« The Table: Why The Racism? | Main | Et Tu, J. Rubin? »

Delegates V. Votes

26 Jan 2008 02:23 pm

Clinton communications impresario Howard Wolfson has written a memo that nicely summarizes the strategic argument the Clinton campaign will make over the next two weeks.

After some throat-clearing expectations setting for South Carolina, he writes: "Regardless of today’s outcome, the race quickly shifts to Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Democrats will turn out to vote on Tuesday."

As John Madden would say, "Boom." That's the line that tells you exactly how Clinton will campaign between now and Feb. 5.

For there are no delegates to be awarded in Florida. Clinton won't campaign there, but she will campaign for Florida -- and in all likelihood, she will win the votes of several hundred thousand Floridians on Feb. 29.

In Florida and beyond, watch for Clinton to focus on the forest, not the trees -- the national popular vote and the superdelegates who follow the herd, and not (so much) the earned delegates.

It's safe to say that, as of Feb. 6, Hillary Clinton will have earned the votes of at least several hundred thousand more Democrats than Barack Obama. Obama, on Feb. 6, might have a slight lead in earned delegates, depending on the number of states he wins. Or, the ratio of Clinton's delegates to Obama's will be smaller than the ratio of her popular vote total to his. States can be "won" and "lost" by the same candidate -- Nevada being one example. Votes are proportionally allocated by Congressional district, which poses a strategic quandary for all the campaigns: do they focus on "winning the delegates? Or do they focus on "winning the state?"

The Clinton campaign knows this. The Obama campaign knows this, too.

The Obama campaign's theory of the case can be called the "Delegate Dominoes." Since the nomination rests on -- and only on -- a foundation of delegate selection, the national popular vote difference is meaningless -- and the press should not be overly sensitive to its effects on momentum. If the press focuses on delegates going into Feb. 5 and coming out of Feb. 5, Obama has a correspondingly higher chance of avoiding the enormous crucible that is the media's declaration of a frontrunner. Here's why a post-Feb 5 media consensus about Clinton is so dangerous to Obama: for the first time in this race, it will be based on the votes of real people, and not the conventional wisdom that we pull out of our linked-at-the-pelvis rear ends.

Notice the distinction above between earned delegates and superdelegates. The Supers tend to latch their hitch to the winning wagons because a lot's at stake if they choose the wrong candidate. Clinton currently has a Superdelegate lead, and it's safe to say that Superdelegates, generally being timid, will come aboard if the voters give them permission.

Here's how Bill Burton, Obama's peach-ice-cream-tongued-spokesman, responded to the Wolfson memo:

“It should not be surprising given recent events that the Clinton campaign would in one breath say the election is about winning delegates and then tout their success in states that don’t award any delegates in the next breath. The DNC has made clear that the winner of the contest in Florida will not receive any delegates, so the next step in this nominating process is February 5th. If the Clinton campaign's southern strength rests on the outcome in a state where they're the only ones competing, that should give Democrats deep pause. Again, no one is more disappointed that Florida and Michigan Democrats will have no role in selecting delegates for the nomination of the party’s standard bearer than Senator Obama but he looks forward to vigorously competing for their votes in the general election.”

Delegates... v. votes.

Read Wolfson's memo after the jump.

To: Interested Parties

From: Howard Wolfson, Communications Director

Re: South Carolina, Florida, and February 5

Date: January 26, 2008

The Obama campaign has been so confident of winning South Carolina that six months ago they flatly predicted victory in the Palmetto State.

Cornell Belcher, Senator Obama’s pollster, stated explicitly to the Politico on July 25, 2007, “We are going to outright win South Carolina.”

And today, Senator Obama leads by 12, according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls taken in South Carolina over the last 10 days.

Despite Senator Obama's large lead, Senator Clinton has campaigned across the Palmetto State, reaching out and asking for each and every vote. She has heard directly from South Carolinians about their concerns and their hopes for a stronger, more prosperous America.

Regardless of today’s outcome, the race quickly shifts to Florida, where hundreds of thousands of Democrats will turn out to vote on Tuesday.

Despite efforts by the Obama campaign to ignore Floridians, their voices will be heard loud and clear across the country, as the last state to vote before Super Tuesday on February 5th.

This remains a delegate fight, with 1,681 delegates at stake on February 5th, and 2,025 needed to secure the nomination -- and we are ahead in that fight.

As Senator Clinton has said from the beginning, we have built a national campaign with the resources to compete and win across the country.

Coming off of victories in Nevada, Michigan and New Hampshire, Senator Clinton has demonstrated the importance of focusing on achieving real solutions on the economy, health care and Iraq .

As she campaigns throughout the United States over the coming weeks, Senator Clinton will continue to work hard for every vote, making sure that Americans know she will be a President who focuses on what matters most—making a difference in people’s lives.

Comments (27)

Burton really nailed Wolfson there.

The Clintons are being inconsistent.

On one hand, they say "This remains a delegate fight" in order to discount the idea that Obama will get any momentum from South Carolina.

On the other, they're saying that Florida's voters matter even though they have no bearing on the delegate fight.

You can already see a consensus forming in the media that the delegates are what matter. Going into Feb 5, Obama will be leading this race. That's going to be the story. You can also expect him to get a string of endorsements in the run-up to the big day.

I was hoping that Yglesias would have a chance to spell out just how favorable the February calendar is to Obama.


2/9
WA caucus: not a primary, lots of antiwar lefties, few Latinos, lots of well-educated voters
NE primary: ... yeah, he's hosed there presumably.
LA primary: 31% African-American, a clear win.

2/10
ME caucus: similar to WA, though with more working class voters. Probably favors Obama slightly.

2/12
MD primary: 29% African-American ... probably a win.
DC primary: uhh ... right.
VA primary: 20% African-American. Kaine is for Obama.

2/19
HI caucus: clearly favors Obama
WI primary: lots of independents and a state with an independent streak.

He's almost guaranteed a majority of these states, and has an outside chance at running the table outside of NE.

The flip side of this is that March 4th favors Clinton, with Ohio and Texas voting. But he may have enough momentum at that point to win or at least keep it close. I think March 4th will probably be the deciding day; if he get a split there (probably winning Ohio and losing Texas) he will probably roll to the nomination.

Not only you are right there Nicholas but I don't even think NE is such a wash for Clinton. Most red-state Dem office-holders have endorsed or hint at supporting Obama which would be a much more favorable head of the ticket for them.

Where is the Clinton's integrity? This election is not just about Bill and Hillary scoring a victory--this is about America, American's and the future of this country in the world's eyes. Do we want to show the world this is what we stand in this country-do everything and anything to get what you want? How can anyone trust these people to take over our country? I hope Americans are reading these articles and realizing that winning is nothing if you lose your soul and integrity doing it.

Please America, just say NO to the Clintons.

The world is watching, reading, listening and hoping that a U.S. electorate won't lose focus from an overriding desire for "change".
Does a vote for Clinton really represent change?
Give me a break!

Yes, Clinton campaigns in Michigan and FLA while Obama and Edwards follow the RULES of the DNC and do not even put their names on the ballot. Now the Clinton campaign has the gall to ask the DNC to turn the Michigan "non-delegates" into delegates even though Obama and Edwards were not on the ballot. It is classic Clinton gamesmanship to change the rules of the game AFTER the game is played. Can we really trust her in the White House? I am seeing enough evidence to convince me the answer is NO.

Ambinder, how did you come to know about an allegedly "peach-ice-cream-tongued-spokesman" in such alarming detail? And are you talking about taste, or texture?

Hillary's about face is indicative of her blatant dishonesty. Her word means nothing. And for those who believe that if she's elected we will get a two-for-one presidency let me refresh your memory.
Bill Clinton's domestic agenda did not bring us universal health care and his focus on eliminating the budget deficit meant he did little for the poor and working people in America.
The Clinton administration actually attacked the disproportionately non-white poor in numerous interrelated ways. Clinton signed a punitive welfare reform bill that ended the federal government's guarantee of financial help to impoverished families with dependent children. He also scored points with conservatives by taking welfare benefits away from legal as well as illegal immigrants.
Meanwhile, Clinton increased economic insecurity in poor and working-class American communities by signing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA destroyed tens of thousands of American industrial jobs by tearing down long-established regulatory barriers to the movement of corporate capital and commodities across the US-Mexican border.

Hillary's about face in Florida and Michigan is indicative of her blatant dishonesty. Her word to her party means nothing. And for those who believe that if she's elected we will get a two-for-one presidency let me refresh your memory.
Bill Clinton's domestic agenda did not bring us universal health care and his focus on eliminating the budget deficit meant he did little for the poor and working people in America.
The Clinton administration actually attacked the disproportionately non-white poor in numerous interrelated ways. Clinton signed a punitive welfare reform bill that ended the federal government's guarantee of financial help to impoverished families with dependent children. He also scored points with conservatives by taking welfare benefits away from legal as well as illegal immigrants.
Meanwhile, Clinton increased economic insecurity in poor and working-class American communities by signing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA destroyed tens of thousands of American industrial jobs by tearing down long-established regulatory barriers to the movement of corporate capital and commodities across the US-Mexican border.

We will see what we will see.
When you buy crystal balls, don't they have that little sticker that makes clear it is just a novelty item?

The story ahead is not written yet and Hillary has a very decent chance of winning.
if it were a card game I would not suggest she trade hands for anything.

One prediction I would make is that obama supporters will be better soon towards obama, just as they abandoned Dean: Hillary has the loyalty and Obama's supporters will prove quite fickle.

We will see what we will see.
When you buy crystal balls, don't they have that little sticker that makes clear it is just a novelty item?

The story ahead is not written yet and Hillary has a very decent chance of winning.
if it were a card game I would not suggest she trade hands for anything.

One prediction I would make is that obama supporters will be bitter soon towards obama, just as they abandoned Dean: Hillary has the loyalty and Obama's supporters will prove quite fickle.

The long time between the primaries and the convention may turn out to be a blessing. It gives plenty of time to observe the Clintons in their least flattering mode..as nasty, manipulative campaigners. That, in turn, allows super delegates time unhitch themselves from the Clinton's wagon before it goes over the cliff. Their ability to divide Democrats and motivate Republicans could position the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in an election that's theirs to lose. Here's where Hope comes in.

MichaelC, how about some statistics to show that Hillary voters are so loyal? Or is that asking too much, hmm? Until you produce some evidence, what I'm smelling ain't roses.

Wow, Obama wins Maine. Look, he isn't winning anywhere else except IL and GA if the polls are to be believed. He *loses* in CA, OH, TX, AZ, NY, PA, NJ, MD, TN, MO, MA, OK, CO, CT, AL, etc.

Obama's cooked, now that the Clintons have successfully made him a "black presidential candidate."

Wow, Obama wins Maine. Look, he isn't winning anywhere else except IL and GA if the polls are to be believed. He *loses* in CA, OH, TX, AZ, NY, PA, NJ, MD, TN, MO, MA, OK, CO, CT, AL, etc.

Obama's cooked, now that the Clintons have successfully made him a "black presidential candidate."

Wow, Obama wins Maine. Look, he isn't winning anywhere else except IL and GA if the polls are to be believed. He *loses* in CA, OH, TX, AZ, NY, PA, NJ, MD, TN, MO, MA, OK, CO, CT, AL, etc.

Obama's cooked, now that the Clintons have successfully made him a "black presidential candidate."

Your opinion of success is as pathetic as the Clinton's trying to create a diversion from the real issues at hand ProfNickD...

Where is their evidence Obama will be good for the USA? He doesn't hold any one job for any length of time. He certainly believes in change!!! ANYBODY WILL BE A CHANGE. Everybody was hoping for a change with Bush. THAT REALLY WORKED!!!(NOT)

Where is there evidence Obama will be good for the USA? He doesn't hold any one job for any length of time. He certainly believes in change!!! ANYBODY WILL BE A CHANGE. Everybody was hoping for a change with Bush. THAT REALLY WORKED!!!(NOT)

The delegates game. Yet another example that Clinton's campaign is trying to undermine Obama's campaign. Just as she is trying distort his position on Iraq when he clearly showed better judgement in 2002 besides trying to distort the fact that she has "35 yrs" experience. Clinton went into politics in 2000 AFTER Obama became a state senator in 1996! It is amusing to observe Hillary and even the GOP candidates hopping on the "CHANGE" wagon eons after Obama originally deployed it as his theme for campaigning. Hillary will use all tactics available no matter how staged it looks. It was pathetic to see that Clinton staffers placed a bunch of young people behind her podium at her NH victory speech whereas her true nature is to surround herself from relics of the 1990s as she did in the Iowa concession speech. Does she really think that switch in backdrop would escape the notice of voters and insult our intelligence that she's has younger voters in mind? DistortingObama's record, slapping on 'CHANGE' to the 'EXPERIENCE' slogan after advice from pundits and observations from polls yet again shows that she will use all available tactics to win the race...now she's trying to bring FL into the picture to regain momentum after a devastating SC loss.

Ok - perhaps looking a little too far forward here - but something to think about anyway.

I'm hearing rumours that John Edwards is going to take the Attorney General role in an Obama Admin, which is a bit of a shame because he has an important core value that would help a lot with him being a running mate - namely that he raised campaign funds outside of the status quo.

Although Clinton supporters are touting a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket - I really think her baggage would be the kiss of death for Obama being elected. There is no way, no how, that Clinton should be on the ticket.

So if Edwards get the AG role, who would be an ok choice for VP? Kerry comes to mind, someone who has come out and supported Obama and is all in all pretty non-offensive.

I'm concerned - ok paranoid - that certain members of the status quo would seek to 'take out' Obama, pass it off to some KKK hick or something, but orchestrate it nonetheless. In such an event, the person who is next in line needs to be someone who can carry on Obama's positions and not revert to the Status Quo.

I'm becoming increasingly offended by the tendency for journalists to treat the Michigan and Florida votes as anything meaningful.

One of the fundamental principles of this nation is that candidates for office have freedom of speech before an election. In Florida and Michigan, for practical purposes, they don't.

The argument that the strength of Obama's or Edwards' candidacy should be measured by their performance in a state where they cannot campaign is truly antidemocratic and disgusting.

Where is the evidence that Obama would be good for the USA you say?

Allow me to take you back to the 19th c. for a moment. There was a legislator from Illinois who eventually decide he wanted to run for President of the U.S.A., but his party refused to support him much, even long before he made the decision to run. Having missed 30 roll call votes out of a possible 456, he packed off with his wife and kids and returned to Illinois, even though he had no job to go back to, with nothing more or less to add to his resume than two years in the House of Representatives.

You may think that Barack Obama, another man from Illinois, doesn't have the qualifications to be president (Harvard degree to the contrary). So you wouldn't think the other guy identified above had the qualifications either, right? You know, the guy sometimes refered to with that phat old reverance as The Man From Illinois, President Abraham Lincoln.

Most young Americans do not remember or were not born yet when Clinton was in the office - America was in good shape. No war, economy strong, wages increased after decades of Republican mis-rule (yes Reagan did not increase wages). Most young people belive what this Republican war-mongers tell them about cliches w/ the Clintons. - Ask your parents whether Reps or Dems wheter they made tons of Money during the Clinton years - you'll be surprised - you INGRATE Americans. 8 years from now Obama may or may not be a potential President. But I'll stick with the tried and tested instead of wiching for the impossible - America is still a WHITE run country - do not discount the REPS who are nasty as hell - who won't even acknowledge that they became filty rich during the Clinton years and also the crossover DEMS who became filthy rich and the became Independents.
America is in shambles because of these REPS and INDies who voted for Bush.. but LOOK SEE nobody is blaming the bugger now... He's still smiling...
Hahahaha...
Bravo Mike Charlie

iT IS A SHAME THAT SOME PEOPLE CALL hILLARY A LIER CHEAT, This women is great she proved it as a senator in NY, she helped many many individuals.
Obama was on drugs and what makes people think that he is clean now, if he gets into the white house I am sure he will turn to drugs again.

In reading the comments listed here is pure nonense. We need a president Hillary who will make the right decisions.

The last thing we need is an Idealist (Obama) as president. Idealists are unpredictable and dangerous. At this juncture we need a known quantity, which is Hillary. This is not about who is "best" or more about "change", this is about who is least likely to push "the button".

If you are at all on the fence, please read this brilliant article about the differences in Obama's and Clinton's leadership styles. She views the Presidency as a goal whereas he sees it as a means of transforming society.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/28/080128fa_fact_packer

Even former President of Chicago NOW is fed up with Clinton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

Clinton is doing anything she can, and I personally will find it hard to vote for her in the general election if she wins the nomination. I really hope that doesn't happen.