most of the caucus states even if they were primaries, he also clearly would have won them by far smaller amounts. In Colorado and Minnesota, Obama turned close contests in late January into 2-1 victories in those caucuses. In Nebraska and Washington, while Obama won the caucuses by 2-1 margins, he only won the primaries by about 4%. Given the results of neighboring states and the relatively close results of the caucuses, it is possible that Obama would have lost North Dakota and Maine if those states had been primaries. In other words, without the caucuses, Obama would have far, far fewer delegates from the states that held them. This would have probably made a net difference of 100-110 delegates, and prevented the pledged delegate lead, to overall delegate lead, to superdelegate lead, to Edwards endorsement, to flipping pledged delegates sequence of events that resulted in his victory.
Now, many commenters reflexively oppose the "Obama used caucuses to win" argument because the Clinton campaign has long used to try and lessen Obama's victory. I am using it for the exact opposite, flattering reason: Obama won because of activists like you. Clinton even admits that it was progressive, grassroots, anti-war activists in caucuses who made the difference. To me, that is a huge compliment. Progressive activists were the difference in the nomination campaign. We need to trumpet this victory and our influence, not try to pretend it wasn't the difference.
And it isn't just in caucuses where Obama's nearly two million activists were the difference. At the end of April, according to Open Secrets, Obama has raised $119M from donors who gave $200 or less, and $145M from donors who gave $200 or more. By contrast, Clinton raised $58M from donors who gave $200 or less, and $148M from larger donors, her Senate campaign, or self-financing. Just like in primaries, Clinton narrowly edged out Obama among donations larger than $200. However, Obama held the overall advantage because of the grassroots activists who gave him a roughly 2-1 edge among small donors and in caucuses.
Obama owes his victory to the grassroots activists who made him look like a rockstar on TV with huge rallies, who flooded caucuses and gave him dominating victories, and to small donors and volunteers who provided him with more resources than the Clinton campaign could match. Just because the Clinton campaign has argued that Obama won because of caucuses does not make it any less true, and should not make it any less flattering. Just like Clinton said, she lost because the progressive activist crowd disagrees with her on national security. I agree completely, and I think that is a damn good thing. Because progressive, grassroots, anti-war activists were the difference, the Democratic nomination campaign ultimately became an accountability moment for those Democrats who supported the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq.
We shouldn't run from the "activists won it for Obama" diagnosis--we should embrace it. Not only is it true, but it empowers the progressive grassroots greatly.
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
