Obama resurgent

Obama's impressive sweep of the latest primaries and caucuses renews and strengthens the momentum he had in the days before Super Tuesday. His support seems to be be deepening and broadening; and Hillary's lead among women and lower-income households (two of her three most loyal constituencies: the third is Hispanics) seems to be wavering. But in case you're thinking that Hillary is finished--as I am inclined to--see this interesting corrective from Jay Cost at RealClearPolitics.  Demographics rather than momentum can explain the new results, according to this analysis. The race might still go all the way to the convention.

And though he would say this, wouldn't he, Mark Penn, Hillary's chief strategist, thinks that she still has a path to the nomination.

Plainly Hillary needs to win, and win big, in delegate-laden Texas and Ohio on March 4th. Even if she succeeds there, her campaign will need to lean on the party's "superdelegates" (party officials and other grandees, whose votes are worth thousands of the ordinary kind) to support her. Would they be willing to do that, if she was behind both in the popular vote within the party and in the share of pledged delegates? If I were a superdelegate, and even if I were convinced that Hillary was the better choice, I would not be willing: it is just too blatantly undemocratic.

And what about the delegates from Michigan and Florida, which the party disqualified when the states defied the ruling over the timing of their primaries? Both voted for Hillary, but nobody campaigned in either place and in Michigan Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Asked on CNN whether the Clinton campaign would call for some kind of rerun of those elections, one of Hillary's helpers blandly said that there was no need: those results were in, and it was just a question of un-disenfranchising the voters. If Hillary did get the nomination thanks to the party's uber-voters and to some kind of legal stunt involving Michigan and Florida, I would expect to hear fewer complaints from Democrats in future about Bush-Gore 2000. But I cannot see the Democratic party electorate standing for this--and, in any case, what would such squalid manoeuvrings do for the candidate's chances in the general election?

If Hillary's campaign collapses with defeat in Texas or Ohio, that will be the moment to concede gracefully. She could move on from this defeat with something of her reputation intact. I bet her truest friends are starting to wish for this outcome. But if those states leave her with a meaningful chance of the nomination--so long as she bends every rule  and exerts every kind of pressure to get the result--we will find out just how much of her own reputation and her party's prospects she is prepared to stake on this venture.   

Comments

Obama may have played to the fact that the demographics of the last 7 states played somewhat to his advantage, and they were caucuses, which he also does very well with, but that doesn't downplay his momentum. Giuliani relied on the "state that mattered" (Florida) because the first few weren't going to be easy to win, and look what happened there.

Hillary likes to chalk Obama's wins up to factors that somehow invalidate his wins, but the fact is that he has surpassed her in the popular vote, and does better in the caucuses. The only thing she has over him is SuperDelegates, which are the center of controversy this election. Personally, I think the excitement that drives his wins in caucuses pays off in pure primary states.

excerpted from: http://politicalmaelstrom.blogspot.com/2008/02/clinton-and-caucus.html

Posted by Jesse | February 13, 2008 6:18 PM

If it goes to the convention and there is a big struggle to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, and it is not apparent what the superdelegates will do, I think Obama should actually start convincing superdelegates to back Hillary. In that eventuality, Hillary would get the nomination, it will look like she destroyed the party (along with any thoughts of a new liberal majority), she is generally reviled, loses big in November, and Obama looks like the victim of a power-hungry cabal of senseless charlatans. The Democratic Party is destroyed but Obama emerges fresh as a daisy to start a new political party with Bloomberg and Gore! Huzzah!

Seriously, if it goes to the convention and the superdelegates don't back the winner of the popular vote, the delegate count, and the state count, then the nominee is doomed in November. In fact, if it gets ugly at the convention, either candidate might just be royally screwed.

Posted by Craig | February 13, 2008 9:31 PM

Interesting you mention Bloomberg Craig. If Clinton does steal the nomination I think he'd see a chance to grab annoyed Obama supporters and be much more likely to run as a third party.

Posted by Pete | February 14, 2008 7:48 PM

Jesse, Obama's last seven wins weren't all caucuses - Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia, and Louisiana were all primaries.

Posted by Daniel | February 14, 2008 7:53 PM

The Clinton strategy seems to be, to get very close to Obama in pledged delegates by including MIchigan/Florida and wins in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania and then let the superdelegates push them to the victory.
But even including Michigan/Florida will net her only max. 55-60 pledged delegates. (A Florida party official announced, that in March Clinton would get 105, and Obama 67 delegates allocated, that's a net 38 for Clinton.) So if Obama has more than 100-120 pledged delegates when all primaries are done (without Michigan/Florida), she can't make the case convincingly.
So three things must all go in her direction. Big wins in the future, seating Michigan/Florida and a close enough pledged delegate count (probably under 20) to argue her case without a total revolution and a catastophical loss of image. So for Mrs. Clinton that's very tough to do.

Posted by Newland Archer | February 14, 2008 8:16 PM

If Obama gets a clear majority of the elected delegates (50+) and the superdelegates don't then go to Obama, I think the DNC can expect 100,000+ Obama supporters in the streets of Denver this August.

rob

Posted by rob | February 14, 2008 9:11 PM

If Obama gets a clear majority of the elected delegates (50+) and the superdelegates don't then go to Obama, I think the DNC can expect 100,000+ Obama supporters in the streets of Denver this August.

rob

Posted by rob | February 14, 2008 9:11 PM

As far as doing damage to the party, that has aleady begun. The Clintons have long practiced the politics of division pitting diffent elements of the party and the country against each other for their political gains. With ruthless abandon they turn on former friends easily if it suits their needs.likewise they take they play the victim card one day and the bully the next day seemingly unaware of the long term impact of their hippocracy.

Following Obama wins they have openly dismissed results because of Black support. Funny Bill never dismissed black support when it was for him. Perhaps the latino community will notice Clinton's lack of loyalty in time not to be used and discarded when they are no longer needed.

If you need another example of Clinton betrayal look at the American worker who thanks to Bill Clinton's championing of NAFTA,GAAT and most favored nation trade status for China. Just has had been predicted manufacturing jobs in this country withered.

But while the average worker has seen their income shrink the Clintons have along with their wealthy friends grown rich! So for all those blue collar workers in Ohio,Texas, and Pennsylvania beware of Clintons bearing gifts.

Posted by Max McGloin | February 14, 2008 9:37 PM

If HRC manages to clinch the nomination through arm twisting and back room deals, expect a repeat of 1968 - and many Dems to sit out the election.

Posted by JRR | February 14, 2008 9:46 PM

HRC will employ every dirty trick possible in a desperate attempt to gain power. She's already unleashed a new barrage of negative ads in Texas and Wisconsin. I am also anticipating her to cry (conveniently in front of the cameras) shortly before the polls open in the upcoming battleground states. She will say anything, do anything to win. Fortunately for all of us, Obama will win.

Posted by Alfred E. Neuman | February 14, 2008 10:16 PM

Maybe the possibility of a disaster of a another "robbed election" (if the Clintons manage threat and reward enough super delegates) where the electorate is overturned by a body with a clear agenda (I.e. getting the Clintons back in power at any cost to the party, in November and long after that) will be enought to get Al Gore of his pedestal. But I simply refuse to accept that there are enough super delegates (many of them need to be re-elected at some point, amny of them endorsed HRC when she seemed inevitable what seemed like such a long, long time ago) who are willing to hurt the party to this extent - I think gov. Kaine is right in this regard at least I hope so. I do think that the outcry of ALL elected dems, current and past, will have to be very loud and very public for the CLintons to hear their cry - secret conversations will not do it, and there are enough delegates who will not leave the CLinton ship until they are really sure it is sinking, as their capacity and willingness for revenge is legendary in Washington....

Posted by Carthage | February 14, 2008 10:30 PM

If this goes to the convention,and Clinton steals the nomination, it will be Bloomberg-Obama, or even Obama-Bloomberg in November!!

Posted by Max | February 14, 2008 10:55 PM

How far the Clintons will push this will determine their legacy. If the Clintons push this to a brokered convention, everyone will always remember them for destroying the party and losing the election for the democrats. It's all about them.. above everything else.

Posted by Chuck | February 14, 2008 11:01 PM

i've been reading blogs that hillary has sold her donor mailingt list to some big marketing company. very nice, screw over the people who supported and believed in you. anyone else hear this story?

Posted by richard | February 14, 2008 11:52 PM

How could the Clinton campaign actually believe that the Michigan Primary was fair when her main competitor wasn't on the ballot? Plus, either was not allowed to campaign in Florida where most know her through history and name-recognition. It's only fair -- and honest -- to count primaries and caucuses where both names are on the ballot and are allowed to campaign there.

I think the American people will make the right choice and choose Obama as the nominee. He could win WI and Hawaii on Tuesday. That would be 2 more states. Two more wins. More momentum. Then if he can do well or tie in Ohio and/or Texas, she will have no chance. The media will sort of expect her to pull out, if Obama pulls ahead even further and she doesn't win BOTH of these new "Firewalls".

A new era of politics is here folks. I just think Hillary is not listening. Obama leads with 23 states to her 11.

Posted by Mike | February 15, 2008 2:04 AM

One of the key purposes of the superdelegates is to provide the perspective of reason and experience in the event that the pledged delegates are marginally slanted toward an extreme but unelectable candidate. (Think McGovern in 1972.) The problem with Clinton arguing for these superdelegate votes in the face of a deficit among pledged delegates is that she is -- and long has been -- behind Obama in polls assessing their relative strength against McCain. Ohio Republicans are making little attempt to hide their support for Hillary in the primary there, because they're scared to death of their man facing Obama and his legions in the general election.

Posted by UrsaM | February 15, 2008 2:19 AM

I hope she concedes after March 4th (which does not look good) because I like and respect her and can hardly stand to hear the things that are being said about her. I want America to have Obama. I remember when America worshipped "W", the guy they wanted to have a beer with. Okay, now we have the Perfect Saint...I am looking forward to 24 months into his presidency. My time will come and it will be fun to hear "wha' happened???" Then we'll see how really great he is. I say this with certainty because what goes up (especially like this) comes way, way down. Hold on America, enjoy the ride!!!! Baa...baa....baa little sheep! Rmember the Jim Jones' cult?

Posted by kj | February 15, 2008 3:09 AM

I am glad Obama entered this race...Regardless of the outcome, the supporters of his opponents have brought to surface a ugly reminder of the bigotry and hate that still permeates our country's mentality. The anger, hatred and ugly things I see people type reminds me that though we have come far, we have a long way to go. Disappointed in my fellow democrats

Posted by Gabriel Shepherd | February 15, 2008 3:18 AM

kj,

One can only hope that you do not fulfill your promise of just sitting back during the first two years of an Obama administration, waiting for America to come to you and hand you what you desire and instead join us in working to better America for all of our citizens.
In our view it is the poor misguided sheep out there that believe that it is better to borrow & spend rather than pay cash for your purchases that need our assistance.
Don't confuse your friendly family members for those that wish to take your; home, job, rights and yes your dreams.

Posted by paul94611 | February 15, 2008 6:58 AM

Hard feelings have already set in and whoever wins will be damaged. If dems think that everyone will come together in the end they are kidding themselves. To much has been reported on the so called superdelegates and back room deals and this is going to cause a lot of problems for the dems in the election and look for the independent vote to go to McCain. I also will add that it helps McCain a lot that Rush Limbaugh doesn't like him.

Posted by RL | February 15, 2008 8:38 AM

I have just been planning my summer vacation. Plans currently center around being in Denver the last week of August. What an exciting time in our history, I really want to be part of it.
The superdelegates won't overturn the will of the people. Not this time. We are fired up and ready to go! We want our country back.

I hope after it becomes mathematically improbable to win the pledged delegates, the candidate who is behind will step aside so we can get our party back together and start focusing on November.
Rock on Barack!

Posted by Rick | February 15, 2008 9:10 AM

If Clinton enters the convention behind in pledged delegates and the popular vote, but manages to win either through the superdelegates or seating the Michigan and/or Florida delegations through a last-minute rule change, African-Americans will be outraged, and with reason.

The Democratic party claims to support affirmative action, which in practical terms means at very least that, all other things being equal, a disadvantaged minority should get a position over an otherwise equally qualified person of Caucasian descent. Turning away an African-American candidate when all other things were demonstrably NOT equal -- when he won the most votes and the most pledged delegates under the rules -- would be a clear signal that the Democratic party's support for diversity is no more authentic than the Republican Party's support for religion.

In this scenario, McCain could probably secure the election by doing something that would otherwise be unthinkable this year -- choosing Condi Rice as his running mate. At a stroke, he would eat into one of the Democratic Party's most loyal components, and one that had a real cause to be disaffected. He would placate the elements of the Republican party that still like Bush (about a third of the general population, and a higher percentage of Republicans). The downside -- connection with the Bush Administration and the Iraq war -- isn't as great in McCain's case, since he's already on record as supporting the war. If this is the matchup, I think Senator Clinton would lose decisively in the fall.

Posted by Fighting Armadillo | February 15, 2008 9:22 AM

First I was and am arguably still a Clinton supporter, but I would much rather see Obama sweep TX and OH then to see the party distroyed.

But with that said, another question to complicate matters a bit. Let's say Clinton does pull off TX, OH and PA as well as a few others like RI and PR, etc. Let's say she narrows the electoral gap to around 25 points of Obama's by Convention time.

1. What if Clinton has more popular votes than Obama?

2. If she does get OH, TX and PA, that means Obama will have gotten no large state except for his home state of Illinois.

3. The traditional and highly important swing states are FL, MI and OH. The Dems need to beat McCain on these. All three (if she wins OH) voted for Clinton over Obama.

I think it's irresponsible to blame Clinton for everything. That's not very balanced; in these three cases Obama would be under considerable pressure, too.

So what do we do then under these scenarios? Could the party "force" a Clinton-Obama/Obama-Clinton ticket? Otherwise about half of all voters (let's not forget that Clinton also has wide-spread support) could very well be alienated.

Posted by Michael | February 15, 2008 10:16 AM

2. If she does get OH, TX and PA, that means Obama will have gotten no large state except for his home state of Illinois.

I keep hearing this but at no point has anyone explained to me why votes mean more when they're cast in more populous states. It just doesn't make any sense to think that a vote matters more simply because it was one of many from the same state.

3. The traditional and highly important swing states are FL, MI and OH. The Dems need to beat McCain on these. All three (if she wins OH) voted for Clinton over Obama.

That's not right at all. MI is not nearly as purple as Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Further, Michigan voters did not vote for Clinton over Obama, seeing as how Obama wasn't on the ballot due to his decision not to cheat like his opponent and just neglect to remove his name.

We have one candidate who is extremely popular with independents and even some Republicans and another who is despised by them, despite the fact that they hold virtually identical policy views. Why are we even debating electability?!

Posted by V. | February 16, 2008 8:36 PM