By giving Hillary the Florida and Michigan delegates, the premise includes the conclusion: that Hillary will have the most votes. But the problem is many people do not agree that Hillary should be given Florida and Michigan. Like me, for example. I don't understand why they had a time slot for the primary, but I expect it has a lot to do with states wanting to get some of that campaign cash spent locally. Whatever the reason, the candidates agreed the votes would not be included. The only fair thing to do is to split the votes 50/50, which means Obama wins elected delegates and popular votes.
The way I've heard the numbers break out is that even if Florida and Michigan were counted, Obama would still likely lead in elected delegates and citizen votes. That means that the only way Hillary gets the nomination is if the "super" delegates buy Clinton's argument that they should disregard the wishes of the votes, and instead choose a white candidate.
If they do that, they will lose probably 1/2 of the Democratic voters who will become independents and then form their own party. Very bad move. Maybe among the hundreds of millions of dollars given to Bill Clinton were lots of Republican donors who want the Clintons to destroy the Democratic party. We'll never know because the identity of the people who gave Bill a rumored $600 million for his library and foundation is a secret -- and Bill won't tell.
Is Wednesday D-Day For Superdelegates?
Barring a huge upset, Hillary Clinton will win Pennsylvania tomorrow by about 5-10 points. The media will act surprised, Barack Obama's campaign will say she still can't win the nomination with pledged delegates, and no new points will be scored. Clinton will then lose North Carolina spectacularly, win Indiana narrowly and the two will split the remaining states. Florida's delegates will be seated after the winner is already determined -- it's too big a state to piss off, and the arguments against are undemocratic. Finally, in spite of echo chambers on both sides claiming otherwise, this race will end in a tie, with either candidate able to claim a victory of up to about 350,000 votes.
I know that Democrats on both sides have perfectly plausible explanations as to why this simply is not the case, and their candidate has a clear moral, mathematical or practical claim to the nomination. Obama won the pledged delegates (a safe prediction, I'd say,) but Clinton would have won a general election. He won the popular vote, or she did. He's more electable, or she is. Either way, it's going to take some rationalization to call either a clear winner.
The system, to put it mildly, stinks. But for now, we're stuck with it. And as much as they would love to shirk the responsibility, superdelegates will eventually be forced to decide the nominee. So forget Tuesday. I say Wednesday is the day to watch this race.
Barack Obama was widely rumored to have had 50 superdelegates ready to endorse if he had won either Ohio or Texas. He didn't, and they held back. This gives some credence to the oft-repeated Clinton claim that she can win the nomination with victories in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania -- not because of the delegates won so much as the superdelegates won over. Add to that a long hold-off on major Clinton endorsements even through some major rough patches for Obama, as well as rumblings that it will "all be over very soon," and one is invited to imagine a superdelegate power play in the works. Maybe even two.
Clearly, this is speculation on my part. However, both candidates must be aware that they each need a major show of force going into this round, and Clinton especially needs it before Indiana. But which way will support swing? Is that same group standing by to boost Obama after a Pennsylvania loss, or to seal the deal for an Indiana victory? Or will they defect to Clinton, or split between the two? Does Clinton have a few dozen up her sleeve to narrow the gap going into the post-Pennsylvania endgame? Or are they really just... waiting?
It has been repeatedly observed that the holdout superdelegates are looking for a general election winner, knowing that the electability question has been recklessly placed in the hands of those least qualified to answer it. They've tried waiting for a Howard Dean meltdown on either side, some revelation about either candidate, and it's just not coming. My guess is that Democrats will now turn where they always turn in times of trouble: Turn to the polls.
The problem is, they aren't much help either.
A few times every election cycle, we are met with what I call a New Jersey Shocker Poll. The New Jersey Shocker Poll suggest that a large, reliable state (often New Jersey,) is either suddenly competitive or has altogether flipped from red to blue or blue to red. In 2004, this laughably resulted in Dick Cheney's last minute flight to the garden state. A few months ago, Democrats were popping nitroglycerin and breathing into paper bags over polls predicting a devastating Obama loss to McCain in the same state -- just weeks after other other pollsters had predicted that he would be competitive there against Clinton. Of course, none of these were or are predictive of election outcomes, because a state's voting history must be weighed against any polls suggesting a sudden shift in preference.
So polls indicating that Hillary Clinton can carry all three major swing states without worrying about losses in the west and great lakes regions are... well, almost as absurd as polls indicating Barack Obama can win just one of them and make up for it with gains in the mountain west. Both scenarios sound good, but neither is a serious plan for victory in November when weighed against the voting records of the "flipped" states.
It all averages out to this: Hillary Clinton would likely find herself defending some reliably Democratic states, while Barack Obama would face an uphill battle in the ones that typically produce presidents. A joint ticket seems the most logical solution, but is all but out of the question at this point.
The good news is that there are palpable advantages for Democrats this year. Both candidates have strong ground operations and remarkable abilities to turn out the vote. But again, these translate only into possible general election gains, not reliable action by reliable voters. And the bad news is that reliable general election voters like John McCain. A lot.
So which is the more plausible path to the White House? Clinton's better chance in the king maker states, or Obama's shot at putting new ones into play? Or will the turnout advantage hold, making the party virtually unstoppable regardless of the nominee? If it all seems a bit much for you to sort out, imagine how hard it must be for Democratic Party officials, whose inability to identify a winner must be chromosomal.
The decision they come to -- or their choice to dodge it -- should become apparent between Pennsylvania and Indiana. If they believe that Clinton's elector-rich wins outweigh Obama's delegate-rich wins, this will be the time to speak up. If they do, Obama is officially in trouble. If they don't, Clinton is almost certainly fighting a losing battle.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I find it interesting Bill is bringing up Republican rules when the last thing Hillary wants anyone to know is that she began her political life as a Republican and still would be had she not been forced out of the party and ultimately married a Democrat to further HER political career.
Hillary supporters are Democrats. They will most certainly rally behind Obama, especially after 8 years of Bush. Will he get every single one? Of course not, but why would anyone think that Hillary could do better?
On the other hand, many Obama supporters are Independents and even a few Republicans, and they are very passionate about their candidate. This group feels no loyalty to the Democrats, and many of them hate Hillary. If she is precieved as stealing the election she will suffer badly in the general election where her negative numbers continue to climb. And let's not forget, she ENERGIZES the Republican base. Because she's run against a nice guy like Obama, she has not been fully vetted by any stretch of the imagination. Obama has failed to bring up the Presidential Library donors, the pardons that were bought and paid for, and the various slimey Clinton donors. Nothing is off limits for the Republicans, including all of Bill's sexapades.
We don't need her or her baggage. We already have a phenominal candidate.
If Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination and the Obama people would have to support her, she will lose most of the African American vote, some of the independants, many converted Republicans, and nearly everyone under 35. It would be a disaster.
LEE your logic doesnt make sense to me
SO becasue hillary has won over the democratic BASE she should not go to the GE to represent the dems???.
Obama should go because his voters are repugs and indies??
Well guess what in the GE the DEM candadite will be running against a Repug that has an appeal with Indies.
SO my logic is that if Obama gets the the nomination that alot of the dem base will either stay home or vote McCain.
which leaves what key voters for obama,?????
Hillary Clinton's general election concession speach: Though I lost in the electoral college I won the states that matter an was close/won the popular vote. Therefore, I am calling on the state delegates to vote for me because I won where it counts and will be the better President of the United States.
You ask: "Which is the more plausible path to the White House? Clinton's better chance in the king maker states, or Obama's shot at putting new ones into play?"
The answer: Neither.
Both assertions are based on false reasoning, extrapolating Party Primary results into General Election results. The rules/trends for one do not, de facto, apply to the other, since we deal with supersets of populations (discounts impact of those who don't vote in primaries but do vote in GE, discounts ratio of "Dem supporters" to "die-hard GOP supporters.")
Both assertions are put forth by people who are passionate about one or the other of the candidates.
I appreciate your passion, but let's all try to stay Reality Based. The GOP has a prior claim to fitting "facts" to fit ideology/desires ... let's not try to compete in that arena.
The most important thing not considered here or anywhere else is Clinton's inability to hold onto a lead and Obama's ability to diminish or overcome deficits. Any Poll showing a lead for Hillary should be viewed in the light of how often Hillary has lost 20 percentage point leads in a matter of weeks of campaigning. Hillary has a distinct advantage in polling because her last name is the same as a still popular former president. This advantage erodes in the face of actual campaigning. Clinton has not been able to similarly diminish big leads for Obama. Do Democrats really want to nominate a candidate that cannot hold onto their electroral advantage?
The argument that "if they believe that Clinton's elector-rich wins outweigh Obama's delegate-rich wins,... Obama is officially in trouble" would be true only if Clinton and Obama run for themselves as independents so Clinton's votes take away Obama's votes. But in this case,Obama won by people's votes in the primaries, and don't forget, the caucuses. In the general election, the votes for Clinton or Obama will then be for the Democrat, whoever the nominee is, so their combined votes will be a winner for the Democrat. It's impossible that if Clinton is not the nominee then all of the votes for her suddently change to McCain to make Obama unelectable.
The most unelectable trait is voters' distrust of the Clintons after this prolonged primaries season and what their tax returns revealed. Superdelegates should make up their mind now when everyone can see the Clintons are making the case for their running in 2012, not 2008; they already lost 2008. And make no mistake, that will be the Clintons' third term presidency; they are one and the same. With high negative votes against the Clintons whether they will win or not is worth consider.
The Clintons' spin of big states is just that and I am amazed that analysts and superdelegates bought into it.
"In the general election, the votes for Clinton or Obama will then be for the Democrat, whoever the nominee is..."
Not so fast. That may have been true a few months ago but it's probably not the case now. Obama and Clinton supporters are going to have a very difficult time fitting into the same tent.
Just read comments here at HuffPo. Obama people think she's the devil and Clinton people think he's a poser. The electoral map can't be discounted. Yes, there may be an opportunity to turn a few states in the sun belt from red to blue but Colorado and Nevada will not be enough to offset a democratic loss in PA, Ohio, Michigan and/or Florida. In otherwords, the swing states will decide it like they usually do.
the only states Mr Obama is winning is red states - do you really think he will win those in Nov.
NO!!!!!!
Yeah, Illinois, Washington, Washington D.C., Maryland, Connecticut, Hawaii, Vermont, Minnesota and Wisconsin have always been red states.
Illinios and Hawaii are both home turf for him. Washington, D.C isn't a state. There is no question that Obama has built his delegate lead with big wins in red states that are not going to turn blue in November. Maryland, CT, Vermont, Minnesota and Wisconsin are all fine states but so too are NY, NJ, California, Mass. and Ohio. Add up the electoral votes from Obamas states and then add the electoral votes for Clinton states.
McCain's numbers are the highest now they will ever be ... So, yes, Obama can win California and New York. I don't even think he campaigned in New Jersey during the primary, he will for the GE. He will win Michigan. I think Florida will be hard for any Democratic candidate, especially because McCain might pick FL governor as his VP. Obama can win Ohio and Pennsylvania, especially if he has a white moderate Dem on his ticket. Obama can win New Mexico (he barely lost). He will bring Colorado and Kansas into play and has a slim chance at Texas. He will win Rhode Island. He will win.
but you have to be delusional if you don't think he can carry a blue state...
this arguement does not make sense...mccain is not winning new york if obama is the nominee!
any state she has won he can carry!
i just don't understand that logic...
Exactly. As if New York and California would suddenly go red if Clinton was not the nominee. For that matter, PA, which has gone blue in the past four elections (at least), would it suddenly change? Tennessee went overwhelmingly for HRC, but do you think for one second it would go blue during the general? And what should that say to superdelegates? A state that is as red as TN is also predominantly for HRC. If the election comes down to two politicians so alike as McCain and Clinton, which do you think those on the fence will choose? A Clinton or a POW war hero? Plus, if she convinces to the supers to go her way, she is going to convince millions of young, new voters that the system is unaffectable and stagnantly grounded to prevent their participation. That will be a huge loss not only for this election but for a party trying to regain some semblance of control over itself and a quickly deteriorating country.
so it means nothing that the dem BASE in NY CA chose Hillary!!!! Because they are loyal to the party. If anything we should trust them more becasue they re so laoyal. Obama's crowd would turn on us in a second!!!!!
Okay, I'll grant you that neither NY or California is likely to vote for McCain. Toss in Michigan, Ohio, Florida and PA (where it's not beyond the realm of possibility McCain can win there) and tell me how a Democrat wins the White House without winning three of those four states?
Your argument is silly anyway, but have you looked at the kind of voter turnout the Dems have had overall? MILLIONS MORE than voted in the Republican contests, MILLIONS! And thousands of Republicans switching sides to vote in the Democratic contests - and, really, only a laughably small percentage of them did so because of crazy rightwing pundits telling them to. I don't think any Republican candidate, barring the return of Jesus Lincoln (or Zombie Lincoln, depending on your faith), will beat whichever Dem is nominated.
Let's just hope it's Obama, though.
Either Clinton or Obama will win the blue states. To win the election you have to win some red states - and Obama likely delivers Colorado, New Mexico and a few more.
Exactly. Obama is likely to grab some of the more libertarian western states. Clinton will be a re-run of Kerry v. Bush, only she'll probably win, because this war is so unpopular. But Obama will likely carry all of the states that Hilary will, and add in some others in the West.
"Obama likely delivers Colorado, New Mexico and a few more."
Yeah but at the expense of Florida, Michigan, and Ohio. McCain will beat Obama because the so called progressives of our party can't look beyond their own nose. Rewriting the history of the Clinton years will not be without cost. Many of us will either stay home or vote for McCain rather than see Obama elected. If you think that's not going to matter, that we're a small group, keep in mind that a few thousand votes in some key states that went to Nader instead of Gore delivered the White House to the Shrub. Four years later, Kerry narrowly lost Ohio and Bush won a second term. It's going to happen again this year. Michigan and Ohio are both states McCain can win and he's gonna trounce Obama in Florida. Hillary can win all three of those states. Obama can't. That's the "math" Obama fans don't like to look at.
The author of the main article claims H. Clinton would have beaten Obama if this was a General Election scored by Electorial Votes.
1. If winer-take-all Electorial Votes were the criteria then no doubt Obama would have formed a different campaign plan, so you cant use this "What if" because its DELEGATE VOTES!!
2. It is false, totally false that winning a State in the Primary means you would win it in the General or vice-versa.
3. The only reason there is any talk about Electorial Votes AT ALL is because H. Clinton is desperate to find SOMETHING she is ahead in. OBAMA leads in delegate votes, popular votes, number of States won.
OBAMA has closed H Clinton's lead in superdelegates from the once 100 to now 24. And the trend in entirely to OBAMA.
Nicely put! Bill Clinton was playing the What If? game big yesterday. Now the crazy-ass argument is "Well, if Hillary were running under Republican rules, she'd be the winner." What?!! This is the most insane thing anyone has said during this contest. ANY ARGUMENT is okay by the Clinton camp, so long as Hillary wins. The next argument: "Well, if there were another Black Death tomorrow and millions of voters died horribly before the election, Hillary would win. Because her voters can afford health care."
Since neither candidate will likely meet the 2025 threshold to win, here's my bright idea. The superdelegates will be deciding at that point. So, have the ones who already pledged retract their current pledges and wait till after June 3. Then, on one day they will all vote. But, they must pledge to resign from any elected office and/or never be a superdelegate again if the winning candidate loses in November. That should include Howard Dean. That would certainly focus their minds on who is most electable and provide consequences for their decision if it leads to a November loss. The bottom line is to win in the general election. That's what the supers are there for.
Another load of Hillary has a chance promotion. The reasoning is not based on fact or even reasonable assumptions but on the time honored political practice of sowing doubt. It is one degree separated from smear. If you guys keep this up, the party will be fractured and the coffers diminished.
Clinton is campaigning like a Republican, suppressing the vote through turning would be voters off to the process. This rather than engaging the will of the people. If she really meant to change things in Washington or to fight for the poor and disenfranchised, she would have found a voice to convey that message effectively.
Instead, she has conveyed a message of inflating her resume and lying about her past positions and motives to cover the touchstones of her career. This is not the message the public wants to hear, even if couched in terms of toughness. And even that toughness is in doubt, given her whining about the press and then accusing Obama of whining when he pushes back. Disgusting.
If women out there are looking for a role model, she is no more it than Bush is a role model for men.
The super delegates also need to consider that the Obama campaign is a massive money machine. Money is what is going to beat McCain and it's going to take a lot of it. If you turn off the Obama donors (myself included), you lose the grass roots and with it the campaign finance moral highground, not to mention a very fertile well to which you can return over and over again.
Personally I'd vote for Hillary if that's how it turns out but she'll need to go elsewhere for the money.
I will write Obama on the ticket. My vote will never go to a liar and war supporter.
Okay, I'll play. Current polls show Clinton losing against McCain in OR, NM, NV, IA, CO, WI, NH and MI. The polls show Obama winning against McCain in those states.
Now, who looks more electable here?
Furthermore, pledged delegates DO matter, and Obama is 6% ahead there. And he's won more states, more primaries, and more contests period.
Obama had 35,000 people attend a PA rally. Do you see any strength there? He has over $40 million in the bank, and Clinton is in the red. See any strength there?
He's brought out the youth vote.
Sorry, there is no tie going on. And I'll wager you, and double it, that he'll still hold the popular vote at the end of the primaries also.
It's no contest.
He is vetted as well and the attacks against him are back firing .
Larry? Have you been locked in the basement for the last six weeks? There's no way this thing ends in a tie. Maybe Hillary can cut the pledged-delegate lead to 130 or so, and maybe she can cut the lead in popular votes (which doesn't count major caucus states that haven't reported) to a couple hundred thousand. That's it. That's as far as she gets. I feel like a dope repeating the arithmetic that's been obvious for weeks. But I also feel that you've probably lost your head.
No, Wednesday is not D-Day.
obama 08
Yet another silly column thinly disguised as an analysis. It is hardly worth saying so again, but here goes: The superdelegates are not in the suicide business. They know it would end the party if they tried to hand the nomination to Clinton.
RIght again. Can you really imagine the super-delegates ignoring the elected delegate counts (which is really the only thing that comes close to matching voter counts), and just *giving* the nomination to Clinton? After 8 years of whining about how the Supreme Court ignored the victor of November 2000, and gave the election to Bush?
I just can't even conceive of it.
This election really is over; Obama has won. I think it says volumes about her that despite the outstanding campaign that Obama has run, Clinton really seems to believe that Obama can't win in November.
Zahavi is absolutely correct: the superdelegates cannot and better not take the nomination from Obama if he has a significant delegate lead in the end. It would guarantee a loss in November. Why? The youth of this country who have become politically active because of Obama and the black vote which Democrats always count on will both be lost. The youth will think the system is chronically rigged, and blacks will say the nomination was stolen after Obama won fair and square.
Sure, you can say some Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama, but why? Rev. Wright? Puh-leeze! Not wearing a flag lapel? Experience, when McCain admits 20+ years in Washington and he still can't understand the economy?
If Obama has the lead at the end of the game, it doesn't matter how many points Clinton scored in the fourth quarter, the referees can't "award" her the win.
Posted April 21, 2008 | 08:54 PM (EST)