As politics junkies prepare for the Pennsylvania primary tomorrow, the pundit class and the candidates' spinmeisters are endlessly debating what, exactly, would constitute a "win" for Clinton. Both campaigns are trying to manipulate people's expectations; Clinton's people are playing down her lead so that a 4- to 7-point victory will seem like a huge shift in her political fortune (and a double-digit victory, which polls consistently showed was well within reach until just a couple of weeks ago, will seem like a blowout), while Obama's camp is portraying his support as being so low that anything under a 10-point win by Clinton will be anticlimactic.
But at this late stage of the Clinton-Obama primary, perception is not reality. Elections are a matter of counting votes, and counting is a matter of mathematics, not expectations or spin. Each candidate has won a precise number of delegates so far, and there are a finite number of delegates yet to be won. Instead of acting like Bush Republicans, responding to fear and greed and spouting bumper-sticker slogans and truthiness, Democrats can behave like real members of the Reality-Based Community, rejecting blind cries that "Clinton can still win!" or "There's no way Clinton can win!" and crunching the numbers instead -- in this case, analyzing the electoral data to determine what, precisely, would constitute a "win" for Clinton in Pennsylvania so that we can reject any spin, from any source, that isn't grounded in reality.
Calculating Clinton's necessary margin of victory is important for at least two reasons:
(1) Clinton's ongoing, uphill battle for the nomination almost certainly is cutting into Obama's yearlong lead over McCain in hypothetical head-to-head matchups; if her campaign isn't actually viable, and she doesn't actually have any realistic chance of winning the nomination, she should shut it down now so that Obama can focus on the general election. Conversely, if Clinton does have a good chance of a comeback, all Democrats should support her right to continue to fight. Objectively settling the "viability" issue would be a significant step toward resolving the question of whether Clinton should or should not bow out, and could reduce friction between the two candidates' supporters.
(2) Even if the Clinton campaign's viability isn't conclusively resolved one way or another, the question of how she can and can't win could be; in other words, her chances of winning the nomination with or without winning the popular vote, with or without Michigan and Florida, and with or without a counter-democratic "override" by superdelegates could be winnowed down. If Clinton has no realistic chance of winning the elected-delegate race, then everyone should put much less emphasis on the final ten primary elections. If Michigan and Florida wouldn't affect the outcome, then Michigan and Florida probably should be seated without alienating them further. If the only way Clinton can win is with a superdelegate "override" of the popular vote, then we should be focusing like a laser on the principles and practicalities of allowing the candidate to be selected in contravention of the voters' will -- i.e., whether that outcome matches our democratic principles and how it might affect turnout by the disaffected candidate's supporters in the general election, how it might affect independent and crossover voters' perceptions of the nominee, and ultimately what the impact of a brokered outcome would be on the Democratic Party's Presidential and Congressional chances in November. If Clinton still has a genuine chance of winning the majority of elected delegates, on the other hand, then no one has the right to question her right to continue her campaign. Evaluating the probability of the various combinations of scenarios will allow us to focus, hard, on the variables that actually will control the outcome -- and to tell the spinmeisters to take a hike.
CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS: So I've crunched the numbers, looking primarily at how big a win Clinton needs in Pennsylvania tomorrow to remain a viable candidate in the "democratic" portion of the election (because if she's not viable in terms of winning the popular vote, then we all need to shift our perspectives and start seriously discussing the principles and the practicalities of her trying to override the popular vote with Superdelegates). And what I've learned is that Clinton needs to win 64% of the vote tomorrow to Obama's 36% - beating Obama by a 28-point spread - to have any chance of winning the popularly-elected delegate count. The TV pundits and campaign spinners may be talking about the relative merits of a six-point, ten-point or even fifteen-point spread - but it's all smoke and mirrors: hard numbers say anything under 28 points represents an overwhelming Clinton loss. Aggravating for Clinton backers? Of course - and, in all seriousness, I'm sympathetic. But those are the numbers. Here's why:
Pennsylvania is the largest remaining primary state. It has 158 elected (aka "pledged" or "popular") delegates - delegates assigned democratically by the votes of the people. TV talking heads keep mentioning the possibility of a ten-point spread. If Clinton wins Pennsylvania's primary by ten points (i.e., Clinton gets 55% of the popular vote, Obama gets 45%), then she'll get 87 elected delegates to Obama's 71 - a 16-delegate gain for Clinton. Obama's current 162-elected-delegate lead will be reduced to a 146-elected-delegate lead. If she wins Pennsylvania by ten point, the TV talking heads will blather endlessly about her tremendous win - but in reality, a ten-point win would be a terrible loss, putting Clinton mathematically even further behind than she is now.
As of today, before Pennsylvania, Clinton needs to capture 64% of all the remaining delegates (including Pennsylvania's) to catch up to Obama. Every time she wins a state by less than that, she falls farther behind. After Pennsylvania, there will be nine remaining primaries carrying a total of 408 elected delegates. If Clinton wins Pennsylvania by only 10 points (55%-45%), then the mathematical reality is that she'll have to win more than 277 of those 408 remaining delegates to beat Obama. That's 68% - worse odds than the 64% she needs today.
Think of it like a hundred yard dash. Catching up to Obama after a ten point "victory" in Pennsylvania would be like standing on the starting line and expecting to win the race - with your opponent having a 36 yard head start. And every step you take that doesn't gain you ground puts you closer to defeat: every time Clinton falls short of the requisite 64% or 68% or even higher margin, the margin she needs in the remaining states goes up even more. Or, as Richard Durbin put it, Clinton is "running out of real estate."
Does Clinton have a rational chance of winning all the remaining contests by at least 28 points? Reality check: according to a pollster.com mashup of nearly 60 polls, Clinton has 48% of the Pennsylvania vote - 16% less than the 64% she needs just to avoid losing even more ground - and to make things worse, she's been trending downward (though I expect her to get a bump tomorrow that's not predicted in the polling data, as conservative Undecideds finally make up their minds for Clinton at the last minute):
Wait: it gets worse for Clinton than that. After Pennsylvania, the most delegate-rich primary is North Carolina on May 6, with 115 delegates. According to pollster.com's mashup of 45 polls (24 in 2008 alone), Obama's not just projected to win North Carolina, but to win it by over 17 points - AND he's widening his lead over time:
It's unrealistic to predict that Clinton go from an overwhelming loss in North Carolina (garnering only 36% of the vote) to winning it overwhelmingly (nearly doubling her base of support to 64%). In general, Obama closes gaps with her as elections near, not the other way around. But since we're doing thought experiments anyway, let's throw her a bone and say she somehow manages to come back from a 17 point deficit to tie in North Carolina, splitting those 115 delegates evenly with Obama. If she can tie North Carolina, then once again she'll need to pick up 68% of all the remaining delegates, including Pennsylvania's, to gain any ground at all.
So that's where it stands, not as a matter of hope or faith or wishing really really hard or running up the Philadelphia museum steps like Rocky, but in hard numbers: unless Clinton can win Pennsylvania tomorrow by 28 points, and make up a 17-point deficit to tie in North Carolina, and win 68% of all the remaining delegates, she simply can't, by any reasonable analysis, catch up to Obama, let alone beat him, in the upcoming elections. And the first hurdle in that triple-jump comes tomorrow: again, if she doesn't win Pennsylvania by 28 points, then she can't win the election democratically; her only hope would be a near-unanimous sweep of the undecided Superdelegates plus a mass defection of many of the Superdelegates currently endorsing Obama - which ain't likely. And if anyone believes there is a serious possibility of such a mass migration of Superdelegates, prepared to engineer an outcome opposite of the one chosen by their collective constituents, then we need to stop pretending that it even matters whether Clinton can "win elections" and re-focus the debate on whether it's wise or proper for party officials to override millions and millions of its members.
"But wait!," someone's hollering at their computer, "what about Michigan and Florida?!?" A legitimate question; let's talk about Michigan and Florida.
First, some practical politics. Like it or not, even Clinton's most ardent supporters have to admit there's almost no chance that those delegations will be seated at the Convention in the way Clinton wants. Sure, they'll be able to participate at the Convention - why alienate their voters more than we already have? - but with Howard Dean as Chair of the DNC and the Rules Committee unanimous in their earlier decision to disqualify them, any agreement to seat their delegations will be negotiated after the Supers wrap up the nomination contest in June - or they'll be seated under an agreement to split their votes more or less evenly - or their votes will be counted after all the other states' delegates and Superdelegates at the Convention instead of in alphabetical order, so that they don't affect the outcome. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, just talking practical politics: there isn't a snowball's chance in heck Clinton will manage to get credit for all the delegates she claims she won in those states.
But even if it's ridiculously improbable, let's imagine it anyway: that those delegations are seated and that they give Clinton every vote she's asking for. In Michigan, where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot, that would mean a net Clinton gain of 18 delegates. In Florida - where Clinton told a crowd on election night (though she wasn't "campaigning" there) that she had won a "tremendous victory" - her perfect outcome nets her 38 more delegates over Obama. How would those 56 additional Clinton delegates affect the math?
Answer: it would affect it significantly enough to make the Pennsylvania election more interesting, but probably not enough to make a difference in the outcome. Giving Clinton every delegate she's claiming from Michigan and Florida, and additionally assuming that she can recover from her huge deficit to manage a tie in North Carolina, would reduce Obama's lead from 162 to 106 with nine contests to go. Yet even with such incredible good juju, Clinton would still need to make up a 56 delegate deficit to catch up to Obama in the pledged-delegate count by winning 254 of the remaining 451 elected delegates, or 56% to Obama's 44%. In other words, even with impossible breaks going her way, deus ex machina, Clinton could only win by managing a 12-point spread across all the remaining contests, starting (but emphatically not ending) with Pennsylvania.
The important thing about these numbers is that while the politicians are playing the expectations game, and the TV pundits will proclaim a stunning victory if Clinton wins by five or more, and Howard Wolfson will talk about how Obama's on the ropes, the numbers will let us focus on the issues that matter, according to how well Clinton does in Pennsylvania:
If Clinton wins Pennsylvania by 28 points or more, then every Democrat should acknowledge that her candidacy is unquestionably viable and stop squawking at her to bow out, at least unless and until future elections changed the calculus.
If she wins Pennsylvania by more than 12 points but less than 28, then the only way she can win the nomination without some kind of Superdelegate gamesmanship - which almost certainly would have some blowback for the Democratic Party in November - is if the Michigan and Florida delegations are seated as-is. Even though I don't think there's any chance that's going to happen, a Clinton win in the 12 - 28 point range would definitely put the debate over what to do with those two states back on the front burner, with the heat turned up high.
If she wins Pennsylvania by fewer than 12 points, let alone loses it, then Clinton can't win the race for pledged delegates even if Michigan and Florida are handed to her on a platter. Pennsylvania's one of her strongest states, with an immensely powerful pro-Clinton Democratic machine and where every significant politician but one has endorsed her; if she can't make the necessary margin there, then she's lost the "election." And if she can't make that margin, but still doesn't drop out, then her plan necessarily is to win the nomination by persuading Superdelegates - and maybe, according to her unusual interpretation of party rules, even some non-Supers pledged to Obama - to override the democratic choice, effectively making all of the primaries and caucuses utterly irrelevant. If that's the case, we need to stop wasting our energy pretending that the elections actually matter, and stop talking about Michigan and Florida, and start focusing, hard, on the real issue, which is whether we're OK with our nominee being chosen by aristocrats instead of voters.
My purpose in presenting this analysis isn't to pick a fight with Clinton supporters. I considered publishing this post AFTER the Pennsylvania primary, showing why the outcome - assuming it doesn't meet the 28-point margin I believe actually governs Clinton's chances - means Clinton can't win. But I'm not interested in playing "gotcha" with Clinton backers, who mean well, share most of my values, and hopefully will support any Democrat running against McCain in November. Instead, I'm interested in determining whether Clinton has a serious shot at winning, how she might win (democratically or with a Superdelegate override), and using tomorrow's election results to help focus the discussion among different cadres of Democrats who need to resolve their differences and learn to work together so we can start the serious and vital business of whupping John McCain, in a unified way, as soon as our nominee is chosen. And if Clinton does manage to pull a stunning upset in Pennsylvania - which in my book requires her to win by 28 points, and in everyone's book should require her to win by at least 12 points - then I'm perfectly willing to eat crow, admit she's still in the game, and rethink my positions. Hopefully every Democrat who sincerely cares about regaining the White House, whichever side of this debate they're on, will be willing to do the same.
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
Your math is a bit skewed. It'a actually a bit more complicated than you stated. In PA it is not only proportional the party allocates more delegates to certain congressional districts than others.
Looks right to me. Are there any Hillary folks out there who can dispute the numbers?
They have their own math that defies all logic, so yes I'm sure there are a couple who can and will dispute it.
THANK YOU for this level-headed, reality-based math lesson! Funny thing is, I heard Jonathan Alter say more or less the same thing (although with far less supporting detail) on Countdown eight weeks ago. Funny how amid all of the spin, posturing and invective, the numerical reality has not changed one iota in those eight weeks.
If Senator Clinton wins today by 28 points, by golly I will salute her. That would be quite a feat.
I think she might hit that twelve point spread, but I kind of doubt it. And I think enough reality-based Democrats understand the analysis here, and will discontinue donating to her campaign if she does not at least hit that twelve-point mark. My feeling is that money may ultimately be the reason she withdraws earlier than she might like to in a perfect world... that is, unless she and President Clinton are willing to spend their entire personal fortunes on keeping the race going.
That she started April $10 million in the red is another significant mathematical fact.
THANK YOU for this level-headed, reality-based math lesson! Funny thing is, I heard Jonathan Alter say more or less the same thing (although with far less supporting detail) on Countdown eight weeks ago. Funny how amid all of the spin, posturing and invective, the numerical reality has not changed one iota in those eight weeks.
If Senator Clinton wins today by 28 points, by golly I will salute her. That would be quite a feat.
I think she might hit that twelve point spread, but I kind of doubt it. And I think enough reality-based Democrats understand the analysis here, and will discontinue donating to her campaign if she does not at least hit that twelve-point mark. My feeling is that money may ultimately be the reason she withdraws earlier than she might like to in a perfect world... that is, unless she and President Clinton are willing to spend their entire personal fortunes on keeping the race going. That she started April $10 million in the red is another significant mathematical fact.
Every time I hear all this hullaballoo about how the ongoing primary is hurting the Dem's chances in November, all I need to point to is the huge, no mamoth inceases in voter registration AND participation. There's no way this is hurting the party. If it weren't for Hillary, nobody would be paying any attention to Obama or McCain right now. There's literally NOTHING interesting that they can do in April.
The Dem Party should be on their knees thanking dear God that Hillary stuck it out as far as Pennsylvania. While PA is a longshot for Dems in my opinion, this recentl campaign certainly upped the odds considerably come November.
This whole "he can't win the general election" is media and Republican bs. He could only get half of Hillary's current voters, which he'll do easily, and he'll beat McCain, no problem, because there are so many more people voting in the Dem primaries.
Second, what the hell is with the media? When they discuss the Dem primaries they have an Obama and a Clinton supporter on, ALONG WITH A REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, who inevitably cheers on Hillary and attacks Obama. How the hell is this two on one crap passing for balance? Why is there a Republican strategist spewing their bull when its a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY? THIS ISN'T THE GENERAL ELECTION, WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE REPUBLICANS INTERFERING IN A DEMOCRATIC RACE VIA THE MEDIA.
If Hillary had an ounce of conscience she'd tell the Republicans helping her where to go.
Some people just don't get it. You put the math in front of them and they still want to argue. If Hilliary does not win by at least double digits she should immediately bow out of the race. If she does not bow out she should be force to bow out. And if it comes down to super delegates choosing the candidate over the pledged delegates and popular vote, then the democrat party can count me out in the future. I'm not gonna part of a party that will circumvent the will of the people to put the candidate the party leaders want which person that candidate ends up being.
The sad thing is that Obama can't win the GE. Can you say President McCain?
Well, your girl has come out and said that Obama can beat McCain, so which is it?
Was here "yes, yes, yes" answer to that question just another one of her lies?
If Hillary can't beat Obama, why do you think McCain can?
Maybe not, but the debate will expose what we need to expose, and start the movement of this country back to the left, as Goldwater did for the right 44 years ago. Running another Republican against McCain, win or lose, gets us nowhere.
I agree Obama may well not have a chance. However, as the demographics of age and race change in the US the possibility of him winning increases every day. I think we should give it a chance, be proud of our candidate, forget pessimism, and take full advantage of he groundswell he has created in the primaries.
obama will win. mcbomb is a joke of a candidate. dems are too pessimistic and wimpy. let's get it together, huh?
BRILLIANT! I'm a designer by trade and if the numbers don't jive the turkey don't fit. I may get laughed at occasionally, but my precision NEVER does. It's high time someone put this, in words, even dummies can't fail to realize. I'm proud of your effort, to put clearly, what most people kind of understood, but couldn't quite vocalize. IT'S THE MATH, STUPID!
This has been a 6 week run in PA, with Hillary and Obama hitting the entire state. Obama is spending more than twice the money on TV and radio than Hillary and has the MSM and pundits claiming he already has the nomination. If he can't WIN it will be a major failure for Obama, he lost in Ohio and texas too. Obama wins in utah and idaho, wyoming and alaska, States that vote REPUBLICAN in Nov., hillary wins the states needed in Nov.
She had a 20 point lead a month ago. If she couldn't hold on to that lead, she is losing support in the state, not gaining it. She was ahead nationally when she started and she blew that lead. Super delegates will look at who raised the most money, had the better organized campaign and brought more new voters into the party. If Obama could do that against an experienced, battle-tested veteran like Hillary, and leads in both the popular vote and delegate count, then he must be a pretty good candidate.
Or... Clinton has been running for president ever since her senate run and has been accumulating her war chest for that long as well. She's a very well known entity who had eight years in the White House as free advertising, why isn't she blowing the doors off in every state? Why is she deeply in the red? Why can't she manage her money better than that? She started out with a LOT more money than Obama, did she spend it all on doughnuts? Why isn't she matching Obama's fundraising? Because the 12% of Dems who strongly support her are topped out that's why. So since she knows she's in a money crunch why doesn't she stop spending instead of owing the little guy? McCain did it, ran a good solid campaign on fumes. Why can't she? Where's all that vaunted experience which should have let her accumulate ways of campaigning on the cheap with her high recognition numbers to start?
I've waited all my life to vote for a woman for president, I'm willing to wait eight more years to vote for someone who makes it on their own not the wife of the boss....
The rules were set long before the process started and Obama has run a far superior campaign, which is why he is winning. Clinton had more than a fair chance to adapt to the rules and play the process better but she failed. The failure stemmed from overconfidence and a total misread of the electorate, along with poor organization and ego management..
The idea that some states count for more than others, or that Democrats can not flip a red state to purple or blue is both defeatist and beside the point. Republicans did not gain control of the electoral map by conceding states at the outset.
Clinton, Ickes, McCauliffe all had huge influence over the rules and now they want to change them because things are not going as planned. Sorry, but the "activist wing" of our party has taken control for the time being and our candidate has earned the nomination.
Obama won in Illinois, Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Washington D.C., Georgia, Connecticut, among others, not to mention that he won the Texas caucuses, thus giving him an overall win in Texas. Are these all considered just "nothing" states? No wonder the electorate is weary of Washington insiders.
Let's also not forget that once all the delegates were counted in Texas, Obama came out ahead. Granted, Hillary won the popular vote, but popular votes don't seat the nominee - delgates do. In addition, he is able to spend more money because he has raised more money - indicative of overall support.
1st: what ATLiberal said.
2nd: Obama won Texas.
3rd: Most of the "big states" that Clinton won will go Democratic, regardless of candidate. Add to that Clinton's plunging popularity, and Obama is the better candidate in those states as well.
Obama will probably not win tonite; and if Hillary wins with small margin she should drop out...she's destroying the Democratic party and attempting to destroy Barack Obama. If she really loves this country she should put country first and do all she can do campaign for Barack. The Clintons have had their day in the sun.....how about this dynamic duo doing something good for the world, like getting involved in habitat for humanity.
Don't leave out all the salient points: She started with a 20 point lead and has the PA Democratic machine behind her, including the Governor of the state and the Mayors of the 2 largest cities. The only way to counter that is to campaign hard and advertise.
Secondly, does anyone really believe that political advertising really moves the bar all that much this late in a campaign season? Just keeping it real.
Hillary is absolutely the most famous woman in America (probably the world), and has been for fifteen years. She is as well known as her husband, former president Bill Clinton. For a man named "Barack Hussein Obama" to close the gap in the polls speaks volumes to just how UNelectable Hillary really is, and how many people, after all these years, don't like her and don't want her in the Whitehouse.
Any argument to the contrary, or whining about how much more Obama has been able to advertise, ignores the fact that Obama, starting from scratch as an unknown political figure, is WINNING over the Clintons- the most popular and powerful political couple in history!
The ongoing primary season is only benefitting McCain and the forces of conservatism and neoconservatism.
There is far more at stake in this election than just which person becomes President.
There is no way for Clinton to catch up to Obama in either the delegates or the popular vote and no way for her to become the nominee without destroying the party. That the Clintons put themselves ahead of their party or the forces of progressivism is nothing new. Obama wasn't in my top three choices for the nomination at the beginning of the race, but he's going to lead in both the popular vote and the pledged delegates. Fair enough.
Pennsylvania, please, please, please provide an upset today and let Obama win today's primary so we can end this thing and save what chance we have left to end the damage that conservatism has done to this country at home, abroad and to our constitution.
If Hillary wins by anything less than double digits then the Superdelegates have a moral responsibility to their party and to their country to state their support for whichever candidate now so we can salvage this election before it goes down the tubes.
Excellent analysis!
Great well reasoned Analysis. Thank you.
If the Superdelegates are unimportant, then why has Obama lobbied them so much. Even going so far as to donate 10's of thousands of dollars from his HOPE PAC to their campaigns. When it became clear that neither candidate can obtain the nomination without the Superdelegate vote, Nancy Pelosi and other Obama supporters demanded the Superdelegates merely ratify votes already cast.
The Superdelegates are independent voters. Obama knows it and has been lobbying them since his campaign began. Neither candidate can win without the vote of the Superdelegates. The Superdelegates are assigned the task of voting at the convention in August. Relax. This will be decided at the convention.
The superdelegates are beginning to decide now and they're not swinging Clinton's way. No Democrat in his or her right mind would allow this to go to the convention, as it's suicide for November.
Either you missed the whole point or your didn't read the post.
Thanks for a rational, mathematic assessment of the numbers. How, though, do you answer the "popular vote" argument? Even though our electoral system isn't based on popular vote, and even though popular vote numbers are light in caucus states, Clinton supporters use the ballot numbers to demonstrate parity between their candidate and Obama.
Expect that argument to continue regardless of the result in PA.
The main problem with looking at the popular vote is that it is far from uniform. Will almost half the states doing caucuses, the other half doing primaries, and some doing both (really weird), it's rough at best trying to do an apples to apples comparison.
There are estimates out there that say Obama's true popular vote lead - if you try to translate the caucus results into primary results so you can add them - is estimated at 2 million at the lowest and 3 million at the highest.
And there are real significant objective differences in Caucuses and Primaries. For a Caucus, if you want your vote to count you have to show up at a very specific time and place. Primaries run all day, which is why far more people turn out for primaries than caucuses - they are far more convenient. Now people can argue all they want to about whether caucuses are democratic (there are valid points on both sides of that argument) but it would be hard for anyone to estimate that Obama's popular vote lead would be anything less than two (2) million right now if all those caucuses were primaries.
In conclusion - in order to have a fair evaluation of the popular vote, you should add 1.2 million to Obama's current total to account for the low voter turn out in caucuses.
Posted April 21, 2008 | 07:45 AM (EST)