Existential Realities Of The Democratic Race

Q. What does "win" mean?

A. The winner of the Democratic nomination is not the person who wins the most states, not the person who wins the most votes, is not the person who gives the best speeches... it's the person who wins 2024 (25? -- we're not sure yet) delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Q. Can Hillary Clinton win the nomination?

A. Maybe.

Q. Can you be more specific? Is it mathematically possible for her to win the nomination?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it likely that she will win the nomination?

A. Based on the math alone and a reasonable projection of external events, no.

Q. But you said it's possible.

A. Yes. But lots of things have to break her way. If, say, voting ends and the press discovers that Obama has a secret second family in Idaho and all his superdelegates abandon him; if, for some reason, she wins 75% of the popular vote in the states after Ohio and Texas and half the remaining superdelegates; if, by slow attrition, he closes the delegate gap to about 70 and picks off two thirds of the remaining superdelegates; if the pledged (Obama) delegates concur with the credentials committee and seat the (Clintonian) Florida and Michigan delegations) -- then, yes, it's possible.

Q. So should she drop out?

A. I don't know. Obama's campaign emphasizes the math. The Clinton campaign emphasizes... well, the more external factors.

Q. Well, does Barack Obama's current pleged delegate lead reflect a big lead in terms of the preference of Democrats?

A. It reflects an edge -- but not a big one. According to Real Clear Politics's calculations, even without the votes of Floridians and Michiganders, for every ten Democrats who've voted for Barack Obama, nine have voted for Hillary Clinton. With the votes of Michigan and Florida Democrats factored in, the gap narrows to 288,476 -- or less than 2% of Obama's totals.

Q. Why is the pledged delegate gap so big, then?

A. Strategy and momentum and enthusiasm. Obama's campaign had the foresight to run up the delegate count in the organizable caucus states, betting on the fact that Clinton would not compete there. Obama's support seems to follow some sort of political's Boyle's law: as the pressure increases, the volume increases -- the more contained the support is, the more concentrated it is.

Q. Did HRC fail to live up to her own expectations?

A. Unquestionably. That's one of the main reasons why the Clinton campaign is having trouble selling their spin today. As the Obama campaign pointed out today, numerous Clinton officials projected that, by March 4, the campaigns would be roughly equal in terms of the delegate count.

Q. Will the Democratic Party unite, its expected nominee despite this infighting?

A. Unquestionably.

Q. Will the Democratic Party be hurt in the fall if Clinton stays in the race?

A. Hard to say. On the one hand, that's spin designed to pressure HRC to get out. On the other, if Obama wins the nomination, he may well have been softened up a bit by Clinton's frontal assault on his national security credentials.

Comments

I am an Obama supporter and I really want all this to be over soon but to be fair, it is better for future party unity if Hillary loses fair and square rather than being pressured to drop out.
It would avoid lingering ill-feelings and endless decade-long controversy and resentment.

Posted by Benjamin | March 3, 2008 5:59 PM

"if, by slow attrition, he closes the delegate gap to about 70 and picks off two thirds of the remaining superdelegates"

I think you mean "she closes the delegate gap"

Posted by Bill | March 3, 2008 6:08 PM

Excellent post -- it goes beyond the numbers into what, exactly, do the number "mean."

Just because the interpretations of the numbers may be open, I cannot see Clinton drop out unless she loses in *both* TX and OH.

Posted by ProfNickD | March 3, 2008 6:09 PM

Senator Clinton has a lot of loyal supporters, a lot of money, and a lot of delegates. She is absolutely entitled to stay in the race.

That said, the way she is chhosing to press her candidacy is cynical, divisive, and repugnant. Rather than advance arguments for her candidacy she has chosen instead to launch a succession of escalatingly hyperbolic attacks on Obama. She is damaging the party and her own reputation. Before February, I rather liked Clinton; but now, even though I am a dedicated Democrat and would never withhold my vote, I know that she, and if she wins then also the DNC, will never get a thin dime from me, and my money will instead go to the DSCC, the DCCC, and individual candidates.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 3, 2008 6:10 PM

Hillary has to win the pledged delegate lead (or come within 10-20) by 6/7 in order to be the nominee. Any other path to the nomination (superdelegates, FL/MI) would look too much like a re-run of Florida to Democratic primary voters. And you could forget about Obama supporters coming around to supporting her in November. That's why she has to win fair and square among primary voters in order to win.

Posted by Nate | March 3, 2008 6:10 PM

Marc I'm glad you brought the existential nature of this contest. yes, it's about math, but in so many ways it is not about the math that people think it is. The magical number is 2025 and neither Hillary or Obama can get there with pledged delegates alone.

With the race that close there is no way Hillary should drop out - the lack of "winner take all" goes both ways. She can't easily catch up on pledged delegates and Obama can't easily get more than 300 ahead.

This situation means a brokered convention is a must, and it is the obligation of the automatic delegates to stick with the Party Faithful and not endorse too soon.

The Party Faithful delegates know this.

Posted by Fred Agbot | March 3, 2008 6:23 PM

Marc - Bravo. This post reflects just the kind of clear-headed thinking and analysisn that is so sorely missing from discussions in the media at the moment.

Warren Terra - Great points and I agree with you 100%.

Fred Agbot - A brokered convention a must? That'a a ridiculous view. The use of the equally ridiculous phrase "automatic delegate" kind of gives you away. Embarassing.

Posted by zebra22 | March 3, 2008 6:34 PM

Marc - great post, but I fundamentally disagree with your second to last question: "Will the Democratic Party unite, its expected nominee despite this infighting?"

If Obama takes either Texas OR Ohio, unquestionably NOT.

If that outcome transpires, (and unless Obama does something catastrophically wrong or is hiding a Cedric Daniel's size skeleton in his closet), and Hillary receives the nomination, it will be perceived and portrayed as theft of the nomination. Whether this is right is another topic.

But if Obama wins in Texas or Ohio, he will have an insurmountable pledged delegate lead, a majority of the popular vote, and a heavy majority of state victories. Thus, among African Americans and the young, he will be considered the victor. And they will not forgive Hillary taking him from them.

Had things turned out differently post Super Tuesday, had she won even a few states, I would not be typing this this.

But with a Texas or Ohio loss, her only chance of a delegate victory would involve seating Florida and Michigan, and gain a considerable majority of Superdelegates.

And rest assured, if that happens, it will most certainly be considered nominee-theft by Hillary and co. and the Democratic party will splinter and we will lose in the general election by a large margin.

Posted by Its over | March 3, 2008 6:34 PM

I find it odd that Obama supporters seem so convinced that Clinton supporters are going to give Obama their full and enthusiastic support come the fall, if he wins the nomination. It seems to be completely based on faith, rather than reality. Obama supporters cannot understand why any Democrat wouldn't like Barack Obama, and that's being myopic.

Hillary Clinton isn't "damaging" the party by pointing out the obvious weaknesses in the Democratic front-runner, she's damaging the front-runner. If he can't take the attacks from Clinton, he won't be able to take them from McCain and the RNC.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 6:34 PM

If he can't take the attacks from Clinton, he won't be able to take them from McCain and the RNC.

I love this argument. It suggests that Hillary is a Republican. Which I would have argued against a few weeks ago but currently I'm coming to believe myself.

Earlier today she suggested that only she and McCain are experienced enough to be President. I love it. As Marc has outlined above, the only way she can win the nomination is to go all the way to the convention. She will continue to drop bombs on Obama, question his patriotism, his experience, his judgment, Rezko, everything. And then McCain will walk into the White House with a female VP and a majority House and Senate.

Viva la Democratic Party!

Posted by Craig | March 3, 2008 6:44 PM

Marc,
Thank you for your clear-headed analysis. This is really one of your best posts of the nominating season.

I think that if the delegate count after 3/4 is basically static, the superdelegates will bring this thing to an end. There will be increased movement to Obama and some very high profile endorsements. If this fight were more civil, they might give Clinton more time. But she has chosen to misrepresent Obama's positions, create fake issues, and insult Obama's supporters and the states he has won.

Posted by Suze | March 3, 2008 6:47 PM

Tim K: Hillary is damaging the Party by trying to force her cynical, old-school politics onto the obviously transformational candidacy of a fellow Democrat. Of course she can fight as long as she wants, but the shame is that she is fighting with arguments based on process, shrouded in deep arrogance.

Just saying.

Great post, Marc.

Posted by Betty in Baltimore | March 3, 2008 6:48 PM

The Obama campaign has done a HORRIBLE job managing expectations. Clinton had a 30 point lead in Texas and 20 or 30 point lead in Ohio a month ago.

Obama supporters should be jumping for joy at this moment. Clinton has not had a big negative moment (a la Monica Lewinsky) and she has lost big double digits lead. That's pretty incredible for Obama to erase those leads.

This nomination is about the number of delegates. Obama has played the game in terms of delegates, Clinton on big media spin.

We need to focus back on the delegates earned, Obama exceeding Clinton by 162.

I think it is wise the Obama has not announced his fundraising results for February. Probably would have raised the expectations even more.

Lastly, I really admire how clean Obama has been running this campaign, but I really wish he would have hit back harder on her Red Phone ad. She doesn't earn national security experience by sharing a bed with an adulterer.

Posted by Ann | March 3, 2008 6:54 PM

"...for every ten Democrats who've voted for Barack Obama, nine have voted for Hillary Clinton."

Not even close. Clinton leads by that margin among Democrats that have voted, or more; Obama only leads in delegates due to Republican crossover and Independents.

Posted by Jerome Armstrong | March 3, 2008 7:04 PM

Nice post overall, but your Boyle's law metaphor, "as the pressure increases, the volume increases" is a bit off. Boyle's law is a conservation principle which states that -- all other things being equal -- pressure and volume change inversely (N = PV). So if you decrease the volume of a gas, its pressure increases.

Perhaps you meant to say that, "as the volume decreases, the pressure increases?"

Posted by miked98 | March 3, 2008 7:04 PM

Great post, and easy to write too!

It's pretty sad that it probably would take a "secret second family in Idaho" to have an impact on the presidential race, rather than the MSM doing their job and making the candidates defend their policies.

So, here's a more difficult task for Ambinder: contact someone from a think tank for some good questions to ask the contenders. Then, go out and ask them. To make it even easier (no emailing required!) I've got some questions here. Just print out a page or two and read it to one of the candidates. Is that so difficult?

Posted by TLB | March 3, 2008 7:06 PM

Craig:

Okay, Let me get this straight. If someone criticizes Barack Obama it is proof they are, in fact, a Republican. If someone points out that John McCain is experienced, that's proof they are a Republican. If someone says they have more experience than Barack Obama, they're a Republican. Did I get that about right?

Betty:

Transformational candidacy? Could you be any more gullible? Make no mistake, Barack Obama is drenched in the Old-School politics of Chicago. Whether it's his ties to Tony Rezko, or the fact he won his first state senate contest by challenging his four opponents and having them removed from the ballot. Don't be fooled by a familiar and unrealistic promises of fundamental "change."

Ann:

There is no real distinction between pledged delegates "earned" and automatic delegates. Except perhaps in your own mind.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 7:06 PM

The Obama campaign has done a HORRIBLE job managing expectations. Clinton had a 30 point lead in Texas and 20 or 30 point lead in Ohio a month ago.

If Obama ultimately loses the nomination, he will deserve to have lost it for precisely this reason.

Not even close. Clinton leads by that margin among Democrats that have voted, or more; Obama only leads in delegates due to Republican crossover and Independents.

Source? Oh, exit polls? Oh my. How, er, interesting you would cite those as an authoritative source.

And besides, the Democratic primary electorate is composed of those persons designated by the various state parties. Trying to claim otherwise is more of the Calvinball nonsense that has besmirched the HRC campaign as of late.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 3, 2008 7:11 PM

Marc I have quoted you elsewhere as being one of the journalists along with Chuck Todd at MSNBC - who is cutting through the fog of war and helping everyone focus on what is really involved with either candidate taking the nomination at this point.
So congratulations, another great post. Keep it up.

Come wednesday, Obama will have more of a pledged delegate lead than he does today. After next Wednesday it will be even more. Perhaps as much as 180.

I believe the tone of his campaign will change and he will take Hillary to task on many levels. The issue facing the Party is what exactly is a path Hillary proposes to diminish that lead in any significant way between now an June 7th.

What does the path really entail. Not only is it likely to be successful, but is it likely to be good for the Party or damaging to the Party and it's nominee.

These are hard cold questions, that the media would do well to help everyone process.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 3, 2008 7:12 PM

As an aside, spin, the expectations game, etc., really don't matter much anymore. There are too few contests left, and the dynamics are too well-established, for any of that marginal gameplaying to have a significant effect on the ultimate outcome.

Anyway, I personally think the idea that Clinton is hurting Obama by staying in past any reasonable possibility of her winning the nomination is overblown. If she had a good way to significantly weaken Obama, she would have used it long ago--she just doesn't. Meanwhile, Obama's head-to-head numbers against McCain tend to improve in places he has campaigned, and the remaining slate of states will likely result in a lot more "Obama Wins" headlines.

The only big problem I see is that Obama is using money to deal with Clinton that he could be using to deal with McCain directly. But as noted, the indirect effects of the primary campaign seem to benefit Obama against McCain, and in any event money is not going to be much of an issue for Obama.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 7:19 PM

The bottom line is that if Clinton wins the popular vote in Ohio and Texas (the primary) then the race goes on. No question... no matter what Obama supporting elected officials have to say about it. Then we have a six week campaign for the Pennsylvania primary where Clinton has the support of Ed Rendell. There will probably be pressure on Obama for more debates, there will be the Rezko trial fully underway, and I would expect further emphasis on experience and national security.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 7:30 PM

I've argued and argued against the Clinton machine, but there is no argument that will make them lose. There is still a hugh number of voters who will not look straightforwardly at both Clinton and Obama.

Some arguments that should have sunk the Clinton campaign:

Dynasty-bush/clinton/bush/clinton? Nope
War vote: Doesn't matter
Bill Clinton's negative role: been there, done that
Campaign tactics: They all do it
Bill and/or Hillary's financial matters (Foundation, Tax returns): Move along, Move along, there is nothing to see folks.
Campaign competence: Too inside the beltway.
Historic candidacy of an African-American: Not so special, she is historic too.
National security compentency: Thin, but remember she has Bill to handle the big stuff.
Judgement: Obama's a smart aleck, not a brainiac. Besides, he wasn't on the front line, so his opinion doesn't matter.
Voting like a Repulican: That is the game in Washington, live with it.

I don't think this is going to end well for Obama. But I truly believe that the Democrats are the losers here. There was a transformative opportunity, but sadly, cynical politics wins the day. Comparable politics? Nixon defeats Reagan in the primary. Politics as usual decides that Obama should wait his turn. Good luck getting anything done in Washington for the forseeable future. 50+1 all the way baby.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 3, 2008 7:34 PM

Tim K,

You left out Wyoming on March 8 and Mississippi on March 11. And, for that matter, you left out Vermont and Rhode Island tomorrow.

In general, one would think that by this point, people would have learned not to overlook any states.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 7:34 PM

I concur with Suze--two weeks ago the goal posts were to really close the delegate gap. If it moves by 10, and then MS and WY undo it, nothing happened on that promise.

Jeff Larson, I can't believe you want to use election results and vote counting to select the nominee, rather than exit polling in select states.

The problem with Clinton staying in isn't that she'll damage Obama--it's not like there's anything she can say the Republicans won't think up. The damage is to everyone up and down the ticket, by all the voter insulting that's required. "You don't count, and you don't count, and who cares what those people think? We'll sue if you announce election results!"

Posted by Deborah | March 3, 2008 7:40 PM

DTM: didn't you hear? Small states don't matter.

Posted by Zephyrus | March 3, 2008 7:44 PM

Deborah,

But the person saying all that is likely going to lose, and Obama is going to get even more opportunities to associate himself with all those insulted states and voters. So I think the net result is actually good for downticket Democrats (but only if Obama does in fact win the nomination).

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 7:49 PM

I think the point is that the Clinton campaign set out right after Super Tuesday to make Ohio and Texas the test, and they have succeeded in doing so. After tomorrow they will set out to convince the press corp that Pennsylvania is the next test, and I predict they will again succeed at that.

As incompetent as many of you claim the Clinton team is, they have totally beat the Obama campaign at the expectations game.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 7:52 PM

"for every ten Democrats who've voted for Barack Obama, nine have voted for Hillary Clinton."

FALSE. Hillary Clinton has won among Democrats overall 50-46. The only reason Obama is ahead in total votes is because of Independents and cross-over Republicans who hate Hillary.

The press made a huge deal (back when the Republican primary was still going on) about McCain winning several states only because of Independents. When the same issue arises in the Democratic primary they say nothing.

Posted by Jamilla | March 3, 2008 7:53 PM

Hillary has already damaged the Democratic party with her constant dismissal of states and voters that don't count because they are not big enough or blue enough. If you are new to the democratic party and did not vote for Hillary people like Jerome think your vote should not count.

Posted by bjd | March 3, 2008 7:57 PM

FALSE. Hillary Clinton has won among Democrats overall 50-46. The only reason Obama is ahead in total votes is because of Independents and cross-over Republicans who hate Hillary.

Source? Oh, exit polls? Oh my. How, er, interesting you would cite those as an authoritative source.

And besides, the Democratic primary electorate is composed of those persons designated by the various state parties. Trying to claim otherwise is more of the Calvinball nonsense that has besmirched the HRC campaign as of late.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 3, 2008 7:58 PM

Tim K,

But who cares about expectations? If it isn't getting her actual delegates, it just doesn't matter.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 8:00 PM

How fickle you people are. Blowing the way the wind blows one way. Obama has WON 11 straight contest in very high margins. She has only won 1 state in high margins. If it was anyone else but 'her' then this thing would be over. If Obama wins TX then the 'elders' should call this on Wednesday and state that HRC should suspend her campaign.

Apart from Dodd and Obama, how selfish the other Democractic candidates have been. While even Giuliani and Romney have come for the party. The Dems have dissapointed me.
If Obama wins TX and it is not declared he is the nominee.
I'm throwing away my party card.

Posted by Alex Kaman | March 3, 2008 8:11 PM

I just love the argument that Obama only leads in votes due to independents and Republicans being willing to vote for him. Like it's a bad thing to have support outside the party. (Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that it's actually accurate.) I especially love it when I am hearing today about Republicans in Texas planning to vote for Clinton -- because they think she would make an easier opponent in November.

Face it, Obama's greatest strength is that he can pull votes from beyond the Democratic party. Which means that he has a chance to not only win in November, but to win big. Clinton, on the other hand, seems to be saying that she would be happy to concede the independents (and some Democrats, although she doesn't mention that) to McCain in November. Which sounds like a good way to lose gloriously. And a year ago, who would have suspected that losing in November would even be a possibility for the Democratic nominee? But if anyone can do it, Clinton is the one.

Posted by wj | March 3, 2008 8:12 PM

Right, the theory behind open primaries is that they help build the party and select nominees who are more likely to appeal to the general electorate.

And by all indications, that is working.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 8:17 PM

DTM:

Well it does matter because it affects the campaign coverage to a huge degree. But I think you'll find tomorrow it will be getting her delegates.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 8:28 PM

Tim K,
How many delegates does she net tomorrow?

Posted by bjd | March 3, 2008 8:34 PM

[i]Q. Will the Democratic Party unite, its expected nominee despite this infighting?

A. Unquestionably.[/i]

If she wins by using supper delegates to overrule the pledged delegates don't count on it.

Posted by Steve | March 3, 2008 8:36 PM

Tim K,

Right, I understood your point to be that the Clinton Campaign has managed to get the media to play up the importance of her "winning" these contests--although that wasn't exactly a tough sell.

But why do you think that manipulation of a compliant media is actually getting her delegates? In fact, she was up much farther in the polls before she started playing these expectation games, so if anything it looks like her strategy is hurting her delegate count.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 8:38 PM

"there will be the Rezko trial fully underway,"

Oh sure, Tim K. And then all Obama has to do is mention Norman Hsu and the countless other corrupt fundraisers that have supported Hillary (and their own trials), not to mention Hillary's refusal to turn over her income tax returns or allow access to the Clinton library. Oh and BTW, Rezko gave money to Clinton supporters as well as to Obama. So you are officially FOS.

Frankly, as a yellow-dog Democrat, I just want this damn nominating contest to be over soon. We need to focus our efforts on confronting McCain and winning the White House in November. If Hillary doesn't win both Ohio and Texas by a very large margin, then she should drop out, period, for the good of the party. It is basically mathematically impossible for her to get a delegate lead over Obama, obviously in pledged delegates but even with Superdelegates (who are increasingly favoring Obama).

She has already lost 11 straight states, after being just about even with Obama before. If it were any candidate, the media would be inveighing against her to drop out. She needs to put the party and the country ahead of herself, and unite behind the candidate who is winning in all three categories-- states, votes and delegates.

Posted by Sally H | March 3, 2008 8:40 PM

Sally:

Well you are officially an hysterical, vulgar and foul-mouthed individual I see no reason responding to.

DTM:

I meant I think she'll win delegates tomorrow by winning Ohio decisively, and winning the Texas primary. It's not the spin that wins delegates, but it's the spin that helps magnify the perception of victory.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 8:51 PM

I think that if the delegate count after 3/4 is basically static, the superdelegates will bring this thing to an end. There will be increased movement to Obama and some very high profile endorsements.

If Obama wins Ohio it's over. If Obama wins Texas -- even by the narrowest of popular vote margins -- it's probably over, too, within a short while, because of the scenario suggested by the above commenter (superdelegate movement to Obama, and public pressure for Clinton to quit the race).

However, IF she wins both Texas and Ohio (and that probably means taking 3 out of 4, because Hillary will win Rhode Island if she's having a good night in general) I doubt there will be much in the way of effective "pressure" for her to concede, nor any longer much movement in the way of superdelegates toward Obama.

Indeed, given Hillary's popularity with many party activists, she may well win a clutch of new superdelegate pledges. After all, it stands to reason that there have to exist some Clinton leaners who have been reluctant to get on the wrong side of the eventual nominee/future president (should that be Obama), and have therefore been holding off on declaring for Hillary, because it's been looking like she's a lost cause.

If she goes three for four tomorrow, she'll no longer look like a lost cause.

Posted by Igloo | March 3, 2008 8:53 PM

Tim K,

And again I ask: why does this "perception of victory" matter? She needs an actual real victory in delegates, and at this point it needs to be a landslide victory. A mere "perception of victory" without a real delegate victory of the kind she needs isn't going to cut it.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 8:57 PM

I've said it elsewhere, I'll say it here:

Here’s how Hillary wins without gaining a majority of pledged delegates:

A) She wins tomorrow in overall popular vote, exceeding expectations in one or both big states;

B) John McCain stabilizes or widens a national polling lead over both candidates, with other polls confirming Rasmussen’s daily track showing him now further ahead of Barack than Hillary;

C) the media continue piling on, confirming

D) that the Obama bubble has burst - empty seats are photographed at formerly standing room only Obama rallies;

E) Rezko, Wright, scary Michelle, Naftagate, Born Alive Act, furthest left in the Senate, no history of bi-partisanship, and so on, and so on, and more, continue to bubble - even if none of them or something new doesn’t turn totally disqualifying;

F) Hillary cruises to a decisive victory in Pennsylvania, does well in other states up to and including Puerto Rico.

G) The pressure on the Super-Ds reverses from “confirm Obama’s victory” to “save us from the Pied Piper - we are so over it!”

Could happen. May even be in the cards. Certainly seems a lot more possible to me today than it did a week ago. With more luck - e.g., major Rezko bombshell - she might even win the pledged delegates, unlikely as the percentages look right now.

As for FL and MI re-votes, they may also play a role, but I suspect they won't take place until either they don't matter at all or they've come to seem necessary. Hillary might want them if the momentum's turned her away overall, and she thinks they'd strengthen her position.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 3, 2008 8:59 PM

Igloo,

Unless she actually significantly cuts into Obama's pledged lead tomorrow, I don't see why the superdelegates would be inclined to rush to her side. Indeed, if it was "winning" a few hand-picked big states that they were waiting for, well, Clinton already gave them that on Super Tuesday. So why would a few more such "wins" that don't get her substantially closer to actually winning the delegate contest make a difference to any currently uncommitted superdelegates?

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:02 PM

And then all Obama has to do is mention Norman Hsu and the countless other corrupt fundraisers that have supported Hillary (and their own trials)...

Yes, but people already have a perception of what they're getting with Clinton, because she's very much been in the public eye for the last fifteen years. Revelations of scandal -- especially involving people with ties to middle eastern money -- are far more damaging to political neophytes. There's a lot of truth to the notion that Hillary has been thoroughly vetted.

Posted by Igloo | March 3, 2008 9:03 PM

CK MacLeod,

Or lightning could come out of the clear blue sky and strike Obama down. Don't forget that possibility.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:06 PM

Igloo,

Yeah, but the "you already know I am a lot dirtier than Obama ever dreamed of being" line of attack doesn't seem to be doing it for her.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:09 PM

Did anyone see her on TV today where she practically endorsed John McCain?? She said 'I and John McCain have the experience and Barack Obama has a speech in 2002'.If I had my hands on that bitch. She wouldn't know what hit her.

Posted by Kathy Millet | March 3, 2008 9:16 PM

Or lightning could come out of the clear blue sky and strike Obama down. Don't forget that possibility.

I'd include that under the category of "something new... totally disqualifying."

Bolts from the blue do happen. Some of Obama's biggest fans have created their own rather pornographic journalistic sub-genre out of Obama assassination nightmares, for instance. Most grown-ups don't need to be reminded.

Still, I don't thing any of the main elements of a Hillary comeback as I outlined rely on anything so extraordinary. Certainly none of them is any more extraordinary than what we've already seen this year. Bottom line: Short of an unprecedented electoral miracle, neither Hillary nor Obama is going to win just on the basis of delegates apportioned by popular votes and caucuses.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 3, 2008 9:24 PM

DTM:

Yeah but now we're seeing more and more of the dirt on Obama. It's not "well... uhh... maybe there's some dirt out there." We're seeing the dirt. That's the difference we're now beginning to see and will continue to see in the days ahead.

We're going to have a lot of blue-collar Democrats going to the polls in the weeks ahead in states like Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virgina and North Carolina. Senator Clinton has to make the argument that Barack Obama is a wimp on national security and can't go toe-to-toe with John McCain and won't be up to the job. Her campaign should say "Barack Obama wants to talk to Admadinejad without preconditions... a holocaust denier, who said he wants to blow Israel off the map... that's ridiculous."

Also she can make the argument that there have been two Democratic presidents over the past 40 years. One was Jimmy Carter and the other was Bill Clinton. She's with Bill Clinton, a moderate and mainstream Democrat who led a successful Democratic presidency. Barack Obama is like Jimmy Carter. Inexperienced, wobbly, naive. He was a nice man, he wanted to do well... but was a total disaster for America and the Democratic party.

Let's not make that error again.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 9:25 PM

So why would a few more such "wins" that don't get her substantially closer to actually winning the delegate contest make a difference to any currently uncommitted superdelegates?

Because a Clinton victory in three of four states tomorrow would drive home the reality that Obama, too, is far from "winning the delegate contest" if by "winning" you mean gaining a nominating majority. Insisting that the Democratic nomination must necessarily go the gainer of a plurality of pledged delegates does not make it so. And the thing is, momentum is a fickle mistress. Senator Obama's campaign has been portrayed by the media as having built up such an utterly commanding degree of momentum that losses tomorrow will (perhaps unfairly) be magnified far out of proportion to their normative value.

As Jennifer Rubin (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/2769) writes:

So if she should win Texas and Ohio there will be a gasp from the media (not to mention some of those superdelegates) who will then have to discard the Obama-mania, invincibility argument and absorb the new storyline: she’s baaaaaack. True, she won’t reach 2025 delegates by June, but the fact remains–neither will he. Momentum, press spin and the appearance that Obama can not take a punch will weigh heavily on those superdelegates. Oh, and with a little help from Governor Crist (hmm, who’s he trying to help?) the race could be extended by a do-over in Florida.

But why are we even having this discussion? You're not really worried, right? I thought Obama was already the nominee. Heck, we might as well skip Denver.

Posted by Igloo | March 3, 2008 9:26 PM

"For every ten Democrats who've voted for Barack Obama, nine have voted for Hillary Clinton."

Marc, in electionland, that's a big lead. It cannot be erased. And it's the only lead that counts.

Posted by phillygirl | March 3, 2008 9:30 PM

I just don't understand why any of the media coverage, or momentum, or even Rezko is at all relevant. Hypothetically lets say that Hillary pulls off Texas and Ohio tomorrow. She nets 15 or 20 delegates (which is a stretch with the caucus system and delegate appropriation in Texas), and she wins R-Island, but he wins Vermont. So she nets between 20 and 25 delegates. She is still is more than 100 delegates behind with sure Obama wins in Wyoming, Mississippi and North Carolina ahead. She would have to win in landslides (like 65 - 45 or 70 -30) to catch up. Does anyone think that is gonna happen? Even with all the momentum she can get her hands on, he is not gonna tank that badly. It is just really hard to catch up in this system, all Hillary supporters should be extremely upset that her campaign did not plan post Feb 5th, and let Obama own Feb to such a degree that he built an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. And he picked up 30+ super delegates in Feb as well. Math is math. It's like Obama has the ball with about less than 2 minutes left, and Hillary has no timeouts. She may stuff him on every play, but he isn't going to have to give up the ball and the clock is going to run out.

Posted by Kobe Berg | March 3, 2008 9:33 PM

Kobe Berg:

You're forgetting the automatic delegates. So your "math" is wrong.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 9:35 PM

CK MacCleod,

Your scenario required the sort of reversal in the dynamic we have actually not seen so far in this contest. When you factor in regional effects, Obama and Clinton have actually had pretty stable coalitions of supporters, and the effects when Obama campaigns in a state have been pretty predictable. Your scenario would require all this to change dramatically--so dramatically in fact that Clinton would be ablt to counteract the big delegate lead Obama has built up with far fewer uncommitted delegates remaining.

And that includes the superdelegates. Unless the pledged delegate dynamic changes radically, Obama doesn't need to "win" the superdelegates, just do reasonably well. And he is already doing well enough, with all the trends in his favor. So the idea that the superdelegate dynamic will suddenly turn around and save Clinton is just as far-fetched as the remaining pledged delegate contests suddenly turning around and saving Clinton.

Tim K,

But again, Clinton has to do more than just win from now on: she has to somehow counteract the lead Obama has built with only a fraction of the delegates to work with. And you basically want her to do that with the same arguments that haven't worked so far. That isn't much of a plan.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:36 PM

Two weeks ago we all thought Hillary would win I Ohio and Texas, but she would not win enough delegates to move the numbers. Unless she wins by 15% in both Ohio and Texas nothing changes.

Posted by bjd | March 3, 2008 9:39 PM

Igloo,

Actually, I am indeed not worried. This is purely an intellectual exercise for me now.

Anyway, as I noted to CK MacCleod, I don't actually think there has been much momentum in this contest, just the relatively predictable unfolding of pretty stable coalitions and electoral dynamics. Rather, what Obama has right now is a big lead, and with most of the contest now behind him. So, the bottomline is there just aren't enough uncommitted delegates left--including uncommitted superdelegates--for Clinton to catch him unless the dynamic completely and overwhelmingly changes in her favor.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:42 PM

Math is math. It's like Obama has the ball with about less than 2 minutes left, and Hillary has no timeouts.

Yes. Math is math. And the simple math is that if Hillary continues to compete, Obama can't win the nomination by eking out a narrow pledged delegate plurality. Just like Hillary, Obama needs superdelegates. And unfortunately for him, Hillary will compete vigorously for superdelegates if she has a good day tomorrow. And given the momentum she will gain from such an outcome, she may well defeat Obama in the contest for superdelegates, especially as buyer's remorse sets in with the rise in media scrutiny of Obama's record.

Posted by Igloo | March 3, 2008 9:42 PM

DTM:

The kinds of arguments I'm talking about have only just now begun with the "Children/3:00 AM" ad and the "True" (Afghanistan hearings) ad. There hasn't been an ad saying "Barack Obama wants to sit down with Ahmadinejad, wants to sit down to Raul Castro (think Florida), wants to sit down with Hugo Chavez" ... the argument must be made more explicitly. The subtext behind this is that Clinton is more hawkish than Obama, and I think her campaign has been afraid to just come out and make that case because it's a Democratic primary and there are a lot of peaceniks and ultra-leftists who are part of the process. But she should make the argument she is not only tough enough to take on the Republicans, and experienced enough to take on McCain on national security, but hawkish enough that she can't be called out as a wimp during the campaign.

How it is possible for her to win? She can whittle down his lead with pledged delegates to a manageable number (say a 40 delegate deficit for example) and the win the remainder with automatic delegates as Obama continues to trip up.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 9:43 PM

Igloo,

But again, if Clinton remains way behind in pledged delegates, she has to do more than just "defeat Obama in the contest for superdelegates." She has to beat him in that contest by a much larger margin than she is beating him right now--and all the trends in that area are against her. So, you are basically hypothesizing that whereas her victories in states like New York, California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey didn't do it, somehow winning in Ohio and Texas would close the deal with a huge percentage of the remaining superdelegates.

But why on earth should I believe that?

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:48 PM

You don't have to believe anything. Nothing in this race is hinging on what you do, or do not, choose to believe.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 9:51 PM

Tim K. -- the difference between a pledged and a super delegate is that the pledged delegate reflects the will of voters, whereas the super does not necessarily reflect the will of voters.

If the supers contradict the pledged delegates, there will be a serious poltical cost that is absent in the supers affirming Obama.

Such a "veto" of the public will would contradict all of these cherished democratic ideals people have about choosing their leaders, as opposed to having their leaders chosen for them. You're living in a dream world, imo, if you think the supers are prepared to disabuse their consituents of their cherished ideals, particularly given the racial implications in this year's election.

My firm sense is that this is over; the only question is how much damage HRC does to Obama before leaving.

Posted by John D. | March 3, 2008 9:51 PM

Tim K,

Wait, so you acknowledge the people voting in the Democratic primaries are not particularly hawkish, so your plan for Clinton somehow making up a huge number of pledged delegates in the few remaining contests (which is what it would take to get it even as close as 40) is to be really hawkish?

Again, that doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:51 PM

The funniest thing about the news reports of the polls closing in texas and Ohio is that they are exactly the same as the polls that were closing in california and the polling narrowing in NH.
What happens if what happened in those two states happens in these two states. Then 11 in a row stops being a talking point and mr. inevitable looks less inevitable and more akin to mr. Can't close the deal.
He's spending two to one in both states: if e can't win with twice as much money then there's going to be some talk wednesday.
Jack Nicholson should get the credit, probably.

Posted by Michael C. | March 3, 2008 9:52 PM

Tim K,

I'm just trying to see if people like you and Igloo actually have a plausible plan for Clinton getting the delegates she would need to win the nomination. If you are admitting that you are basically just hoping for that to happen with no good reason to believe it will happen (at least not a reason that you can explain), then fine by me.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:55 PM

DTM - there are nearly 800 Super-Ds (looking up the number, I just learned that the absolute number hasn't and can't be precisely set up until the Convention itself!). All of them are free to change their minds up until the moment they official cast their votes. Here's a crazy scenario for you: They could even deny either candidate a majority and throw things to multiple ballots (odds of this scenario, about equal to lightning striking).

The Hillary Comeback Scenario that doesn't require a "bolt from the blue" does presume that the dynamic has in fact already reversed, or that at least it has changed, and that the primaries tomorrow will confirm the fact. It also presumes that, following two bad weeks, Obama won't be able to re-capture the magic.

Most of all, it presumes that, as in '04 and as less openly this year, the Dems are highly motivated by perceptions of electability, and that if they manage to convince themselves that Obama is less (or a lot less) electable than they thought in February and January, they'll do whatever they can, if the possibility is still out there, to deny him the nomination. Against the prospect of losing in November, giving it to him on the basis of slight advantage based on caucus and small state wins back in ancient times (half a year or more before the convention) may not seem so attractive.

Note: As for voting coalitions remaining stable, obviously there have been shifts. Without them, Obama would never have had broken out in Wisconsin, and would have had much smaller margins around the Potomac primaries.

It's not over til it's over.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 3, 2008 9:57 PM

Michael C.,

If by "can't close the deal" you mean "Obama won't beat Clinton in every single contest", then that is not actually news--he already lost some contests on Super Tuesday.

But of course he doesn't need to win every single remaining contest to win the nomination.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 9:58 PM

But again, if Clinton remains way behind in pledged delegates, she has to do more than just "defeat Obama in the contest for superdelegates."

If Clinton wins Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, I believe a momentum shift will begin to occur -- thanks to the absurdly lofty expectations generated by the media and focusing on Obama's inevitability -- that insures she does not remain "way behind" in pledged delegates, but will significantly narrow Obama's lead, and quite possibly overtake him. I know you Obama fans don't think a case of serious buyer's remorse is possible, but I think it is possible, and has indeed begun to occur now that Clinton's attacks are beginning to raise doubts about his suitability for the nation's highest office. And if Obama's association with Austen Goolsbee is what does him in in the end, it will be sweet justice indeed for those of us who have been sounding the alarm since day one about Obama's reactionary views on economics.

Posted by Igloo | March 3, 2008 9:59 PM

DTM:

Well obviously it doesn't sound like a great plan to you, and that doesn't really surprise me. I really doubt you are all that representative of the views of the median voter, or even the median Democratic primary voter. The typical Democratic primary voter isn't particularly hawkish, but they don't want to nominate a loser with extreme views. Neither do the automatic delegates.

I don't know what it is about this concept that you fail to understand, but Clinton doesn't need to have a pledged delegate lead in order to be nominated.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 10:00 PM

Tim K. -- Also, FWIW, polls show that your "brilliant" strategy of criticising Obama's willingness to engage in dialogue is not a winner. HRC tried to make a big deal out of this, when it first came up in the debate last year.

Apart from the politics, we need to engage with Iran. Because of the Iraq fiasco, Iran is now a huge problem for us w/ de facto power over swaths of eastern Iraq. They share some interest, however, with us in regional stability. We can't afford not to talk with them, regardless of how odious it's leaders may be.

Posted by John D. | March 3, 2008 10:03 PM

CK MacCleod,

I am happy to agree that if the contests tomorrow show that the dynamic has already changed in the way Clinton needs it to change, then she has a chance. But that would require her to win Ohio and Texas by around 20 points each. A less dramatic "win" in both states is actually consistent with the dynamic up to this point. By the way, once you factor in regionalism, both the Wisconsin primary and the Potomac primaries were predictable (down to Clinton doing better in the Appalachian parts of Maryland, in fact).

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 10:04 PM

John D.:

You call it "opening up a dialogue." Sounds fine, sounds reasonable, sounds nice. It can also be called promising a face-to-face meeting with a holocaust-denying, terrorist-sponsoring theocratic dictator Ahmadinejad who may be pursuing nuclear weapons and wants to wipe Israel off the map. You think that's going to fly in the general election? How about talking to Raul Castro without preconditions? Florida is a critical swing state Obama could be kissing good bye.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 10:13 PM

Igloo,

Again, to catch up in pledged delegates at this late date would require a huge and unprecedented changed in the dynamic. There just aren't enough contests left for anything else to work.

Tim K,

First, neither of us should be relying on intuition. I am relying on the fact that you aren't coming up with new arguments, just slightly more forcefully stated versions of the same old arguments that haven't worked.

Second, I have repeatedly addressed this idea that somehow the superdelegates will save Clinton. If she got the pledged delegate count pretty close, that might well happen. But if the pledged delegate count does not get close, the superdelegates would have to vote for her in overwhelming numbers to make up the deficit--which they have not been doing so far. And as I keep pointing out, there is no more reason to believe the superdelegates will spontaneously reverse themselves and start doing that to believe ordinary voters will spontaneously reverse themselves and start doing that.

So the bottomline remains the same: even including superdelegates, it is just implausible that Clinton can make up her current deficit barring an overwhelming change in the dynamic. So, you have to come up with a plan that would overwhelmingly change the dynamic, and a few more marginal big state wins and some negative ads on the same old themes isn't much of a change strategy.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 10:14 PM

Tim K,

Actually, all indications are that ordinary voters have no problem with the President meeting with our enemies face-to-face. In fact, I would suggest the memory of us doing that in the Cold War days is so strong that most people have a hard time understanding why this is even an issue.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 10:18 PM

DTM:

I disagree... if she is 75 delegates behind Obama in June among pledged delegates, then she only needs a 76 delegate lead among automatic delegates to be the nominee.

I think you're living in fantasy land if you think Jewish voters are fine with the President meeting with Ahmadinejad, or Cuban-Americans in Florida are fine with meeting Raul Castro. That's naive.

Liberals have a long history of being out of touch with ordinary Americans. Ordinary Americans were never supposed to re-elect Richard Nixon over George McGovern in 1972, or elect a former Hollywood actor in 1980, or re-elect George Bush in 2004. Liberals don't have a great track record on predicting the behavior of "ordinary" Americans.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 10:27 PM

Tim K,

First, what makes you think that she will get Obama's pledged delegate lead down to 75, or her superdelegate lead up to 76? Again, it is easy for you to just make up the necessary numbers--you could have said 40 and 41, or 150 and 151, or whatever you wanted to make up so the math would work out. I just want to know if you actually have a plausible plan for getting her the numbers you are making up.

Second, with all due respect, I doubt you are any more qualified to speak on behalf of ordinary Americans than I am. I am working off polls of this issue, which have shown that Democrats overwhelmingly agree with Obama, and also that a plurality of the general electorate agrees with him.

And third, it is not like Clinton hasn't tried to make this an issue already. So, you really are just trying to push a strategy which has already failed.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 10:37 PM

Hillary is making a super comeback, but has the expectations game gotten away from Wolfson and friends? Leading in most polls means that the media will expect another HRC comeback.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | March 3, 2008 10:47 PM

that would require her to win Ohio and Texas by around 20 points each. A less dramatic "win" in both states is actually consistent with the dynamic up to this point. Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 10:04 PM

As to the second point, what you say regarding the dynamic MAY be true from a certain perspective, but if HRC wins OH by, say, 7 points, and TX by 2 points, then it will a) put an end to the overwhelming momentum for BO story, and b) it will show that he hasn't "closed the deal." As for Super-Ds, there is no meaningful trend or dynamic among them, except for a bit of bandwagoning and a reluctance among the already declared to switch their votes. HRC still has more declared SuperDs than BO.

Again, you and other analysts are probably right that she's highly unlikely to close the pledged gap, but, if she's still mathematically in range, and has re-gained momentum and opinion poll leads, then the pressure either to count FL and MI, or to re-vote them will intensify. Again, even if she falls short in the pledged numbers, if she wins those extremely important states, her argument will improve even more. At that point, his lead may rest all or mostly on arguably less-democratic caucus results.

If she takes 3 out of 4 tomorrow by reasonable margins, she can take this through June, and anything can happen. I'm not saying it's likely that she'll come back, just that the possibility is more than negligible, and it doesn't rest on her winning by overwhelming margins.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 3, 2008 11:03 PM

CK MacCleod,

I really think you are not accounting for just how deep a hole Clinton finds herself in, and how little that dependend on momentum. But I guess we shall see.

Posted by DTM | March 3, 2008 11:14 PM

The Harold Ickes impersonators should stop pretending that Obama can't/won't go negative. Rezko is pretty small beer next to an aggressive push on Boratgate, Hsu, or other sleazy dealings, including Bill's post-Monica infidelities.

Posted by some dude | March 3, 2008 11:18 PM

By the way, just some actual numbers:

I believe there are 981 pledged delegates available in the remaining contests. 370 of those are at stake tomorrow.

So, that is why she needs to make up a lot of delegates on Obama tomorrow. There aren't enough