With recent rumblings of the possibility of a revote in Florida and Michigan, Hillary supporters are starting to sense the beginnings of a Clinton comeback. But there is little evidence that new votes in Florida and Michigan will be valuable enough to put Clinton back on a trajectory that leads to the nomination.
Clinton currently trails Obama in pledged delegates by 156. She leads Obama among superdelegates by 38, a lead that has been cut by more than half since Super Tuesday. Florida has 185 pledged delegates. Michigan has 128.
In January, Hillary won Florida with 50% of the vote, seventeen points higher than Obama. But at the time, Edwards and Kucinich were still in the race, and received a combined 17% of the vote. Thus far, exit polls have suggested that Edwards and Kucinich supporters have trended toward Obama.
But let's assume Hillary's dream scenario. We will assume that more than 60% of those Edwards and Kucinich voters cast votes for Hillary. We will assume that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Obama's aggressive campaigning in the state won't see any other increase in support. In such a situation, Hillary would win Florida 60-40, netting, at most, 37 delegates.
In Michigan, a state with demographics highly favorable to Obama, we will also assume that Clinton wins 60-40, an amount she wasn't even able to achieve when hers was the only name on the ballot. In such a situation, she would net, at most, 24 delegates.
Between the two states, she will see a net gain of 61 delegates, but Barack Obama will continue to maintain a pledged delegate lead of more than 95. In that best case scenario, she would still have to win two-thirds of the remaining pledged delegates to regain the lead, a feat that will require far more than two-thirds of the votes.
As a result, Hillary has turned her attention to the superdelegates. But even among them, she is seeing a number of pitfalls. Since Super Tuesday, Obama has gained 45 superdelegates while Clinton has lost 6. There are approximately 320 superdelegates that remain unpledged. If Clinton's comeback continues to be as dramatic as we assumed in Florida and Michigan, if she manages to cut Obama's remaining delegate lead in half, he will still have a nearly 50 pledged delegate lead. Clinton will have to then convince almost sixty percent of the remaining superdelegates to ignore the will of the people, tear the party in half, and hand her the nomination.
Such an outcome is truly inconceivable, and the strongest argument the Clinton campaign is making to those superdelegates is markedly unpersuasive.
Hillary Clinton has aimed her sights at painting Obama as unable to defeat John McCain. She argues first that she has won big states like New York, California, New Jersey, and Ohio, all states that are necessary for a Democrat to win in November. Her argument, plainly, is that her primary wins are somehow predictive of her general election outcomes. This argument is ridiculous in terms of its intellectual dishonesty.
The voting population of a Democratic primary is vastly different than that of a general election. Winning the Ohio primary suggests only that the Democratic base prefers one candidate over the other. But in the general election, Democrats, including many who don't vote in primaries, as well as Republicans and Independents will be voting. The voting population is entirely different, and the coalition for victory must include a combination of Democrats, Independents, and some Republicans. Hillary's win among Democratic voters says absolutely nothing about her ability to attract other voters. In fact, Obama has consistently faired dramatically better among Independents and Republicans than has Clinton. A recent Survey USA poll shows both Obama and Clinton ahead of McCain by double digits in Ohio.
Moreover, the notion that Obama would be unable to win California and New York in a general election is insultingly ludicrous. Both states have been consistently Democratic, and no public polling data suggests otherwise.
In terms of electoral strategy, Hillary Clinton is in a far weaker position, and is using misleading data to bolster her claims. It is true that Hillary Clinton cannot win the general election without New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida. She is still playing on a traditional field, the same on which Kerry and Gore served up painful losses. But, as those same Survey USA numbers show, Obama is playing on an entirely different field. Obama's victory will not require Florida, Pennsylvania, or New Jersey. He can build a broader coalition, with states like Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, and Virginia. Obama's success in those states means the party will not have to depend on states like Florida, many of which have been tragically unreliable.
The weakness of Clinton's arguments should say something about the likelihood of her victory. But even if her arguments were logically sound, they are consistently undercut by national polling which has consistently shown Barack Obama beating John McCain. In most polls, Hillary Clinton loses or is within the margin of error.
Her rationale might work with the average voter, but it will not work with politicians and party insiders who are familiar with presidential elections. She has no realistic path to the pledged delegate lead, and lacks any persuasive argument to convince superdelegates to fall in line.
And yet, she continues.
I would not be surprised if Hillary back tracks on the redos or comes up with some lame reason why they wouldn't be fair. If she looks at the math, she won't want them any more.
Even if you exclude the caucuses, Obama leads in popular vote and pledged delegates. Hillary has no claim to the nomination. The Dems would have to be crazy to torpedo Obama's campaign.
Since neither candidate can win without the superdelegates they have to find the best way to spin the election results so that they can convince the most superdelegates to support them. There are three main issues that each candidate has a drastically different opinion on and since there is no real correct way to interpret them, both are trying to manipulate and bend the facts so that the data gives them the most support. Each one of them ignore the aspects of the data that don't support them and supports those that do. It's how politics work. All three of of these center around Obama's near-guaranteed pledged delegate lead going into the convention. Obama's stance is that he has the delegate lead and that means that the his nomination is the will of the voters. That is a completely legitimate argument. Clinton's strategy is to point out reasons why Obama's delegate lead doesn't necessarily translate into Obama having the overwhelming support of the people. While at first this seems ludicrous. The byzantine way by which pledged delegates are awarded and other aspects demonstrate that she might have a point. She can't argue that he shouldn't have the delegate lead because those were awarded based on the rules everyone agreed to. She is more arguing about how to interpret his lead.
Issue 2: Florida/Michigan
Since, unlike recent election years, the nominating contests in every state are going to matter in deciding the candidate, the fact that FL/MI have lost their delegates needs to be resolved somehow. Clinton argues that the fact that FL/MI will not have seated delegates at the convention casts doubt upon Obama's claim that his delegate lead is the will of the American people. To some extent, she is right, since you can't really argue to have the will of the people when the votes of the 3rd and 11th largest states in the country are not being counted. Obviously her reasons for this are self-serving since those states chosen because they are likely to go in her favor and since they are so big, they could end up helping her take the lead in the popular vote, but her argument does cast legitimate doubt on Obama's central argument to the super delegates. In order to make the re-vote happen she has to play down the fact that everyone knew about FL/MI going into the race so she can't change the rules midstream, while making a big deal about Dem. provisions for re-votes in their nomination process and the importance of making sure no voter gets disenfranchised.
Obama, on the other hand, wants to do everything in his power to make sure that FL/MI doesn't happen or if they do, that they happen in the least damaging way for him because they will most likely diminish his delegate count and perhaps put him behind Clinton in the popular vote. That is why he portrays the issue as Clinton manipulating the race by changing the rules halfway through and advocates caucuses as a solution because he does better. Notice how he rarely brings up the importance of making sure every voice is heard. Each candidate has a legitimate argument in this debate and neither one is definitively right, but Clinton is no less guilty than Obama of manipulating the coverage and perception of the issue so it benefits her.
2: Caucuses
This is probably the most controversial, yet most important division between the two groups. Even if FL/MI revote with primaries, Clinton will at best overtake Obama in the popular vote, but she will still be unable to overtake Obama's pledged delegate lead. To further her argument, Clinton is attempting to use the vaguely undemocratic nature of caucuses (I really don't think anyone could argue that caucuses manage to enfranchise as many people as primaries) as a means to weaken Obama's argument that he should be the leader based on his guaranteed pledged delegate lead. She is not trying to say that he doesn't deserve the delegates because they were awarded according to the rules of the Dem. Party, rather she is trying to argue that those rules make it such that Obama's insurmountable lead, largely the result of his dominance in caucuses, is not necessarily as reflective of the will of the people as he would like them to be. From her perspective, the fact that the caucuses do not allow for the input of as many voters as the primaries, that the open polling, already suspect, can result in disproportionately large margins of victory (which have an even greater effect when delegates are awarded proportionally), and that her working class/older voting base are the most affected and unable to go because of the format of the caucuses cast doubt upon whether or not Obama's big delegate margins are really as representative of the voice of the people as he argues. The fact that she won a Texas primary (with 3 million voters) by 4 points and is currently losing a caucus (with about 40,000 voters with 41% of the precincts reporting) held on the same night in that state by something like 14 points further supports her claim. That said, she still would probably be lagging behind Obama right now even if there was something done to diminish the influence of caucuses on the delegate tally, but she might have been able to surpass him. She is manipulating the caucuses the best way she can to undermine Obama's argument about having the will of the people. He has the pledged delegates she can't take those away, but this could help her get enough superdelegates to get the nomination.
Obama's perspective is that regardless of the caucuses' undemocratic nature, he still has the delegate lead and therefore he is the choice of the voters. Regardless of what Clinton says, he still won these contests by a huge margin and that should offset any doubts about the legitmacy of caucuses. Once again, both candidates have valid points and both twist the truth. Obama refuses to really acknowledge that caucuses somehow are less representative of the voters' will than primaries despite the evidence to the contrary, but he still has the delegate lead. While Clinton argues that the caucuses are undemocratic and therefore Obama's argument that his delegate lead is a direct correlation to the will of the voters is not quite as strong, while ignoring the fact that she still lost all but one of them and no matter how unfair they are that has to count for something.
3. Superdelegates:
This issue manages to combine the concerns of the prior issues into one very complicated mess. Each candidate has an opinion on how the superdelegates should behave and each one uses the unfamiliarity of the public with these strange shadowy superdelegates to their advantage manipulating reality so it best suits them.
Obama argues that since he has the pledged delegate lead, if superdelegates didn't vote for him they would be ignoring and overturning the will of the people. Whatever you think about his claim to be representative of the will of the people, this argument distorts the spirit in which the superdelegates were initially created. They would have no reason to exist if they were merely supposed to choose the leader in pledged delegates going into the convention. They were put there specifically to allow leading Democrats to cast the deciding vote based on their own judgment in the case of a close race. Obama counters that that very idea is undemocratic. While that is definitely true, the fact is that the DNC has never portrayed their election process as entirely democratic (this argument weakens Clinton's claim about the caucuses just as much as Obama's argument about the superdelegates). Its not as though the superdelegates were a secret, they have been part of the process since 1982, and they have always existed with the notion that they will vote based on which candidate they think is best.
Clinton's argument is that the superdelegates should vote based on the spirit that they were created. The delegate lead obviously should be a factor in their decision, but it shouldn't be the only factor in their choice. That said, its going to be hard for her to justify her candidacy if Obama has an inarguable lead that definitively demonstrates that the majority of voters support him. Both candidates once again have legitimate claims, and how they can spin the election data so that it appears that they have more support nationwide or at worst neither candidate has an obvious claim to be the people's candidate will largely determine who gets the most superdelegates.
The point of this absurdly long post is that neither Clinton or Obama are being completely honest in their representation of reality. Both are distorting the data so that it benefits them. To lash out at Clinton for being the only person twisting the truth and refusing to play by the rules is absurd. She is doing it no more than Obama is, it simply depends on who's position you believe more. Neither is absolutely right.
That said, I really don't buy the argument that Obama is against the revote in FL/MI because he plays by the rules. As I stated earlier, the Democratic Party nomination process does have provisions included to allow a re-vote if its decided that one is warranted. While the first MI primary clearly violated the rules set forth by the DNC (unlike FL, where the Democrats were punished for a decision made by the state Republican Party who took advantage of their control of the state to make it impossible for the Democrats to do anything, MI's decision was completely the choice of Democratic officials there), since the DNC allows re-votes a new contest in the state wouldn't violate any rules (it may violate the spirit of the original decision, but its clearly within the boundaries set forth by the party). He can spin his argument so that it appears that he is acting on principle, but even if that is the case, rules are rules and Clinton has every right to pursue a re-vote.
Regardless of whether the re-votes fall within the rules or not, its hard for me to see Obama's opposition to them as completely motivated by his principles. His entire argument for why he deserves the nomination hinges on his claim that his victories and pledged delegate/popular vote lead demonstrates that the nation's voters have chosen him as their nominee. How can he justify this argument when the voices of the 3rd and 11th largest states in the nation are excluded from this decision (especially when, in the case of FL, it could help Clinton could overtake him in the popular vote in combination with other wins in the upcoming primaries)? He can't choose when certain principles apply and others don't.
There is a recent poll that found 57% believe that if the primaries end up with one candidate with the lead in delegates and the other in the lead in the popular vote, that the nomination should go to the candidate with the popular vote lead.
And, it would be hard for people to deny the popular vote rationale. All everyone has been talking about is the voice of the people. And, winning the popular vote is a very clear indication of the will of the people. It is certainly a clearer voice than the convoluded way the dem party divides up delegates in this process.
If all the states had primaries then the concept of "popular vote" for the Democratic nomination would make sense. But when some states have primaries and other states have caucuses, the only fair way to count the states is with the pledged delegates.
Clinton knows she can't win by the rules therefore she is trying desperately to change the rules in some way so that she can win. This whole "popular vote" ruse is just another example.
MI - Clinton 44% vs. McCain 44% (but the map is colored red)
VA - Obama 47% vs. McCain 47% (but the map is blue for Obama)
NM - Clinton 47% vs. McCain 47% (but map is blue for Clinton)
TN - Clinton 44% vs. McCain 44% (but the is colored red)
Polls this close are not to be used like a crystal ball - get off the Kool-Aid. Shame on you.
"Survey USA numbers are the polling equivalent of a college professor's quote...that is, for lazy reporters they offer the ring of authenticity while in reality being cheap, uninformed, unreliable and meaningless." Jim Jordan (as quoted by Chris Cillizza)
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/10_minutes_on_whether_hillary.html
I think you may benefit from going back and reviewing the data Dylan references on your own because it does not say what I think you believe it is saying. I put up some numbers in the post above so readers of this post could understand why it would be suspect to rely on this data, especially the mapping. The data Dylan references shows Barack Obama has greater variable weakness in PA and NJ and Obama's victory depends on taking Virginia. Depending on Virginia is a hail-mary strategy. Furthermore, it is quite possibly that the best Barack Obama will ever do in polling is right now, caused by the swooning effect of an introduction to a new brand/candidate.
See my quote above about quoting college professors. I did watch the video but was not convinced by the majority of his arguments.
See my quote above about quoting college professors. I did watch the video but was not convinced by the majority of his arguements.
Meantime this is how I understand the numbers, not counting so-called super delegates. And in these Obama is way ahead.
Obama's delegate lead from primaries and caucuses is about 110. (Even during his alleged bad week he continued to increase his lead and will increase it further today in Missippi. And he's beating Clinton in Texas, by the way, by about five delegates.)
Obama leads in popular votes by more than 500,000. When the primaries are over his lead very well could exceed 700,000.
So Obama already has it nailed, not counting the slippery supers. So those delegates from here on out are going to need intense adult supervision if they are to reflect the will of Democrats instead of the will of Team Clinton.
Also, the Obama camp declaring what the super delegates "have to do" is asking for the rules to be changed.
Hillary HAS NO CHANCE, WHATSOEVER! Dig this!
She'll be down by 100+ pledged delegates at the end, and she knows it. And she has known it all along. And a lead is a lead, and 2.5% of the delegates is certainly a lead. Combine that with the fact that Obama has won more states, is ahead in the popular vote (which he will maintain), and has brought many new voters to the Democratic party, and there is no way that the supers will overrule Obama.
Hillary is still running mostly due to an irrational desire to win, rather than a reasonable analysis of reality. Many candidates have dropped out of a race with less strikes against them.
That said, I don't really care if she keeps running at this point. It does provide input from the remaining voters, which is a good thing. But I do mind the destructive, useless skullduggery that she is throwing at Obama, which could hurt the Dems in the general. FTB.
I was making the same argument before Wisconsin. Back then it was 57%. Every primary or caucus that goes by the number gets bigger. The deeper hole she digs for herself.