Common Sense, From Nevada

## Hillary Clinton probably won the "popular vote" by a larger margin than six percentage points ... because Obama probably received the lion's share of re-allocated votes from Edwards supporters in non-viable precincts.

## The news media seems to think that this means that Clinton won Nevada.

## Based on the demographic/turn-out sensitive delegate allocation formula, Obama won 13 delegates to Clinton's 12. This process is neither democratic, in that the power of one person's vote differs from another's, nor republican, in that the person who is preferred by the largest number of Nevadans can, in the end, not receive the majority of the delegates.

The Obama campaign also points out that because the nomination can only be secured if a majority of national delegates are accumulated, it matters who wins the delegates. Ok. But zero delegates have actually been pledged... so if, by the Obama campaign's own definition, the winner of Nevada ought to be determined by delegates, we'll have to wait until April 19 to see how the national convention delegates are apportioned. If Obama and Clinton are still in the race at that point, then those delegates are pledged to Obama.

## Unless we're headed to a brokered convention, Nevada's delegates will probably not matter.

## So is the Democratic primary a fight over delegates? At the lowest level of abstraction, yes. But at a higher level of abstraction, it's about expectations; it's about the marriage of popular vote performances by the winner and the will of the candidate who does not receive the support of a majority.

## Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns have accused each other of playing dirty; there's no question that the party machine, mostly in the corner of Hillary Clinton, had an incentive to help her, and that the Culinary Union bosses had an incentive to help Obama. There is no evidence, as of yet, of any organized effort to disenfranchise anyone.

## Expect trench warfare until Feb 5., if not beyond.

Comments

The 2008 campaign adage or axiom --

The power of Clintons' attack machine is that you will vote for it, even when you do not want to do so. The reason is race, gender, and ethnicity baiting.

++++

On MTP today, this power was discussed by all the panelists, such as Doris, Peggy, Jon, and of course Tim.

How to share this power of Clintons' attack machine with the people?

Posted by eorse | January 20, 2008 12:59 PM

Do you have any actual evidence for the first claim?

Posted by ikl | January 20, 2008 1:59 PM

So is the Democratic primary a fight over delegates? At the lowest level of abstraction, yes. But at a higher level of abstraction, it's about expectations; it's about the marriage of popular vote performances by the winner and the will of the candidate who does not receive the support of a majority.

There's some sense in this. But the popular vote was not measured in the Nevada Caucuses. As you point out in your first ##, the county delegate count (the numbers which show a ~6 point Clinton margin) reflects neither the popular vote nor the nation delegate outcome. If the popular vote matters so much, it ought to be counted.

Ok. But zero delegates have actually been pledged... so if, by the Obama campaign's own definition, the winner of Nevada ought to be determined by delegates, we'll have to wait until April 19 to see how the national convention delegates are apportioned. If Obama and Clinton are still in the race at that point, then those delegates are pledged to Obama.

So, by any reasonable construction of the facts, Obama has won those delegates. Every candidate's delegates are subject to the caveat that they won't be bound to that candidate anymore if he or she drops out of the race.

In a larger sense, it's the media's choice to make the delegate count irrelevant. A diametrically opposed headline, "OBAMA DEFEATS CLINTON IN NEVADA CAUCUSES," would be perfectly accurate since the objective of the contest is to gain national convention delegates. The media has chosen to turn Clinton's impressive performance gaining county delegates in Nevada's most populous county into a "victory," and so that's no important. But we shouldn't pretend that there's some deeper truth to the idea that delegates don't matter. It's just an arbitrary media thing.

Posted by southpaw | January 20, 2008 2:11 PM

Whoops, the third paragraph in my post above, starting with "Ok. But . . ." should be italicized.

Posted by southpaw | January 20, 2008 2:13 PM

We can not get beyond the basest element of the machinations of getting elected until all the candidates get themselves out of the basest political tactics of divide and conquer.

It's a dog fight...principle against win at all costs.

"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 20, 2008 2:52 PM

Is it just me, or does this recitation of Clinton talking points posing for independent thought sound really defensive?

This is what I am hearing between the lines:

"We really did win! Really! Really! Please, big media, give us big mo! We beat the big bad culinary workers! We were such the underdogs....we only had the machines of an ex president and current senate majority leader at our disposal, but they had the culinary union. The culinary union had the real knives in this fight, after all they are chefs, right?!?!?!

"Please, big media, can't you use this to make Hillary inevitable again? Pretty please. Pretty please with sugar all over it. Pretty Please or we'll limit your access to Bill Clinton? Pretty please or we won't give you juicy psycodrama for your ratings? Pretty please or you'll have Bill wagging finger to deal with?"

Posted by RKA | January 20, 2008 3:04 PM

I guess this is to be expected on Marc's blog, but I don't see the Obama campaign saying they won. Plouffe specifically said to the media that it's up to them to decide whether winning the delegate count means an Obama win - most of course don't think that equates to a win, but Obama can't be held responsible for those who want to make a story out of it.

Caucuses have complicated rules and are "undemocratic" in the strict sense of the word. There's another set of rules that's complicated and "undemocratic" - the US Constitution.

"Democratic" does not automatically equate to virtuous - there are other goals policymakers have - in Nevada they want to bias the contest in favor of rural areas so the candidates actually go and campaign out there. You might not have designed it that way, but that doesn't make it unreasonable, or bad.

Posted by Steve C | January 20, 2008 4:03 PM

I don't see the Obama campaign saying they won. Plouffe specifically said to the media that it's up to them to decide whether winning the delegate count means an Obama win - most of course don't think that equates to a win, but Obama can't be held responsible for those who want to make a story out of it.

I imagine David Plouffe doesn't want to appear peevish by trying to claw back an established media narrative. I'm not burdened by any such sense of etiquette.

The objective of the contest in Nevada was to secure the most pledged delegates to the national convention; it appears Obama did that. So it's fair to say he won. It's also fair play to criticize the process as undemocratic.

What isn't fair is the arbitrary imposition of a narrative that the facts won't support. The headlines should have read, "Obama Wins Nevada Caucuses, Though Clinton Claims Most Populous County." The idea that Clinton won, or that she won the popular vote, is just wrong. She secured fewer delegates and we do not know the popular vote results.

Posted by southpaw | January 20, 2008 4:28 PM

southpaw, I'm speaking as a full-on Obama partisan and I think the notion of "who won" is a little more philosophical than you say. He won more delegates but it depends on how most people define winning, and whether you like it or not most people think that means, who got more votes.

I think I'm with you otherwise - this story has taken on a life of its own, detached almost completely from Obama campaign reality.

And the whole idea that undemocratic=bad, full stop, is obviously stupid, but that requires a more nuanced discussion of history and politics.

Posted by Steve C | January 20, 2008 4:41 PM

southpaw, I'm speaking as a full-on Obama partisan and I think the notion of "who won" is a little more philosophical than you say. He won more delegates but it depends on how most people define winning, and whether you like it or not most people think that means, who got more votes.

I see what you're saying, but I still think you've got it a little wrong. Most people take their definition of "winning" not from philosophy but from how a contest is covered.

Most people are perfectly comfortable with the idea that to win the Presidency, you have to get to 270 electoral votes, not win the popular vote. The electoral votes are the big numbers on the graphical display, and the popular vote is presented as an afterthought. (And while many of us have objections to the electoral college process, we know what it takes to win it.)

I would submit that the narrative emerging from Nevada was a function of the media's failure to understand the significance of the county delegate numbers they were getting from the NV authorities. They thought county delegate numbers would directly determine the outcome, and so they reported it that way. And remember, county delegate numbers do not equate to the popular vote.

The possibility you suggest, that the media narrative is determined by an ideological commitment to one person : one vote, strikes me as unlikely. But even if that is the case, it is admirable ideology misapplied. The county delegate numbers are not the popular vote, they're the result of arcane and heavily weighted calculations.

Posted by southpaw | January 20, 2008 5:21 PM

I hardly see a single headline acknowledging Obama's delegate victory, because this victory has been systematically drowned out by the din of "Hillary Won" headlines. It is all quite irritating. Will the media figure out a way to discount Obama's win in South Carolina when it's realized in six days?

Posted by Jessica | January 20, 2008 5:37 PM

Listen to yourselves:
Your candidate says we cannot win by tearing others down and that is all I hear on this blog obama supporters tearing down the Clintons and the clinton supporters.
Either might win this in the end but why is Obama so great and his cause so good and his followers so right that every other democrat who does not agree wrong and slimey and part of a machine.
You guys are a movement and Hillary and her people are a machine: is your strategy to de-humanize the opponent.
Perhaps when Obama said last week sometimes his followers are overzealous and out of control you bloggers didn't get the message.
G. Davis quotes Obama above saying not to win by tearing down the opponent: maybe he was giving quidance to his own supporters and not casting stones.
Hillary supporters are just as earnest as those who want Obama: a little careful empathy is called for here.

Posted by Michael C | January 20, 2008 6:44 PM

southpaw - you're 100% right on the facts. I don't think it's the media's failure to understand the caucus system, I think they just don't want to get into the ins and outs of the Nevada system and set expectations. They'd rather just write a story about who got more votes and move on, especially if the rest of the media herd is defining a "win" that way.

Posted by Steve C | January 20, 2008 7:41 PM

Btw if you all haven't read this totally sickening article about Clinton tactics in Nevada, you must read it:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573

Posted by Steve C | January 20, 2008 7:43 PM

Do consider Kos posts with a grain of salt...fairly wooly booly there...

Michael C, thanks for noticing. Got it all right except I'm a boomer woman! ;0

"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama

Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.

Posted by G Davis | January 21, 2008 2:15 AM