An Obama Memo: Sweep

Wouldn't say that Maine was an upset per se, but I did suspect that it would be closer than it turned out to be.

TO: Interested Parties

FR: David Plouffe

RE: Upset in Maine Caps Off Weekend Sweep

DA: February 10, 2008

Read the memo after the jump.

By the numbers:

Projected pledged delegates won in Maine: Obama – 15; Clinton – 9

Obama’s current lead over Clinton: 84 pledged delegates (a total that increased 57 this weekend)

Pledged delegates: Obama – 1030; Clinton – 946 (the increase is reflected by gains in Maine and totals that were revised upward from yesterday’s results – see chart below)

States won: Obama – 20; Clinton – 11

Primaries won: Obama – 9; Clinton – 9 (With New Mexico still in question)

Caucuses won: Obama 11; Clinton – 2

Today, Obama won an upset victory in Maine, a state where internal and external polls had Clinton leading in the days leading up to the caucuses. Obama is projected to win 15 delegates to Clinton’s 9, capping off an Obama sweep of this weekend’s contests.

Barack Obama has won nearly twice as many states as Hillary Clinton. He won a Red State, Purple State, and Blue States this weekend – showing he has broad national appeal and can win in every corner of this country. Obama has now won 20 contests to Clinton’s 11; he’s won a larger share of the popular vote; and he’s projected to more than triple his current pledged delegate lead since Super Tuesday from 27 pledged delegates to 84, a net gain of 57 pledged delegates.

This weekend’s net gain of 57 pledged delegates represents more than the 42 delegate net gain that Clinton won in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Tennessee and Arizona – combined.

While Obama’s victories demonstrate his broad national appeal, he still faces an uphill battle in every upcoming contest because the Clintons are far better known and have a political machine that’s been honed over two decades. But the more voters get to know Obama and his message of change, the more they support him, which bodes well for the upcoming primaries.

Obama’s victories reflect what a recent Time poll confirmed the other day – that he is the candidate best suited to win Independents, play well in Red States, and beat John McCain in November. As the nominee, Obama will also help down-ballot Democrats get elected to Congress across the country, especially in those Red States where Democrats haven’t fared well for decades. So Obama won’t just win an election, he’ll win a new majority for change, so we can finally solve the problems we’ve been talking about for decades.

Comments

Of course, Clinton not keeping it close in Maine means Obama gets a net of 6 pledged delegates. Upset or not, I suspect that is a very pleasant surprise for the Obama Campaign (and an unpleasant one for Clinton).

Posted by DTM | February 10, 2008 8:30 PM

Wouldn't say that Maine was an upset per se

Not an upset? But he was able to overcome the formidable "Baldacci Machine!"

Posted by cd6 | February 10, 2008 8:30 PM

The dismissive tone with which you are treating this victory is hilarious (especially since the results contradict what you said earlier, concerning the difficulties Obama would face) - giving it barely more than a sentence and burying it under a lengthy post on Patti Solis Doyle's resignation.

Though these caucuses may seem "undemocratic" to you, the wins which Obama has been producing on the back of superior organization and far more ardent supporters, are far bigger stories than the internal soap opera of the Clinton campaign.

Posted by Julien | February 10, 2008 8:34 PM

I like reading Ambinder, but I do think the blogging here has been biased toward Clinton. Not a big deal -- Ambinder's blogging compares favorably to Andrew Sullivan, who reads like a pretentious college student trying to blog his way into the Obama campaign -- but I note only that Ambinder has been under-blogging Obama's victories and over-blogging Clinton's perceived strengths and Obama's perceived weaknesses with the patina of objectivity. Not objective, to say the least, and the really bad judgment call on Obama not being able to win primaries with a normal Democractic voting base (read Yglesias' counter, he's right) is a case in point. Just come out for Clinton and be done with it. No one cares, you're entitled to your opinion.

Posted by Chris | February 10, 2008 8:44 PM

Not an upset? I believe your exact words were "Don't automatically assume that Barack Obama will win these caucuses." So if we weren't supposed to assume that, what should we have assumed? That Clinton would win? That it would be close? Neither turned out to be the case, so based on your predictions, it WOULD be considered an upset, no?

Posted by Fred App | February 10, 2008 9:09 PM

How is this not an upset when the last poll in the state had Clinton up by a 37-point margin and the demographics of the state overwhelmingly favored Clinton?

Methinks thou doth protest too much, Mr. Ambinder.

Posted by Col | February 10, 2008 9:16 PM

Not an upset? He won in a Northeastern state predominated by poor white people. He was behind in pre-caucus polls. The scope of the victory was very surprising. In some respects, this is potentially a very good indication of a change in the political landscape.

Posted by John D. | February 10, 2008 9:19 PM

Marc,

In October 2007, Clinton led Obama 46 to 10. Today he won 59 to 41. From 36 points down to 18 points up . . . 54 points of movement relative to his opponent. Not only that, it's a closed primary in a state with an aging and predominantly white electorate. Not an upset?

Helllloooo Ambinder? Hellloooo McFly?

Posted by southpaw | February 10, 2008 9:20 PM

Let's see: a 99% white state that an African-American carried by 17 points despite the state political heads organizing for his opponent.

Two weeks ago, that would be considered quite the upset. I don't think Jesse Jackson did that.

Posted by Chris R | February 10, 2008 9:21 PM

As I had projected on another forum Obama has the big Mo and there is nothing Hillary can do about it. Obama will beat Hillary in Texas and all the contests on March 4th. In politics you cannot beat the buzz that he is generating.
Maine was the decided that showed that the momentum he gained last Tuesday is unstoppable.
The superdelegates will try to pull Hillary's way but by March 4th they will have no option but to pledge for Obama.

Posted by Joseph | February 10, 2008 9:26 PM

Clearly the uneven Caucus divide highlights the fact that caucus voting does not work. It is totally out of proportion to primary voting and demonstrates that voting should be confidential, to ensure that those voting are not unduly influenced.

Posted by Michael Dunne | February 10, 2008 9:30 PM

Thank you David Plouffe! :) Obama is winning in seated delegates, which is another word for delegates elected by voters. However, CNN and others still flash on the screen the overall delegate totals which include super-delegates who are party insiders, higher ups... Washington. Aren't we trying to "change" Washington? Super-delegates should respect the will of the voters and help us nominate the one who win's the majority of the "voter's delegates" and who is best to win in November. Yes, we can.

Posted by Blake | February 10, 2008 9:33 PM

Thank you David Plouffe! :) Obama is winning in seated delegates, which is another word for delegates elected by voters. However, CNN and others still flash on the screen the overall delegate totals which include super-delegates who are party insiders, higher ups... Washington. Aren't we trying to "change" Washington? Super-delegates should respect the will of the voters and help us nominate the one who win's the majority of the "voter's delegates" and who is best to win in November. Yes, we can.

Posted by Blake | February 10, 2008 9:33 PM

It is worth noting that though the Maine Dem voting today was called "caucuses" they are not quite the same type of caucuses as in many other states - namely you could vote in them Absentee (and apparently some 4000 people did) and you could show up and vote and then leave.

What the caucuses were for was to AFTER the voting determine who would be the delegates - but the voting (a single vote including abstentee ballots) determined the winners.

[I'm an Obama supporter, voted for him when I lived in Chicago and again in the recent CA primaries, though I'm an independent not a registered Dem]

Posted by Shannon Clark | February 10, 2008 9:38 PM

marc i think you are REALLY missing the significane of this. maine is a blue collar largely white state with a strong contingent of women voters, that she should lose by 20% even if it was a caucus is stunning. it is more than an upset, it is an admission that clinton is basically planning a fire line at ohio and texas and has given up on the earlier states which is BIG mistake. the PSD makes sense if she wants to fight for the latina vote in tex. i have lived in the towns obama won and I was floored when i read the returns (both in terms of turn out and that obama eeked out a victory). incredible. if you read the testimonials on the maine caucuses i would be very worried if i were clinton. also tewes is in ohio, so expect them to be ready to keep it close there.

Posted by JC | February 10, 2008 11:02 PM

What's stunning is not that Obama won, but that Obama won in a state Hillary targeted and extensively campaigned in, with media, in person and by proxy. The Saturday victories were perhaps to be expected, given that Clinton basically punted in NE and LA, and didn't spend a whole lot of time & money in WA.

But Clinton (perhaps swayed by the leaked Obama spreadsheet showing her winning in Maine?) threw everything she had at Maine and still lost by NINETEEN percent.

That's what momentum does, folks.

Now, with the Potomac primaries poised to go to Obama as well, he's going to have a string of eight in a row (counting the 90-7 massacre in the Virgin Islands). Clinton will not win another state. She's toast. It's all about momentum.

Posted by Keith Pickering | February 11, 2008 12:09 AM

Momentum has been quite overrated in this campaign. Neither side had been able to effectively build on wins. That may be happening now with Obama, we'll see. However, I wonder if any apparent "momentum" really has more to do with the Repubs solidifying their choice. It's not hypothetical anymore. The worst possible person for Hillary to run against is going to be the nominee. I wonder if undecideds are breaking for him because of that.

Posted by evie | February 11, 2008 12:22 AM

The "Dumbing Down of America" continues. First with the "understating" of Obama's victories this weekend and then later with the celebration of stupidity and bad taste on the Grammies.
Why do the American people despise intellectual and cultural achievement and why do we celebrate stupidity with such enthusiasm? Have we learned nothing from the Bush fiasco? Are we we doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over and...?

Posted by mythster | February 11, 2008 12:29 AM

It's not about momentum, it's about exposure. When people get a full dose of both campaigns' messages, they break for Barack. That's why he wins caucuses - you have to hear Obama's message before you vote. That's why he wins small states - he can reach more of the voters in a short time with little money. Clinton was the default candidate, due to name recognition from her husband's presidency. As the campaign has gone national and dragged on, people haven't been able to help but hear from Obama, and they like what he's saying. That's why he's going to keep winning, up to and including Ohio and Texas. Not momentum. Exposure.

Posted by Steve Collins | February 11, 2008 1:08 AM

Colin Powell didn't stand up when the country needed him. We needed him to expose Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld as liars. He just towed the party line. He doesn't deserve to be associated with Obama. Some people say he would be a good running mate for Obama but this would be disastrous to the grass roots democrats that are hoping for someone like Al Gore or Howard Dean.

Posted by tom paine | February 11, 2008 1:52 AM

Hillary's latest schtik is assuring us she can
take ANYTHING thrown at her. She certainly
"took" everything her husband did...and there's
nary a mark on her. I guess that's reason enough
to vote for her. Her campaign is looking more
and more like a fading vaudeville act and we
know what the audiences did in the good old days,don't we? Let he who is without sin
cast the first rotten tomato.

Posted by interferon | February 11, 2008 2:17 AM

Hey Clintonistas, momentum is ephemeral. The
Democrats will come back to Hillary soon...to ensure Bilbo's third term...and all will be
right with the world! To have them back in
the White House would be a welcomed breath
of fresh air...n'est-ce pas?

Posted by magma cum loudie | February 11, 2008 2:39 AM

That spreadsheet "mistakenly" leaked by the Obama campaign is what u call the work of a sadistic genius. Tamp down expctations growing at ridiculous pace while pretending it was an error.

Posted by that spreadsheet | February 11, 2008 3:50 AM

Now, now, let's not go calling for Obama to liberalize his ticket by choosing Dean or someone of his ilk as a running mate if this all works out. Neither Colin Powell nor Al Gore would dream of running for VP, so that's not worth talking about, either.

If he wins the nomination, which unfortunately is not yet certain due to the party machine OF Howard Dean, et. al., he will almost certainly select someone who is relatively below-the-radar, like a Governor, rather than a well-worn partisan Hack who would turn off the very independents he has been attracting.

Consider two possibilities: (1) former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, former Pres. candidate who is now Hillary's campaign co-chair; or (2) current VA Gov. Tim Kaine, a fellow Harvard Law grad who is Roman Catholic and would give Obama a decent shot at a big red state in the fall.

Posted by T.K. | February 11, 2008 7:14 AM

I agree with evie and Steve: what we are seeing probably has little to do with "momentum" in the ordinary sense of the term. Rather, I think the relevant voters are gradually becoming more and more knowledgable about and comfortable with Obama, and at the same time realizing he has the stronger argument when it comes to who would do best against McCain.

The only notable sense in which Obama winning this string of states might feed into this dynamic is that it does help demonstrate his competence at running a 50 state campaign and at getting his supporters out to vote, which in turn is part of why he would be the better candidate against McCain. But to the extent that helps make his case to voters in later contests, it is more a matter of those voters getting relevant information about him than momentum in the "bandwagon" sense.

Posted by DTM | February 11, 2008 7:51 AM

A difference between Maine and New Hampshire, apart from one being a caucus and the other a primary, is that there are significantly fewer Catholics in Maine. In northern states a great many of the people who are less inclined for change in the Democatic party are Catholics. The people who are less inclined for change among non-Catholics are more likely to be Republicans. Longstandingly Catholics in northern states are Democrats and now at this point in time they constitute a more traditional or less dynamic, and more elderly, section of the party. They think the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know; they prefer 'Billary'.

Last Tuesday Obama LOST in his home state of Illinois among Catholics according to the Illinois exit poll.

The state of Ohio has one of the lowest percentages of Catholics among northern states, namely 19%. This compares with 25% in Maine, 29% in Illinois, 32% in Connecticut, 35% in NH, 37% in NJ, 38% in NY, 44% in Mass. The Republican party is stronger in Ohio because of the lower numbers of Cathlics there. But this also means Obama doesn't have to suffer in Ohio from as strong a turnout for Hillary among the old-time Democrats as he did in the northeastern states last Tuesday.

Posted by Obama should win easily in Ohio | February 11, 2008 12:48 PM

I am twelve an dad gave me a new crowcall. I
am tryng to do the Hilary skwauk. He says to
call Mark pen to learn how. He told me that
that guy is dum. I like crows. Hilary
sounds like them . I like her voyce. i am
to youg to vot.

Posted by bowie knife | February 12, 2008 1:02 AM

New Mexico is a caucus. That fact is the main reason it is still in question.

Posted by Anonymous | February 12, 2008 7:47 AM