“Matt Yglesias”:http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/poor_form.php complains that Harold Ickes shouldn’t be dishing the dirt before the Democratic primary is over. But _isn’t_ it over for all intents and purposes? Barring an act of God, it looks as though Obama has won. Matt’s co-blogger “Marc Ambinder”:http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/we_need_to_start_with.php runs the delegate numbers and finds that:
Playing with the numbers a bit, here’s how [Hillary] could – in theory – accomplish this. If Florida and Michigan’s delegations are seated fully to her advantage, and if she wins in Ohio by 65% and wins in Texas by 65%, and all other percentages hold, she can win the nomination.
In other words, she’s the horse-race betting equivalent of a super-Yankee accumulator. Perhaps something entirely unexpected will happen (I note again that I don’t have any particular expertise in US electoral politics, and am relying on Ambinder’s calculations here), but it seems to me highly unlikely indeed that she can pull off an upset.
{ 48 comments }
qb 02.28.08 at 11:14 pm
god wouldn’t do that to us.
MSS 02.28.08 at 11:54 pm
I have not run any calculations myself, but the 65% number that Clinton would have to win the remaining big(ish) states by is what I have been going with.
Not going to happen, obviously.
blah 02.29.08 at 12:14 am
These are the ways in which HRC can win the nomination:
1. Obama dies.
2. Obama drops out.
3. Obama suffers some scandal that is the equivalent of dropping out.
There might be others, but these strike me as the most obvious.
richard 02.29.08 at 1:58 am
or (4) the delegates decide that in a real presidential election the public won’t vote for Obama, and go their own way. That’s still possible, isn’t it? (me, I’m just a foreign observer, along for the ride)
de Selby 02.29.08 at 2:56 am
I think that’s still possible if Clinton wins 3 of 4 primaries on Tuesday, even by narrow margins. The Arbiters love a good fight, especially between two Democrats, and Heaven and Earth might be moved to keep it going.
Toward the convention, the party elders might decide that Obama is too urbane to please the American Consumer, or too “urban” (to honor a euphemism) to pass through the filter of the American “lizard brain” (to sidestep a defamation).
Thomas 02.29.08 at 4:14 am
I think Obama has it won, in the sense that I think he will win it after he wins TX and OH and PA.
But if Clinton were to win in TX and OH and in PA, I think she’d win. Candidates who lose are losers, but she wouldn’t be a loser after that; he would be.
Seth Finkelstein 02.29.08 at 5:43 am
A key phrase in the analysis is “half of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates”. That’s an assumption which could be very wrong in either direction.
It doesn’t strike me as a bad bet at all for Clinton to keep playing in order to see if Obama stumbles badly. Especially if the Republicans crank up the smear machine against him – it may hurt him far more than her, because they’ve basically thrown all they can at her already, while he has nowhere to go but down.
nick s 02.29.08 at 6:26 am
It’s pretty much over, if you look at the delegate rules and the assumption that the superdelegates won’t scare the horses.
If the situation were reversed, Obama would probably be getting the same treatment that Huckabee now gets on the GOP site. That Clinton isn’t is a testament to her campaign’s massaging of expectations, and perhaps the media’s desire to perpetuate the drama, so that Hillary’s nemesis only arrives in the summer.
There are a few Clinton supporters who, in essence, have come up with arbitrary thresholds that would nullify the delegate totals — such as winning the popular vote in the Texas primary, in a state that has a mixture of primary and caucus delegates — but the rationale seems to be along the lines that losing the popular vote in California and New York means Obama would lose them in November, and that winning the popular vote in Texas means Clinton would win it.
This week’s endorsements marked, to use the post’s analogy, a number of elected Democrats shoving in their money before the book is closed.
FWIW, Intrade has Clinton at 16, and I think that’s about 6 points overvalued.
Ben Alpers 02.29.08 at 7:19 am
Especially if the Republicans crank up the smear machine against him – it may hurt him far more than her, because they’ve basically thrown all they can at her already, while he has nowhere to go but down.
This blog’s own Professor of Dangeral Studies (over on TPMCafé) made the best reply I’ve read yet to this argument:
Ben Alpers 02.29.08 at 7:22 am
Toward the convention, the party elders might decide that Obama is too urbane to please the American Consumer, or too “urban†(to honor a euphemism) to pass through the filter of the American “lizard brain†(to sidestep a defamation).
This would never happen. Even the Democratic Party elders understand that if, at the eleventh hour, they overturned the will of Democratic primary voters by framing a new “whites only” policy for presidential nominees–which, however euphemized, would be loud and clear to African American voters–it would destroy the party’s electoral chances for a generation.
Seth Finkelstein 02.29.08 at 7:47 am
Regarding: “we’re being asked to choose between a candidate who has been badly damaged by psychotic wingnuts and a candidate who might yet be. That’s really not a compelling case for Clinton.” – I think the flaw there is that the operative phrase is not “might yet be”, but WILL BE. That is, the case is that they are currently at rough parity, but that in the future, Clinton has reasonable prospects of going up, while Obama has very probably prospects of going down. We can see the “down” process at work as we speak, with the secret-Muslim attacks.
It’s indeed a sad choice. But switching names doesn’t work because Obama is so untested. He’s never been in a tough race in his national political career – how can that just be ignored in terms of political estimation?
Ben Alpers 02.29.08 at 8:13 am
Obama is currently in a tough race, and all signs indicate that he’s weathering it very well.
In contrast, Hillary Clinton–who has also never before been in a really tough election battle–is failing the test.
The notion that Obama is a weaker national candidate than Clinton is the purest speculation. All evidence–from polling data to the actual course of the two campaigns so far–suggests that Obama is the stronger candidate. Now that evidence is not conclusive (how could it be?), but I’ve yet to see any real evidence that indicates Clinton would be the stronger candidate.
Seth Finkelstein 02.29.08 at 8:28 am
No. Obama is not in a tough race, where tough is defined as everything the Mighty Wurlitzer can throw at him. Clinton cannot make blatantly racist attacks. She cannot take a stance of being a real man’s-man war hero against an effeminate peacenik. She won’t Islam-bait. These things, and more, will be – are – stock Republican tactics.
I think Hillary Clinton’s problem is she’s outflanked from the left, with the anti-war aspect. That’s a powerful issue for primaries (e.g. RuPaul got almost-respectable based on it). But it’s not clear whether it helps Obama much in the general election against McCain. Running as an anti-war candidate has typically been great in a Democratic primary, not so great against a pro-war Republican.
Ben Alpers 02.29.08 at 8:45 am
I didn’t say that the race won’t get tougher for Obama. It will, for all the reasons that you suggest (though I disagree that Clinton–or her surrogates–can’t make blatantly racist attacks….they have).
But this race is certainly tougher than anything either of them has faced before. The national media are much tougher on Clinton than the NY media were in 2000. Obama is a tougher candidate than Rick Lazio. And Obama has already started to receive a lot of the nonsense that would only increase in a general election. And in this already tough primary battle, Obama is running a decisively more successful campaign than Clinton.
It’s not at all clear to me that Obama is running to Clinton’s left. As has been said many, many times before, the two candidates are almost identical on the issues. As can be expected in a Democratic primary campaign, both Obama and Clinton have tried to suggest that their progressive credentials are better their opponent’s. Clinton has cited her healthcare plan and criticized Obama’s comments about Reagan (and general tendency to suggest that Democrats can work across the aisle with Republicans); Obama has talked about NAFTA.
Clinton’s Iraq War vote is an important distinction between the two of them. But this is hardly a left-wing issue. The latest polls indicate that 58% of the American public think that we should never have gone to war in Iraq. John McCain and Hillary Clinton’s support for the Iraq debacle is the ideologically marginal position today, not Barack Obama’s (initial) opposition to it.
Ben Alpers 02.29.08 at 9:02 am
Running as an anti-war candidate has typically been great in a Democratic primary, not so great against a pro-war Republican.
I actually think that the first half of this statement has not been the case at all.
In 2004, there were any number of anti-war Democrats running for the nomination–most notably Dean, but also Kucinich, Braun, Sharpton, and (briefly) Graham. The Democrats chose a pro-war candidate.
Though war-and-peace was not a big issue in the 2000 primary, Al Gore was one of a handful of Democrats who voted for the first Gulf War in 1991; Bill Bradley voted against it.
Indeed, with the signal exception of 1972, the dovish wing of the party has been unable to win the presidential nomination. Needless to say, it won’t win this year, either (Dennis Kucinich and, arguably, Mike Gravel being the only real doves running this time).
Neither Obama nor Clinton is a dove, although whoever wins will, of course, be tarred as a peacenik in the general election campaign.
bad Jim 02.29.08 at 9:17 am
Obama does have the advantage that racist attacks against him will generally be considered improper. The United States, our legacy notwithstanding, is generally more comfortably multicultural than most of our trading partners. (Come sample our cuisine, consider our teams, note who plays the viola in our orchestras*).
I voted for Obama (Edwards having withdrawn) in the California primary; as far as I can tell, most of the rest of my godless family went for Hillary. I didn’t choose B. Hussein O. because he was male, I chose him because I could not, much as I worship women, bring myself to vote for a candidate who hadn’t the sense to take a stand against the obscenity of the invasion of Iraq.
Even while I was championing Edwards, the great white (male) hope, I thought that O. had more star power, a better draw. It feels strange not to be wrong.
*The LA Phil has a black violist, I swear, but the argument works even if it’s a female Asian. But then, even Wikipedia links to a long list of violist jokes.
Seth Finkelstein 02.29.08 at 9:37 am
My take is that Obama is the Anybody-But-Clinton candidate who succeeded, putting together a coalition of the around 35% of Democrats who hate Clinton and maybe 15% of Democrats who want the most anti-war candidate. I’m very skeptical as to how well that can translate into overall election success. Note I said “outflanked from the left, with the anti-war aspect.”, not in general. That a big Obama talking point is being more anti-(Iraq)-war. Obviously, that can’t always work, for everyone. But it was e.g. a huge part of Howard Dean’s appeal before his collapse.
The sort of racial stuff done by Clinton and surrogates is absolutely trivial compared to what’s coming up for Obama. Sure, they tried a few things, but it’s orders of magnitude less than what’ll happen with all the winguts and talk-radio ranters pumping it out day after day, week after week.
Great Zamfir 02.29.08 at 10:21 am
As a foreigner from one of your trading partners, I suppose this could well be true in general, but I have to ask: is it also true for blacks in particular?
While it appears as if your acceptance an integration of immigrants goes far easier than in Europe, it also looks, form the outside, that racism and disadvantages towards blacks are a different matter.
Ben Alpers 02.29.08 at 10:47 am
My take is that Obama is the Anybody-But-Clinton candidate who succeeded, putting together a coalition of the around 35% of Democrats who hate Clinton and maybe 15% of Democrats who want the most anti-war candidate.
So you think nobody is voting for Obama because of his message and personal appeal? I’m not an Obama supporter, but I find that analysis very hard to buy.
I also think you vastly overestimate the level of Clinton hatred among Democratic primary voters. The latest LA Times/Bloomberg Poll (available in .pdf here) suggests that only 17% of Democratic primary voters (and only 13% of Democrats overall) view Clinton negatively. Not surprisingly, the lion’s share of the 42% of the public who view her unfavorably are Independents and Republicans.
(In addition, if 15% of Democratic primary voters were going to vote for the “most anti-war candidate,” why didn’t Kucinich–far and away the most anti-war candidate–perform better, say, at least as well as Ron Paul did in the GOP primaries?)
Ben Alpers 02.29.08 at 11:05 am
Just to clarify, I think the differences between Clinton and Obama on the war (which consist largely of their opinions in 2002) have made a big difference in this campaign (in part because, on the issues, very little otherwise separates them).
However, the failure of the Kucinich campaign strongly suggests that the percentage of single-issue anti-war voters in the Democratic primary electorate is vanishingly small.
Those voters most driven to vote against Clinton because of her AUMF vote are probably among the 15-20% of Democratic voters who actually have a negative opinion of her.
Finally, Clinton’s vote in 2002 does not merely put her at odds with a minority of Democratic primary voters on the party’s left wing. It puts her at odds with almost 60% of the American public (as I’ve already noted above).
chris y 02.29.08 at 11:55 am
So now that the latest polls show McCain overtaking both of them in a head to head, any chance these two egomaniacs might start attacking the record of the government instead of slagging each other off like 12 year olds?
justlanded 02.29.08 at 12:34 pm
Indeed, the clear sign that it is over is exactly that Ickes is willing to pile on Penn. Of course he is aware that you don’t pile on unless the election is over. That he has come out publicly clearly means that quite a few establishment Democrats are calling the race for Obama.
Seth Finkelstein 02.29.08 at 12:34 pm
Since Obama was a national unknown until recently, I’m viewing the constituencies as pre-existing factions which he acquired, instead of “his”. Yes, I know, perhaps that’s unfair, that I’m discounting his charisma, etc. It’s a model.
Why not Kucinich? I’d say “money”. Ron Paul did very well from his anti-war stance, but he’s actually got a pre-existing national base of supporters. They’re lunatics, but they are loud and quite a few of them are rich. So that base enabled him to take advantage of being The Anti-War Candidate. Kucinich didn’t pull off something similar. In a different world, he might have done it, that’s for political scientists.
But stepping back from these details, the overall point I’m making again is that a coalition of various Democrats who don’t like Clinton does not obviously translate and scale to general election voters versus Republicans.
And before I “believe” in Obama, I’d like to see how he does against some Karl Rove special. It hasn’t happened yet. Maybe it’ll be the drug stuff, and they’ll also say “Clinton brought it up first!”.
Marc 02.29.08 at 12:36 pm
There is a single poll with McCain and Obama tied within the margin of error, and in that poll almost 20% were undecided. Obama has been focusing on McCain, and McCain is a terrible campaigner. I don’t think this will be even remotely close, and anyone who claims that the republicans are invincible should look very closely at the 2006 election results, the 19% approval rating for Bush, and the degree to which the American public hates the war in Iraq (surge or no.) McCain’s 10,000 years in Iraq is going to be featured, prominently, in a lot of TV ads this fall.
Steve LaBonne 02.29.08 at 1:16 pm
No, they’ll let disposable proxies make the outright racist / Islamophobe attacks, whereupon they’ll be prissily disavowed by McCain. They had a successful test run of this procedure just the other day with that talk radio host in Cincinnati (and a different type of test run with an ad in Tennessee, which also seems to have worked as planned.) Since the press is very much in the tank for McCain, it will continue to work. Is this a great country, or what?
Steve LaBonne 02.29.08 at 1:19 pm
P.S. Which is not to say that I think Obama is the weaker candidate against McCain; on the contrary, I think he would probably beat McCain, while Clinton (who would attract plenty of slimy attacks as well) would probably lose- and just about every poll so far taken supports that view. On that basis I support Obama, despite not having drunk the Hope-flavored koolaid.
Obama/Gore 02.29.08 at 1:50 pm
Bhillary will lose. She claims experience but can’t keep her people motivated and on staff. She claims to be ready to take on the economy but had to donate five million dollars of her own money to her campaign. She claims to have the foreign policy experience but couldn’t properly pronounce Putin’s successor’s name (Dmitry Medvedev). She claims to be able to take on the Republican, but struggles against Obama to the extent that she takes on multiple personalities, and references an SNL skit during the last debate. (“Why do i get asked questions first?”–whine, whine)Are you serious? She accuses him of plagiarism, but borrows (?) the words of her own husband. Oh, and I haven’t even discussed B. Clinton’s racist words in South Carolina. But i’ll leave that to others. I’m ready on Day 1 (give me a ****** break).
not even an MBA 02.29.08 at 2:11 pm
The nightmare scenario is if HRC wins the nomination (for whatever reason) because that would mean that Mark Penn was right all along.
David W. 02.29.08 at 2:16 pm
Since Obama was a national unknown until recently,
Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention made him known nationally, much as Clinton’s speech at the 1988 convention did.
Why not Kucinich?
Because Kucinich, while being a nice and sincere guy, is too much of a flake to take seriously as a candidate.
But stepping back from these details, the overall point I’m making again is that a coalition of various Democrats who don’t like Clinton does not obviously translate and scale to general election voters versus Republicans.
Obama’s deliberate appeal to independents is something Hillary Clinton can’t pull off, and that’s been why Obama won in Iowa where he stunned everyone by getting a huge turnout of independent types at the caucuses, and why he did very well in Wisconsin, a state that doesn’t have a large black population and is fairly blue-collar. So I think Obama’s appeal can and will scale up nationally against McCain.
Everyone wants to talk about the war, but keep in mind one thing – after five years it’s political shelf life is getting pretty dubious. McCain’s 100 Years of Occupation may sound good to those who think staying is winning, but it’s not very appealing to moderates and independents who are beginning to wonder if it’s worth it.
Steve LaBonne 02.29.08 at 2:33 pm
Well, I’d love to think you’re right, but I can’t say I’m that optimistic. You’d be surprised how many people are not paying attention yet and will be hearing this crap for the first time come the fall campaign.
Steve LaBonne 02.29.08 at 2:59 pm
Since for some reason you’re deleting abb’s comments, Henry, please delete my last one as well. It makes no sense without the context.
Nick 02.29.08 at 4:20 pm
No, they’ll let disposable proxies make the outright racist / Islamophobe attacks, whereupon they’ll be prissily disavowed by McCain. They had a successful test run of this procedure just the other day with that talk radio host in Cincinnati
Someone forgot to notify the wingnut base about that strategy. I, perhaps foolishly, looked at some right wing blogs and although the bloggers were generally supportive of McCain, the commenters were frothing with their hatred of McCain and his vile repudiation of that honest, truth-telling talk-radio host. I could almost see the spittle spattering the inside of my monitor screen when I opened up the comments pages.
Steve LaBonne 02.29.08 at 4:43 pm
I’m glad to hear your report- it gives me a sliver of optimism that this game will backfire. The best part about it backfiring in this particular way, would be that fair reporting by the MSM is not needed.
Seth Finkelstein 02.29.08 at 4:52 pm
Ah, but those frothing commenters aren’t going to vote Democratic. So let’ em rant. The game is played for the undecided, not the base.
Laleh 02.29.08 at 4:55 pm
If Henry is deleting abb’s comments, maybe it is time for me to stop coming to this blog. He is very very very rarely offensive, and he represents many points of view often silenced by the liberal mainstream as much as by conservatives. Shame!
Steve LaBonne 02.29.08 at 4:59 pm
However, it’s important that your base be motivated to turn out in large numbers. This is one of McCain’s weaknesses. (He says with fingers crossed…)
abb1 02.29.08 at 5:19 pm
Hey, let him delete, why not, it’s funnier this way.
Steve LaBonne 02.29.08 at 5:35 pm
Hillary-ous new memo from the Hillary
slow-motion trainwreckcampaign:If nothing else, these idiots have redefined the art of goalpost-shifting. Way to go, political geniuses!
Michael 02.29.08 at 6:50 pm
All of the speculation about Clinton vs. Obama in the face of GOP attack presumes that the campaigns are similarly equipped to deal with it. They are not. As has been emphasized over at Daily Kos, Obama is rebuilding a party organization. As a former community organizer might be expected to do, he is fighting the war on the airwaves with a ground war. I don’t mean to say ground war necessarily beats airwar, merely that all the handicapping seems to assume that the calculus is equal. It is not. No Democratic candidate has used this strategy for decades.
Scott Hughes 03.01.08 at 1:15 am
Many people think she is preparing to drop out of the race. If she goes out fighting, she will likely ruin her chances of being able to run in the future.
Crystal 03.01.08 at 3:40 am
The way I see it, Obama is bringing Democrats to the polls – voter turnout in this election was notably high. Could McCain do the same for Republicans? Will people flock to the polls to vote for McCain – especially now that so many are sick to death of Bush and his merrie crew of pirates and plunderers?
Certainly the right-wing noise machine is cranking up attacks against Obama, but the real question is will it stick? and will it turn people against Obama and towards McCain?
Finally, McCain is old, and doesn’t look to be in the best of health (seriously! I see him on TV and think he has one of the waxiest complexions I’ve seen), which has to work against him.
Brautigan 03.01.08 at 4:56 pm
Finally, McCain is old, and doesn’t look to be in the best of health
As Letterman says, he looks like the guy who has to be reminded to close his robe.
jj 03.02.08 at 4:08 am
On the eve of the Gulf War the authorization bill was split along party lines and the Democrats got plastered for it during the following two elections, so I wasn’t surprised to see them voting for the Iraq War in 2002, despite their obvious misgivings. Politics is the pursuit of the possible, unlike the wingnuts and the progressives who, to their (the progressives’) credit, believe we should all dream the impossible dream. Nader, by the way, was the best choice of the 2000 election, but his presence during that election made Bush the plausible victor.
Last time I checked Obama and Clinton had an aggregate total of over a million primary votes between them, while McCain and Huckleberry had less than half as many votes between them. So I’m guessing that a large Republican crossover vote went to Obama because the Republicans believe they have reason to conclude that Clinton would be the stronger candidate. Rove’s not just preparing to play this election, he’s been playing it for quite some time.
Andrew 03.02.08 at 4:18 am
I agree with seth finkelstein, at #17, that Obama has benefited from being anyone-but-Clinton, picking up many independents and Republicans in open primaries for this reason. He also seems to have gained the bulk of Edwards supporters.
Interesting that 35%-or-so pluralities got McCain the nomination, but Clinton is unlikely to be the nominee despite having enjoyed consistently higher levels of support than this from her own party. Votes count, eh?
That isn’t to say that Obama didn’t go into the race with many supporters, or that he hasn’t attracted more Democrats along the way. Obama has campaigned very well indeed, and has at least matched the Clinton ground game.
He’s also been phenomenally successful in playing the “super-delegates shouldn’t decide the outcome” at precisely the right moment. I don’t recall anyone making this argument before, or even immediately after, Super Tuesday. But once Obama began to pick up momentum in the two weeks after February 4th, propogating the notion that the leader in pledged delegates should be the nominee by acclamation was a master-stroke. BTW, had the Clinton campaign made a similar argument, I genuinely believe it wouldn’t have gained the same traction.
The Clinton campaign has been successfully painted as being more conniving than its opponent’s, so there’ll be no rescue from Michigan and Florida. I’m inclined to believe that 10% is about the right odds for a Clinton nomination, relying on a catastrophic slip-up by Obama himself that makes him unviable as a candidate. The odds against are very long, of course.
nick s 03.02.08 at 5:57 am
I’d go with andrew’s 10% — in essence, the ‘dead girl or live boy’ percentage — for the Clinton nomination. The Intrade number is now at 13, and I still think that’s over-valued.
mq 03.02.08 at 7:03 am
If the situation were reversed, Obama would probably be getting the same treatment that Huckabee now gets on the GOP site.
Come on. If Obama — or Huckabee — had lost the races that Hillary has but had won California, NY, Massachusetts, NH, and other states as well, then they would be taken seriously.
In terms of what Obama has over Hilary, I think the most important thing is that he’s more charismatic and a better orator. Sometimes politics is simple.
He [abb1] is very very very rarely offensive, and he represents many points of view often silenced by the liberal mainstream as much as by conservatives. Shame!
I agree 100% with this, BTW.
MSS 03.02.08 at 9:11 pm
Andrew noted:
Interesting that 35%-or-so pluralities got McCain the nomination, but Clinton is unlikely to be the nominee despite having enjoyed consistently higher levels of support than this from her own party. Votes count, eh?
Andrew, thanks for pointing that out. I’ve been making the same point about the (oft-overlooked) votes.
But the lesson isn’t that votes count, but that (repeat after me) institutions matter!
(Through 19 Feb contests, McCain still had not broken 40% of the cumulative GOP primary vote, even with Romney out. Obama was edging close to 50% of votes cast thus far in the Dems’ primaries.)
Will 03.04.08 at 12:38 am
It was over three months ago when the media started the sneer campaign. And they did that because their owners don’t want the Clintons in office again. They’re too skilled and knowledgeable and got too much done the last time. Better to have someone relatively inexperienced. It makes me so sad.
http://a-civilife.blogspot.com
Comments on this entry are closed.