Why the Long Primary Battle with Clinton Will Actually Help Obama Win in November
Listen to the talking heads drone endlessly about Obama's drubbing in Kentucky and Clinton's superior appeal among working class whites in Appalachia, and it is hard not to believe that the continuing primary battle won't hurt Obama in the fall. In fact, just the opposite is true. Here's why:
It will all be over soon enough. Notwithstanding his loss in Kentucky, his big win in Oregon put Obama at 1,957 delegates, according to RealClearPolitics.com. That is only 69 delegates from the magic number of 2,026 set by Democratic Party rules to clinch the nomination. There are only 301 delegates left to allocate, of which 215 are superdelegates. Obama just needs 23% of those remaining delegates.
Now that Obama has accumulated an absolute majority of the elected, pledged delegates, the already steady movement of superdelegates to his column will increase. It is likely he will pick up at least 36 delegates in the remaining three primaries. That would leave him needing only 33 more superdelegates, which he would pick up in a couple of days.
Even if the Rules Committee of the DNC seats all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida, the math doesn't materially change. Let's say the Committee allocated 10% more of the Michigan and Florida delegates to Clinton than Obama. Between them, Michigan and Florida would have had 366 delegates -- so that would only net Clinton 37 delegates. Even that would leave Obama needing only one in three of the superdelegates remaining today after the last primary -- and remember that since Super Tuesday he has far outstripped Clinton in the proportion of superdelegates he has accumulated.
The long Democratic primary season has engaged millions of new voters. Every night in most big cities the sportscast reports the hockey scores. For the many people who don't follow hockey, those scores go in one ear and out the other. They don't stick. The same is true for most normal people when it comes to politics, at least until this spring.
Now millions of formerly non-political Americans have started following politics. The primaries have become the most engaging reality TV show around. They've become a sporting event, a drama. My formerly non-political life insurance agent came to see me last week. She's never done anything political in her life. Now she's hooked. She wants to volunteer for Obama.
This new engagement in the Democratic contest is a bonanza for our prospects this fall. In Indiana, the combined Democratic primary turnout was 129% of the total voter that John Kerry got in the general election in 2004. That is unheard of.
History shows that once people vote in Democratic primaries they are much more likely to vote Democratic in general elections.
In general, people are more likely to "act themselves" into a belief or commitment than to be convinced by argument. The 80,000 people who attended the Portland rally for Obama would never have gone had there not been a long primary to necessitate it. The act of attending that rally will do more than dozens of commercials will do to guarantee their commitment and their passion for the Democratic candidate this fall.
The same is true for the tens of thousands who banged on doors or picked up the phone - or argued with a neighbor about the campaign.
The long primary has forced the Obama campaign to develop organizations in all 50 states. Generally, presidential campaigns develop organizations in a few primary states and then go on to develop organizations in the few "in-play" general election states. By forcing Obama to create organizations in every state, the long primary season has helped enormously to broaden the general election playing field. This year, there will be strong, experienced Obama organizations in every state in America.
The battle has hugely increased Democratic registration. In-play states like Nevada that started the year with a majority of Republican registrants, now have a majority of Democrats. The New York Times reports that well over half of new registrants in Oregon were 30 or younger, and that of the 83,000 voters who changed parties this year, a large majority switched to Democratic.
The long primary fight has battle-hardened the Obama organization. Most of Obama's top field people have now been through four or five tough primary contests. That experience has taught even the greenest organizer to "think like a political organizer." It has taught thousands of organizers and volunteers the nuances of political organizing that are only learned through practice.
Great organizations are more than the sum of their parts. They develop distinct values and procedures that combine to form strong organizational cultures. The problem with political organizations is that they are "thrown together." Strong cultures need time to develop. The long primary season has provided that time and practice. It will massively strengthen our ability to mobilize hundreds of thousands of volunteers and millions of voters in the fall.
The continuing primary drama has swelled the number of individual Obama donors. Obama received contributions from 200,000 new donors last month alone. The huge Internet fund raising base will provide a massive political advantage over McCain this fall. It would never have grown so large had the primary battle not continued.
The long primary campaign has battle hardened the candidate. Great long distance runners train for the Olympics by running in the mountains where the oxygen is thin. The tough contest has sharpened Obama's already formidable skills and those of his top advisers as well.
The most difficult issues have already been vetted. The tough primary forced the Reverend Wright controversy -- and the issue of race in general -- to be fully examined by the media and public. The same goes for other standard Republican attacks. Much better that these issues be raised in March than in October. Much better that the voters see Obama win primaries -- and win the nomination -- after dealing with these issues. And of course, it has given Americans the chance to get used to the idea of an African American president.
For many Americans that has happened. While Obama might have less appeal than Clinton among working class white Appalachians, he won 57% of the white vote in mostly-white Oregon -- including 53% of those earning under $50,000 per year.
Obama's big trump card in the fall election is his ability to change the electorate - to register and mobilize millions of voters who have not voted before. The long primary season has set the stage for a fall campaign that does just that. It will place dozens of new states into play. It will change the formula for winning traditional swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.
In the end, the long primary season has set the stage for what could be a transformational election that sweeps Obama into the presidency, and substantially bolsters Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on amazon.com.
Loading comments…
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
Excellent column. For the record, though, the following is not true:
"The long primary has forced the Obama campaign to develop organizations in all 50 states."
Obama always planned for an organization in all 50 states, and it is one of the main reasons why he's earned the nomination. (That, plus his courage and conviction
I'd also like to point out that Howard Dean's 50-state strategy in 2004, which preceded Obama's, was ridiculed by establishment Democratic consultants and pundits at the time.
You're certainly right that it did not force him to develop organizations in all 50 states, that was not well put by Mr. Creamer. However, it's still true that the long campaign has helped tremendously to develop and energize those state organizations, because camaigning in their state makes them a full and much-needed participant --remember, delegates are awarded proportionally, not winner-take-all -- in Obama's truly historic campaign.
Hillary Clinton is the better candidate and the most brilliant of the three. All the stories about her started in 1992 and they were inuendo and just plain nasty. They wanted to nail her because back then they didn't want a strong woman. Sen. Obama is a creation of the Press/Media and he doesn't ever answer questions unless he has a teleprompter. He doesn't live by his words. I have NO idea who he even is. How can a person hang out for so many years with anti-american radicals and not be one? If he isn't that just shows his weakness for not standing up against them. It's a sham.
The press think it's just fine to use sexism, or ask her to leave the race, waaaaaaaaaay before the Kentucky or Oregon. They won't give her Michigan and Florida. They make fun or and attack McCain because of his age. The don't mention what a maverick he has been and how his own party got pissed off everytime he crossed the aisle to pass legislation with a democrat. None of this has been fair. The press/media banter around racism and stir up the American people and they're loving it.
How can one person be so wrong?
Have you been asleep?
Hillary had everything going for her:
200 superdelegates
over 200 million in the bank
The Clinton name
And she lost...
It is time that you open your eyes and really...l
During the first (8) eight months of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills including:
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included the following:
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.
In all since he entered the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
Now, please oh enlightened one, give me Hillary's record instead of just sitting there with your fingers in your ears going "la, la, la, la"
Excellent reply! I've been looking for this record for some time. Hope you don't mind if I use it.
On the surface, your claims don't seem plausible.
He sponsored 820 bills in his first 8 months?
Over 4 a day, including Sundays and holidays?
I doubt it is even plausible that he could read 4 bills a day.
And did the Illinois legislature REALLY even consider 21 ethics bills in those first 8 months? That doesn't sound reasonable to me. I know that the Washington State legislature has trouble dealing with even one gun control bill in a session, but Obama sponsored 15 in his first 8 months. I find that unbelievable.
And is it really true that in less than a single term in the U.S. Senate he has actually written 890 bills? While simultaneously running for president?
How is this remotely possible?
I guess I don't believe your claim.
"Hillary Clinton is the better candidate and the most brilliant of the three."
Can you name something that Hillary Clinton ever did, said, or wrote that's 'brilliant"? Because from here, it sure looks like Hillary's genius of the kind that precludes accomplishment.
But yet you probably believe it's fair to use RACE, get a grip the PRESS isn't using SEXISM against HRC,she is her own worst enemy and people like you keep encouraging her to HURT herself more. So don't blame the MEDIA or OBAMA SUPPORTERS just WAKE UP and SMELL the COFFEE. Oh and just for the record YOUR CANDIDATE AGREED to the RULES set by the DNC and SIGNED OFF ON THEM along with the other CANDIDATES including JOHN EDWARDS so PLEASE stop WHINING. YOUR as bad as HILLARY...
"They won't give her Michigan and Florida."
As a Michigan Democrat I recent that statement. Hillary did not earn Michigan's delegates as we didn't have a chance to vote for Obama - his name wasn't on the ballet.
This election should be about returning America from a disastrous, fascist, war-mongering dictatorship to a constitutional democracy. McCain is either psychotic or senile in his relentless advocation of more unnecessary wars. And Clinton voted to attack both Iraq AND Iran (Kyle-Lieberman). She threatened to wipe Iran off the map. She praises McCain as a good and great man, and presdiential material. McCain is actually disgusting. I'd like to see her as the VP on McCain's ticket just to be the final weight to sink his candidacy, but I want her no where near the levers of power of this country.
Sorry Mr Creamer but if Obama doesn't pick up another 90 delegates within the next few days the Dems are dead in Nov. Clinton is going to take her fight all the way to August. McCain will have a 7month head start on the election. And that with finish the Dems i November.
Hillary won't make it to the Convention. She'll get shut out on June 3rd
Your post is an almost exact quote from Rachel Maddow on Air America this afternoon
I hope you're correct. Here are my two issues:
1) Too many will clamor for Obama to choose HRC as his running mate. This will entirely negate his positive message and will negate his assertions of a different type of politics. His message of needing unification has drawn independents to him. She will potentially alienate them. I hope enough videotapes of her talking about how only she and McCain are "ready on day one" will give enough pause but I don't know. I'd almost prefer Obama name a VP now just to keep her from trying to demand a spot on the ticket.
2) I don't believe she really representing working (white) ppl more than was a beneficiary of language suggesting all sorts of things about Obama (e.g., guilt by assoc.). That is, some might just be the "not for Obama" candidate, not entirely unlike the % would still opted for Edwads or uncommitted. Putting her on a ticket with Obama is not likely to reassure them, I mean.
Unfortunately there's a fly in the ointment that threatens to contaminate all the positive points you mentioned. Hillary's refusal to accept the inevitable has changed the situation surrounding the nomination. The issue now is, whichever side loses will not accept the winner as a legitimate candidate. The pundits may try to paint a rosy picture but when you listen to the actual voters the bitterness is obvious. Hillary's not going to quit when the primaries are over unless enough superdelegates declare for Obama to put him over the top and that's unlikely to happen. Which means both sides will be heading to the convention with great expectations and that will maximize the polarization within the party. Obama's supporter's will feel cheated if he loses and too many of Hillary's supporter's won't accept anybody but her as the Democratic nominee. The end of August to the beginning of November won't be enough time for the nominee to put the party back together. As a matter of fact, it may already be too late.
You're leaving out one player in this contest -- the Democratic Party itself, which is unifying around Obama, not around Hillary, It's not the fact that she wants to campaign to the end. That in itself it s benefit. It gets everybody -- Democrats in all the states -- involved. It's THE WAY she's campaigned. The low road. The McCain road. The loose-cannon Bill road.
Have you heard the saying, "Holding on to resentment is like eating rat poison yourself and then waiting for the rat to die?" Anyone who votes for someone whose policies they strongly disagree with, just to show everyone how mad they are, is going to be eaten alive by their own grudge.
You are right about this one. I have read so many posts by people who claim outrage at sexism, so they are boycotting Obama and voting for McCain. John McCain, who called his wife the "C" word. Not only is that sexist, but it is abusive. Earth to extremists: don't make us all pay for your misplaced anger.
I really appreciated this article. The following is the only way Hillary can win the nomination.
Both Florida and Michigan broke the rules about primaries (Read Jonathan Alder's article "On to Florigan" in a recent edition of Newsweek.
Obama did not enter either primary because he followed the rules. Clinton disregarded the rules which explains her stunning victory in Michigan.
Hillary will also point out that many of her followers will not vote for a black man. On the other hand, most Obama followers would support Clinton if she won the nomination. This is really an indictment of Hillary as a leader more than anything else. And a campaign based on pandering to hatred and fear will not succeed in November, simply because the GOP can always outdo the Democrats in pandering to the hate vote.
So basically, Hillary Clinton's case for the nomination based on
1. Hillary cheated, Obama played fair.
2. Hillary's kind of white people won't vote for a black man.
My question is this: What ever happened to that good old-fashioned, traditional American value, "Cheaters never prosper."?
Hillary's attempt to win the nomination through back-door politics reflects badly on Hillary Clinton. If the superdelegates buy it, it reflects badly on them. It also is a rather shameful indictment of American democracy. I highly applaud Obama's team and strategy and I will do whatever I can to help Obama get elected.
As an Obama supporter and regular contributor to his campaign (a low-end, $25 contributor), I applaud his decision not to campaign more aggressively in West Virginia and Kentucky. Clinton already had a lock on those states, and I think Obama was wise not to spend money there needlessly. Newsweek recently reported, for example, that Obama was really unhappy that the $20 million his campaign invested in Ohio and Texas had not resulted in a clear win in either state. This is the response of a man who knows the value of money--a man who not too long ago finally finished paying off his student loans.
I suspect there might be a relationship between Obama's mostly careful stewardship of his campaign finances and his consistent opposition to the war in Iraq. Surely Obama's decision not to waste money in WV and KY suggests how he might go about persuading the country that we need to bring the troops home. Unlike McCain, Obama would have a real problem with spending another trillion on a war we cannot win.
My sense is that the campaign is revealing a candidate who would exercise wisdom in the expenditure of tax dollars, just as he is exercising wisdom in the expenditure of his supporters' donations.
Very true and I concur
I would completely agree with you if it wasn't for how negative Clinton as been. Obama needs time to heal the party. He's running out of time.
I agreed until the last two weeks. In the last two weeks, the anger has hardened into an iron core and is getting worse daily. Time for the party "leaders" to lead!
You are probably right. Even though the pundits constantly say that the Democratic party will be negatively affected by the drawn out battle between the candidates, and like the rightwing radio hosts think this will hurt Obama, the pundits are usually wrong.
In the same vein Mathews and Gregory in recent days continue to repeat the same media misconception we heard in 2004 - namely that when the democratic candidate gets in a fight over foreign policy with the Republican candidate he will be at a great disadvantage because of Republican superiority on foreign policy issues. After the Iraq debacle? After all the waste, corruption and lobbyists for defense contractors and all the private contractors? After the whole Iraq debacle?
This is STILL a Republican longsuit? The idea that they have any credibility left on foreign policy is laughable.
This is getting tiresome and I'm waiting for someone to slap this ridiculous premise down. I think Obama will do it very effectively.
Very illuminating and refreshing as opposed to Clinton's old-school threats and divisive fear-mongering.
Attuck.
Thats exactly right. The primary where one cannot call a SPADE a SPADE without being called a SEXIST!
Oh! Poor Hillary.
Sarcasm aside...I think come November we will be saying: "Poor Democrats. What the hell were we thinking!' We will still be calling for change, spare change, because we are morally bankrupting our party.
The 2008 Election Calculator projects that Obama will win the True Vote in a landslide: 71-59m (54.1-44.7
http://www
But election fraud will reduce Obama’s recorded vote margin to 64-61m. The landslide will be denied, just like it was in the 2006 midterms in which the Democrats won 10-20 more seats than official results indicate.
Obama is expected to do better than Kerry did in 2004 among blacks, Hispanics, new voters, moderate Republicans and Independents. He may not do as well among other, white Democrats. This analysis is based on an estimate of total votes cast; it does not include the millions of (mostly Democratic) disenfranchised voters.
Good point. With all the variables on John King's "magic wall" one is telling - Had Kerry won 100,000 more votes in Ohio he'd be president. He didn't win West Virginia, or Kentucky. If all Obama does is win the same votes (and McCain cannot count on a huge turnout of right-wing evangelicals that buoyed Bush) he doesn't need Ohio or Florida. Sure, things change, but right now he's beating McCain by double digits in Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa. That's the election right there. Contrary to what one might hear from the Clinton campaign, Obama is also well ahead of McCain in Michigan and in Pennsylvania. Obama doesn't have fences to mend. We just need to make sure we don't destroy ourselves on the altar of Senator Clinton's ego and her supporter's victimization syndromes.
OF COURSE, it is going to the Convention. Even if Hillary conceded, it would be going to the Convention.
Obama people are too DUMB to understand the nomination process. The nomination is NOT an election. ANY delegate, pledged or super, CAN change their vote at the Convention. And if Obama keeps SINKING, you can bet they WILL.
Hillary TROUNCED Obama in Kentucky. She VAPORIZED him in West Virginia. Obama NEVER beat Hillary by THAT big of a margin, even in heavily black racist states like SC.
Obama losing two primaries in a row by such HUGE margins means that he is history. The leaders of the Democratic Party will see that and Obama will be forced to either bow out or get over-ridden at the Convention.
And to continue to ignore Florida and Michigan! You do NOT win elections by IGNORING the 4th largest and 8th largest states in the USA. Obama and the DNC are both complete JOKES.
Obama is an arrogant FOOL. If he was smart, he would be Hillary's VP for 8 years and then walk into the White House himself for 8 years. Instead, he will try to STEAL the nomination, which will cause him to LOSE the Presidency, which will DESTROY his political future. He is an arrogant FOOL.
"Obama is an arrogant FOOL." says JackWOrf
----------
Not so.
An arrogant fool is someone who would vote against his country's interests just to hurt someone else, out of spite.
West Virginia and Kentucky will not go blue in the fall so her win, based on race, isn't going to matter at all. Face the facts, Hillary and Co. conducted an inept and dysfunctional campaign. it was hers to lose and then she lost it. The first test is the campaign, she failed. Hillary isn't a FOOL, she's selfish and ambitious to the point of disgrace. If she had a bit of dignity and grave, she might be able to save her sinking political future.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
