In the aftermath of the presidential primaries, stories of unprecedented voter registration and turnout are drifting to the back burner. But with an exceedingly imbalanced electorate, the fight to create access to the voting rolls and enforce the voting rights of all Americans continues. With historic voter registration drives underway and a preview of the types of problems that could occur in November, the focus of the media is beginning to shift towards the less sexy, but crucial elements that work to maximize voter participation while ensuring eligible voters can cast their ballots and have them counted. In Project Vote's view, this is a welcome development since many of the potential issues require more time to sort out than is available if problems are noted only weeks in advance of the election. This week, election officials, advocates and a presidential candidate worked to assist in or restore voting rights for hospitalized veterans in Connecticut, minority citizens in Georgia, and former felons in Tennessee.
Even though the convention is still six months away, a sure sign that we are reaching the end of the nomination campaign is that super delegates have become a major topic of discussion. Hundreds of policy papers have been produced, released, and critiqued. More than two-thirds of the voting has already taken place, and half of what voting is left will be completed by March 11th. All but two candidates have dropped out. There have already been 18 debates, and there will not be many more. About $300,000,000 has been raised and spent, much more than the amounts left to be raised. Super delegates were only intended to become part of the process toward the end, and we only end up talking about them when there is not much else left to talk about in the campaign.
Note: I was pretty sick yesterday, and still majorly sub-par today. Hence the lateness of this post. But it's upbeat, people!
Already, Tsunami Tuesday seems so far in the past, as the prospects of a close, confused race, possibly lasting until the convention have come to the fore. But I think we're missing something valuable in not fully appreciating what happened that day, and so I want to offer a quick (if you don't count the length of the charts) look back at what was accomplished. And what was accomplished-at least for a day-was the virtual disappearance of Red State America. Which, of course, raises the question of what it would take to disappear it for good.
So, on the flip, we'll see just how thoroughly Democrats dominated in a state-by-state comparison, and we'll get to gloat a bit at just how weak John McCain may really be, as well as how divided the Republicans are.
A few more polls will trickle in during the day, and I will update the averages accordingly. In terms of predicting states, I'll go with the polling averages everywhere, except in Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas and Minnesota, where I'll pick Obama. The only reason Clinton leads in those states is because of older polls and ARG, so I don't think I'm taking much a leap in breaking with the polling averages in those cases. Also, I'll go with Alaska and Democrats Abroad for Obama, and North Dakota and American Samoa for Clinton. That results in an overall state breakdown of 12-10 in favor of Obama, fueled by a string of victories in smaller states. However, in terms of delegates, I'll go with Clinton 867 and Obama 821, providing Clinton with an overall, narrow pledged delegate lead of 915 to 884.
Unless there is a shock blowout in favor of one candidate or the other, after tonight things start to get really interesting...
From what I could tell listening to reporters today, the post-Super Tuesday narrative will be all about delegates. That means that this mess is what they are going to be talking about. Frankly, it feels to me as though unless we are really lucky and one candidate mops the floor with the other tomorrow, which I don't think is likely at all, we will very soon be faced with a national narrative about a crisis of legitimacy in the Democratic nomination campaign. Whichever way it turns out, this narrative will be accepted by large numbers of partisans of the losing side, and indeed by large numbers of the American public at large. Most commenters seem pretty angry about the way I am discussing this, and I guess have approached it with a bit of a Chicken Little attitude, not to mention one that differs from the official Obama campaign position. At the same time, I also feel like I am told to look away from the giant, teetering mound of flaming wreckage that is coming up over the horizon. Or maybe something from Star Wars is a better analogy:
Gold Leader: They're coming in! Three marks at 2-10!
[Gold Two is slain by Darth Vader and his wingmen; Gold Leader starts to panic]
Gold Leader: It's no good, I can't maneuver!
Gold Five: Stay on target.
Gold Leader: We're too close! Gold Five: Stay on target!
Gold Leader: [shouts] Loosen up!
[he too is picked off by Vader and Company; Gold Five tries to escape but is fatally winged]
Gold Five: Gold Five to Red leader, lost Tiree, lost Dutch.
Red Leader: I copy, Gold Leader.
Gold Five: It came from... behind!
[crashes]
In the end, tomorrow is going to be an all nighter, and maybe there really isn't anything I can do about it anyway. So, I'll give it a rest for now, and hope that everything turns out well. The rebels did still blow up the Death Star, after all.
This is an open thread. Got any predictions for tomorrow?
Because of the issues I raised in today's earlier article on super delegates determining the nominee, like Matt I jumped on a conference call with the Clinton campaign. I prepared myself by typing out the following question:
Do you think there is a meaningful difference in the democratic, lower d, quality of super delegates and pledged delegates, or that there could be a crisis of legitimacy in the Democratic nominee if he or she wins the nomination without the support of the majority of pledged delegates?
To my surprise, the campaign actually took my question, along with those from he likes of Ron Brownstein and Judy Woodruff (that was pretty cool--my zero years of journalist training are finally paying off). Although I lack sophisticated recording techniques, I did manage to take down most of their response. The basic gist of their response was as follows:
The rules the party has put in place to choose its nominee are not the rules of the Clinton campaign and, just like the Obama campaign, we are doing what we can under those rules to secure the requisite number of delegates for the nomination. One way to avoid the situation described above is to figure out some way to honor the votes of Michigan and Florida, where there was record turnout. Counting the delegates in Florida and Michigan is a civil rights issue, and a solution needs to be figured out before the convention. (Note: italicized text should not be considered a direct quote, just my quick transcription.)
Fascinating stuff. If Florida was counted, a crude estimate from Florida results would indicate that Clinton would receive about 111 delegates to Obama's 74, minus some from both totals based on Edwards receiving 14% (and thus more than 15% in many congressional districts). In Michigan, the situation is a lot trickier, since neither Obama nor Edwards were on the ballot. Still, based on the Michigan results and using the same crude math, Michigan pledged delegate seating would break 74 for Clinton, and 54 for uncommitted. Overall, between the two states, Clinton nets a delegate advantage of 57, plus or minus how support breaks among Edwards delegates.
Personally, after Super Tuesday, I think the Obama campaign should agree to some sort of compromise solution, where they agree to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations as listed above, but with two caveats. First, Obama receives all of the uncommitted delegates in Michigan (although that could be a negotiating point). Second, both campaigns agree that whoever wins the most pledged delegates after the final primaries and caucuses on June 3rd will receive the endorsement of the other candidate at the convention. It is an equitable solution that would not really alter the state of the campaign while solving a whole range of potential disputes. It would preserving voting rights, preventing a brokered convention, avoiding strained relations with two large swing states, and guaranteeing the nominee is the popular choice of the primary electorate. Simply the process, and just get it done before we have a real disaster on our hands.
Also, the Clinton campaign promised to be ahead in total delegates after Super Tuesday, but did not make the same guarantee about being ahead in pledged delegates. Further, the talk among the press corps was entirely about delegates, not winning states. As such, it seems that delegates are going to be the main storyline coming out of Super Tuesday, not who won what state. That makes coming to an agreement such as the one outlined above all the more important.
Update: Yeah, wiping out 2.3 million votes because they didn't follow the strictures of the almighty DNC rules and bylaws committee sounds really fair and democratic to me. It sounds about as fair and democratic as allowing 796 people to have 20% of the vote in determining the presidential nominee of a political party with fifty million members.
Denying the partisan franchise to Michigan and Florida voters is just as undemocratic as elevating super delegates. As per my suggested compromise agreement above, I say seat Florida and Michigan, but also take super delegates out of the equation.
My latest election contest is ready (cutting it close to the wire). I do this primarily by email, but thought I'd post here and open it up to others. Feel free to invite anyone who might be interested to enter, as long as they do so by about Noon PST Tuesday, Feb. 5.
INTRODUCTION
Finally, the Super Tuesday contest. I'll allow entries until about Noon PST Tuesday. I'm not sure things will be any more clear in 26 hours than they are now.
There's so much happening Tuesday that one could ask a bunch of different questions. Please answer at least the main contest question and the tie breakers.
Some people have expressed interest in other questions, so those will follow. They'll be treated as separate contests and are optional.
The polling picture for Super Tuesday is starting to fill out now. With only 34 hours until polls close in California, it appears virtually certain that we will have a split decision in terms of delegates. Currently, by multiplying the average polling margin by the number of delegates in each state, I arrive at an estimate of Clinton 889 delegates, Obama 799 pledged delegates earned from Super Tuesday itself. However, in virtually every state, more recent polls show better results for Obama, which should improve his standing almost across the board. At this point, a 90-delegate victory for Clinton on Super Tuesday is probably her best-case scenario, and the margin should less than 50 delegates in either direction. A narrow Obama victory on Super Tuesday is even within his reach now.
This one is going beyond Super Tuesday, folks. With only 22 states, D.C., Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands left to vote after Super Tuesday, one has to wonder if it is possible for the deadlock to be broken before the convention. Even though Clinton will probably lead by 100 or so delegates after Super Tuesday, the February schedule favors Obama. As such, with only 3,253 pledged delegates, and 2,025 needed to win, it no longer seems possible for either candidate to win without the assistance of at least some of the 796 super delegates. Consequently, it is probably time to start discussing the most democratic way to break the deadlock, such as measuring the measuring the overall popular vote or pledged delegate totals, and urging super delegates to line up behind the candidate who leads according to that metric. A situation like this makes problems such as caucuses not counting popular votes, as well as the Michigan and Florida situations, far more severe and troubling. In short, it looks like we have a real mess on our hands now.
Oh, and as a final note, keep in mind that, according to DNC by-laws, at the convention neither super delegates nor pledged delegates are required to vote for the candidates they endorsed. In essence, it is an open convention, and all we are doing right now is elected delegates.
Who died and made corn King? Democracy, that's who. Amber waves of grain, my ass. We live in a cornarchy; our elected leaders elect to follow the lead of high fructose corn syrup-fueled lobbyists, and serve up we, the people, as serfs instead of serving our interests.
That's why, on the eve of our super fat nation's Super Fat Tuesday, I'm calling for a new culinary tradition that pays tribute to our fallen freedoms and the battle to reclaim them: the kingmaker cupcake.
You may be familiar with the traditional Mardi Gras "king cake," a braid of brioche-like dough covered in purple, green, and gold icing or sugar, with a plastic baby hidden inside (originally, the "prize" would have been a bean, or a coin, but as with everything else these days, plastic reigns.) Whoever gets the piece with the baby is crowned "king." This ritual supposedly has its roots in Saturnalia, the ancient Roman festival held in honor of Saturn, the god of all things agricultural. Now, our gods of agriculture are Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, and Monsanto.
Saturnalia also celebrated the winter solstice and the death and rebirth of nature; in its earliest pagan incarnation, the newly crowned king-as determined by who got the piece of cake with the bean or coin--got to reign briefly and was then sacrificed "in hopes of insuring fertility and prosperity," according to the website Mardi Gras Unmasked. Hey, if that $150 billion stimulus package doesn't work, maybe we could give this a try.
In its more enlightened, human-sacrifice-free version, Saturnalia called for a temporary subversion of social roles, allowing slaves to become masters. But as this medieval holiday morphed into the modern-day Mardi Gras we also call Carnival, its own significance was subverted. New Orleans writer Robert Tallant, author of Mardi Gras...As It Was, described Carnival as "a mock revival of monarch rule." (Fascinating footnote for the don't-eat-meat brigade: "carnival" is derived from the Latin "carnelevare," or, literally, to "lift up" from "flesh".)
Using only polls that were conducted entirely after South Carolina, here are the polling averages for Democrats in Super Tuesday states (all polls from Pollster.com, statistically significant advantages in bold):
Post-South Carolina, Super Tuesday Polls, Democrats
State
Polls
Clinton
Obama
Delegates
Delegates
4
246
157.5
2,025 to win
Alabama
3
46.3%
42.7%
52
Arizona
2
44.0%
40.0%
56
California
6
43.7%
39.5%
370
Connecticut
3
44.0%
41.0%
48
Delaware
1
44.0%
42.0%
15
Georgia
4
36.6%
50.0%
87
Illinois
3
29.7%
55.3%
153
Massachusetts
2
50.0%
35.0%
93
Minnesota
1
40.0%
33.0%
72
Missouri
5
45.6%
42.0%
72
New Jersey
6
47.2%
38.5%
107
New York
4
51.3%
35.8%
232
Oklahoma
2
42.5%
18.0%
38
Tennessee
4
46.8%
31.0%
68
Utah
1
29.0%
53.0%
23
National
5
47.0%
40.0%
0
My guesses on other states for Clinton: Arkansas (35), New Mexico (26)
My guesses on other states for Obama: Alaska (13), Colorado (55), Kansas (32), Idaho (18)
I haven't the foggiest: North Dakota (13)
Clinton's narrow national advantage (which is expanding according to Rasmussen, and shrinking according to Gallup) appears to be replicated across a wide range of states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Minnesota and Missouri. Collectively, those states make up about 41% of the Super Tuesday delegates. It seems, then, that Obama needs to pick up about 4% pretty much everywhere in order to draw even with Clinton on Super Tuesday.
The margin of error for Obama on Super Tuesday is surprisingly narrow. As most commenters have noted, Obama is aiming for a draw on Super Tuesday, which would be adequate given that Clinton is still viewed as the frontrunner (thus Obama would beat expectations), that the February schedule is very favorable to Obama (thus he could build momentum), and that his enormous small donor base would give him a large fundraising advantage in a drawn out campaign (thus he could build a resource advantage heading into March and beyond). However, while a "draw" means about 9-12 states and 820-850 delegates, Clinton can actually deal what is more or less a knockout blow if she wins 950 delegates or more. With 950 delegates on Super Tuesday, she takes a 300 delegate lead, and reaches 60% of the magic number even before further super delegate backing (which would be likely if she "wins" on Super Tuesday) and the Michigan and Florida delegates are seated (and they will be seated). Catching up at that point would be virtually impossible for Obama, even when factoring in his post-Super Tuesday advantages.
So, we are talking about only a 100-125 delegate margin of error for Obama on Tuesday, which really isn't that much. If Clinton wins 850 delegates, the situation looks great for Obama. If Clinton wins 950 delegates, the situation is devastating for Obama. Right now, the polling numbers above crudely project to a 102-delegate advantage for Clinton on Super Tuesday, or about 895 to 793, which is almost precisely in the middle of the best case and worst case scenarios for Obama. Honestly, a few points in either direction could turn the campaign into a dead heat, or turn it into a solid Clinton advantage. With Gallup and Rasmussen pointing in opposite directions, it is difficult to determine what is happening. We will all find out in about 60 hours or so.
1/30-2/1, 400 LVs, MoE 5 California: Clinton 45%--36% Obama
New Jersey: Clinton 46%--39% Obama
Missouri: Clinton 47%--41% Obama
Arizona: Clinton 43%-41% Obama
Along with Connecticut and Alabama, those appear to be the four most important states on Tuesday. Obviously, both candidates will win a lot of delegates in all of them, but the winner will receive more and a favorable media narrative, too. Also, Rasmussen now shows Obama catching Clinton in California, holding a statistically insignificant 45%-44% lead.
On the Republican side, depending on which poll you look at, California is either tied, or McCain holds a lead in the high single digits.
Once more polls are in, I'll update the Super Tuesday polling average chart later today.
Zgoby's tracking polls show much better news for Obama in key Super Tuesday states than other polls so far:
Obama, an Illinois senator who would be the first black U.S. president, has a comfortable 20-point lead in Georgia fueled by a more than 3-to-1 advantage over Clinton among black voters.(...)
In California, the poll found Obama led Clinton by 45 percent to 41 percent, with a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points. Clinton held statistically insignificant 1-point leads on Obama in New Jersey and Missouri, well within the margin of error of 3.4 percentage points in both surveys.
Zogby has put up some odd results before. Also, as I said, other polls in California, Missouri and New Jersey are much more favorable to Clinton. Still, these polls suggest that the possibility of a strong Super Tuesday for Obama is real.
Update: Yes, Zogby's tracking polls haven't been too bad, this year. But I don't know, sic transit gloria or somethin'. Also, the final Field Poll shows Clinton ahead by 2% in California. Looks like a dead heat in the Golden State. Clinton campaigned there Saturday to a crowd of 10,000 in San Jose--I wonder if the Obama campaign will turn around and make a surprise visit?
Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has run advertisements in 21 of the 22 states that will hold Democratic primaries or caucuses. Mrs. Clinton, of New York, has run advertisements in 16 of those states. His campaign has aimed advertisements on different issues at particular cities in an effort to tailor his message to the concerns of voters.(...)
Mr. Obama has spent $10.9 million on advertisements in the states voting on Tuesday; his first expenditure was Jan. 12, according to officials from both campaigns. Mrs. Clinton has spent about $8 million, starting on Jan. 17 in California. Between them, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have spent at least $1.3 million a day for the last week on television advertising in the states voting on Tuesday, said Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising.
Most of this money has been expended in just two weeks. By comparison, all the presidential candidates spent a total of $43 million in Iowa and $32 million in New Hampshire, according to a report from the Wisconsin Advertising Project. In those states, advertising ran for months before the votes.
Illinois, Mr. Obama's home state, is the one place where neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Obama is advertising. Of the five other states where Mrs. Clinton is not advertising, four - Alaska, Colorado, Kansas and Minnesota - have caucuses, the kind of competition that aides to both candidates believe gives an edge to Mr. Obama. In the fifth state, Georgia, Mr. Obama is looking to do well, in part because of the state's large black population.
Mr. Romney and Mr. McCain began their television effort on Friday; there were no specific figures available on their spending, though it appeared to be about $2 million for Mr. Romney and about $1 million for Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney, again reaching into his own pockets, bought television advertisements across California and on national cable television, a venue rarely used in a primary campaign.
This is interesting on several levels:
First, I'm pretty sure that Clinton and Obama are combining for a larger ad buy than Kerry had heading into the final week of the 2004 campaign. Then again, I suppose that isn't too remarkable, since Super Tuesday presents a larger playing field than the swing states did in 2004, and because they are two campaigns instead of one.
Second, it indicates that Clinton has ceded both Kansas and Georgia to Obama, since she is neither campaigning nor advertising in either state, while Obama is campaigning and advertising in both. So, along with Illinois, that makes for three safe Obama states, instead of just two.
Third, Obama is clearly targeting a delegate strategy at this point, as indicated by his advertising even in places like Arkansas, New York, and Oklahoma. The only rationale I can think of for advertising in states that he is certain to lose is to pick up as many delegates in those states as possible. This is further emphasized by an earlier passage in the article that indicates Obama is targeting select media markets in many states, clearly trying to win a congressional district here and there even if he does not win the entire state.
Fourth, Romney apparently has decided to give it a go in California, seemingly hoping that he can win a couple dozen congressional districts there and call it a draw of sorts.
Firth, it is interesting that both Romney and Obama are now heavily counting on low turnout caucuses to wage a delegate count strategy, and deny their opponents a quick coronation. An analogy to socioeconomic classes is useful in understanding this. In the delegate system, super delegate endorsements are akin to aristocrats, caucuses are like the bourgeois, and primaries are like the working class. In the Democratic Party, Obama has a strong edge among our "bourgeois," high-information voters and grassroots activists, while Clinton has an edge among the aristocracy and the working class. Romney seems to have an edge among the aristocracy and the bourgeois but, at least according to the Gallup poll, is getting crushed among the rank and file working class of the Republican Party.
Polling, itineraries, and now advertising: the Super Tuesday picture is starting to come into focus. Last year, I had suspected that Super Tuesday would be nearly impossible to follow, but enough information seems to be trickling in that has made it much easier than expected.
STATE BLOGS
