The "Give" Theory

Why did Nancy Pelosi, Bill Richardson and other party elders, so eager to see the presidential race decided after Ohio and Texas, suddenly change their minds when Hillary Clinton's margin of victory crept up a little higher than expected in Ohio?

I have a theory.

And this new NBC News / Wall Street Journal poll is the first point of evidence.

It shows voters preferring a Democratic-controlled Congress over a Republican-controlled Congress. Add to this: enormous voter enthusiasm on the Democratic side. A huge financial advantage ('xcept for the DNC). A huge disparity in party identification. Likely Senate seat pickups by Dems; likely House seat pickups by Dems; gasoline nearing four bucks a barrel; foreclosures; the Fed bailing out lenders; the president's approval rating at historic lows; the right-track, wrong-track figures being where they are; the economy heading into the recession....

The point is that the Democratic advantage has some give to it.... a few more months of a tough Democratic presidential race can bend that advantage... and may be even begin to create some microfractures, but the fundamentals are so well established that the risk in making sure that the presidential process plays itself out appropriately is well worth taking.

Comments

Another possibility is that the Democratic elders did not want to be seen as preventing people from voting while the contest seemed close. Now, the contest is not close ... Clinton could get 65-35 wins in PA, KY, WV, and PR and she still will be down by 100 delegates ... but it still might look bad.

Clinton also might have threatened to keep campaigning if they endorsed en masse, which would have been further embarrassing.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 13, 2008 11:45 AM

And Democrats could drive even further of an advantage in Pennsylvania (where two polls out this morning show Clinton up 13% and 18%). If they spend 6 weeks running ads and organizing and identifying supporters that's going to be a huge boost for November.

Posted by Daniel | March 13, 2008 11:46 AM

But Hoyer isn't taking this hands-off tack. And my bet is that other party elders will get involved in a resolution sooner than later as well.

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

Posted by matt | March 13, 2008 11:48 AM

I'm going with the "deer in the headlights" theory on this one. I think they just don't know what they should do. The Dem Congress has not exactly been known for its bold actions.

Posted by LFC | March 13, 2008 12:06 PM

I think the predisposition is to wait until at least May 6. At this point, let people vote in Pennsylvania so Hillary supporters feel they've gotten a chance to make their case. Then Obama wins in NC and Indiana, his delegate lead is close to 150 and the superdelegates/party leaders step in en masse and end it.

I think they're waiting for hillary to cooperate and she evidently won't begin to do that until May 6.

Posted by mike | March 13, 2008 12:08 PM

Or the Democratic party is grappling with its own fissures, between the narrow interest groups, many of whom threw their backing behind Hillbilly.

The upside of a hot horse race is the Democrats now virtually dominate the news, whereas McCain and his campaign is struggling to get their message out.

There is a danger that the contest gets out of hand: Having Hillbilly delegate math exposed a bit too much for what it is - a formula loosely based on the three fifths rule.

Or, having Hillbilly surrogates like Geraldoyenne continue to speak what is really on Hillbilly's mind. After all, Hillbilly never "rejected and denounced" Geraldoyenne nor did she return any of the tainted money raised by her long time supporter and lobbyist friend. She only returns money from Asian donors like Norman Hsu, clearly a different standard according to race. Geraldoyenne was not even publicly told to resign but left on her own initiative and then made clear that she hasn't backed down at all. If only OBammBamm did the same with Farrakhan, what would the Hillbillies have said!

What is needed is for some NY State Democrats to get together in a smoky cigar bar (like the one that Giuliani goes to?) and make up their minds are they ready for Hillbilly to be co-governors of NY State and Chelsea to be their Senator.

Face it, Hillbilly. OBammBamm is likable, competent, and... he connects with voters better than Bill.

Posted by D | March 13, 2008 12:11 PM

URGENT: From Blacks 4 Barack:
The 'WE WILL NOT BE CHEATED' Campaign !

Out of desperation, the Clinton campaign is now stooping to extreme lows by having surrogate Geraldine Ferraro in the media making racist statements against Barack Obama. Also, it is a fact that even if Hillary wins Pennsylvania there is absolutely no way she can get enough delegate votes to defeat Obama. And her BIG ploy now is to have a 're-do' in Michigan and Florida, despite the fact that this would be a changing of the rules in the middle of the game which should not be allowed.Her tactics will end up extremely detrimental to the Democratic Party. It is time to let the DNC know that if Hillary wins through ANY methods deemed trickery (which is the only way she can win) WE....THE PEOPLE WILL NOT SUPPORT HER IN THE GENERAL ELECTION ! National radio talk show host Warren Ballentine is asking EVERYONE to call the DNC at 202-863-8000 to let them know 'We Will Not Support A Cheater !'We need 50 thousand people to FLOOD THE PHONES !!! So Call Today !!!! Say It Loud....WE WILL NOT SUPPORT A CHEATER !!! Tell everyone you know to make this call. The Time Is NOW....To Take Back OUR America !!!!

Visit: www.Blacks4Barack.org
PASS THIS ON !!!

NOTE: Don't Be Fooled....OBAMA WON TEXAS !!!!

Posted by Greg Jones | March 13, 2008 12:17 PM

"Why did Nancy Pelosi, Bill Richardson and other party elders, so eager to see the presidential race decided after Ohio and Texas, suddenly change their minds when Hillary Clinton's margin of victory crept up a little higher than expected in Ohio?

I have a theory."

I have a better one.

These political pros looked at the exit data, specifically the demographic breakdown and recoiled in horror. The contest is increasingly breaking down on racial/gender lines. If they were to, en masse, come out and support Obama, Hillary's hard core of supporters (white women, especially older white women) would spend the next 7 1/2 months fuming about how the "old boys club" threw the 1st viable female candidate under the bus. If Obama's voters would neither 'forgive nor forget' a back room deal that wrong-footed their candidate out of the nomination, there is no reason to think that Hillary's base would be ok with such a deal either.

Besides, with the exception of NC, is there any upcoming state (PA, KY, WV, IN, Puerto Rico) that looks bad for Hillary?

".... a few more months of a tough Democratic presidential race can bend that advantage... and may be even begin to create some microfractures"

To call the current race "tough" gets you the understatement of the year award. This debate is becoming positively toxic. With almost 6 weeks to go before PA, every comment will be parsed with Talmudic precision to ferret out any racial/gender bias, every advisor or supporter that goes off half-cocked and says something stupid is going to absolutely dominate the conversation. Ugly.

Posted by Adam | March 13, 2008 12:18 PM

Marc, have you addressed the idea that the "higher than expected" Clinton vote is the Rush Limbaugh strategy?
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/13/proof-rush-limbaugh-s-strategy-worked-in-ohio.aspx
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/did-ohio-crosso.html
Is this plausible?

Posted by Beth | March 13, 2008 12:32 PM

Let's think about the possibility of Clinton pulling out big wins in the remaining primaries, and let's do so by looking back at her track record.

So far, Clinton has wone only one primary with 60% or more of the vote. Guess where? Arkansas! Any special advantages there?????

What about Obama? He has won 60% or more in 16 states.

So what do you think the prospects really are for Clinton to pull off blow-out wins going forward? She hasn't done it before, except in Arkansas.

The real story here is that Clinton has already lost the primary process. She has lost in states won, delegates won, and the popular vote.

So let's talk abotu what is really going on. Clinton is trying to roll back the principle of one person, one vote. By claiming that some states count (the one's she wins) and others don't, and by getting the media to fret about Obama's massive wins among black voters (while ignoring his blow-out victories in most of the whitest states in the country), the Clintons are attempting to pull off the greatest mass disenfranchisement since the end of Reconstruction after the Civil War.

This is despicable.

Posted by Joe Shmoe | March 13, 2008 12:41 PM

Who says they changed their mind?

Posted by DTM | March 13, 2008 1:41 PM

SOLUTION TO THE CONTINUING DEMOCRATIC NIGHTMARE - John Edwards steps up and endorses Barack before next Saturday's Iowa recertification and asks his delegates (14 in Iowa and 26 total) to swing to Obama. Then, he campaigns for Obama in Penn. with particular emphasis toward the blue collar workers. Obama wins Penn - HRC and her band of sick Clintonistas quit and the country is saved from an racial divide that is the centerpiece of HRC's strategy going forward. I think John and Elizabeth Edwards have the heart to do this -what about the political courage? Who else from the Democratic Party is strong enough to denounce HRC's transparent attempt to divide this country for her desire for personal power and can stand up and do the right thing? Gore?

Posted by easy | March 13, 2008 1:49 PM

SOLUTION TO THE CONTINUING DEMOCRATIC NIGHTMARE - John Edwards steps up and endorses Barack before next Saturday's Iowa recertification and asks his delegates (14 in Iowa and 26 total) to swing to Obama. Then, he campaigns for Obama in Penn. with particular emphasis toward the blue collar workers. Obama wins Penn - HRC and her band of sick Clintonistas quit and the country is saved from an racial divide that is the centerpiece of HRC's strategy going forward. I think John and Elizabeth Edwards have the heart to do this -what about the political courage? Who else from the Democratic Party is strong enough to denounce HRC's transparent attempt to divide this country for her desire for personal power and can stand up and do the right thing? Gore?

Posted by easy | March 13, 2008 1:49 PM

is there any upcoming state (PA, KY, WV, IN, Puerto Rico) that looks bad for Hillary?

Yes, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon, Indiana, North Carolina, and tiny little Guam.
Clinton will need to win all of these state by 60% to draw ahead. Do you think that will happen?

Posted by bjd | March 13, 2008 1:51 PM

Also, I don't know much about PR politics, but the Governor there is an Obama supporter.

Posted by Maggie | March 13, 2008 2:02 PM

...while ignoring his blow-out victories in most of the whitest states in the country...

None of his "blowout wins" in white states were primaries. They were all, without exception, caucuses. Wisconsin was a pretty solid win for Obama, but it wasn't a blowout. Obama is badly trailing in the white vote, nationally. That should give lots of superdelegates pause about Obama's chances in the fall, and most assuredly does.

Traditionally, Democratic standard-bearers have had little trouble overwhelmingly winning the votes of African-Americans and liberals. They have traditionally found it challenging to win the votes of the the white, culturally moderate/conservative working class (and Latinos in recent years, as well). It's not surprising that the party is reluctant to snuff out the candidacy of the candidate who actually, you know, wins the voters the Democratic party needs to take away from John McCain to prevail in November.

Posted by Maximom | March 13, 2008 2:18 PM

Well, even if Ambinder is right, I have a feeling they started to change their minds yet again on Thurs 3/6 (Clinton endorses McCain) and then again when that cranky old bat Geraldine embarassed all democrats. The fact that FL and MI cannot be solved to everybody's satisfaction is yet another reason for superdelegates to get off the fence, and I suspect they will rather than watch six weeks of nightmares. Nor does this amount to a "back room deal"...superdelegates need only announce as individuals that they have made up their minds. Finally: today's story on Obama coattails. I suppose the one thing holding them back today is the prospect of a major Clinton win in Pennsylvania...so the sooner you endorse Obama folks, the better...

Posted by anonymous | March 13, 2008 2:26 PM

It takes some seriously rose-colored glasses not to see Wisconsin as a blow-out. When the state gets called .0004 seconds after the polls close, it is a blowout.

Posted by Curtis | March 13, 2008 2:57 PM

I am by no means an expert on PR politics, but I have visited many times, my girlfriend is from there and her family lives there and are very active in PNP (the statehood party). When we get closer to the primary, I plan on doing a full analysis based on the latest info, but I caution anyone who thinks Clinton will definitely win big.

Few points:

1) Acevedo Vila (Governor) and McClintock (Sen. Pres.) are the only two superdelegates whose names I recognize. Acevedo is PDP (pro-commonwealth), and likely to have a lot of influence in that party. McClintock is PNP, but got expelled from the party a few years ago and had to sue to be readmitted. It's not correct to say PDP is equivalent to the Democratic Party, because many PNP politicians are associated with the national party. However, the winner of the PNP primaries for governor and resident commissioner (basically a non-voting congressman) last weekend were Republicans, so the PNP will likely have less influence in the Dem. primary. Very few if any Republicans are PDP. So, arguably Obama has a chance at more "official" Democratic party support in PR. (In fact, the political situation re:PNP and McClintock is even more complicated, but I'll save that for the long analysis).

2) PR awards 55 pledged delegates statewide (19) and by local district (36). there are 8 districts . 7 have 4 delegates. 1 has 5. It is not inconceivable that the 5 delegate district actually go to Obama (3-2) (once I have a chance to look at data from the recent state primary there, I'll have a better idea). So unless there is an absolute blowout, the margin just won't be that big.

3) While many Puerto Ricans have relatives in the continental US, particularly NY, this may not be a huge plus for Clinton. First, as far as I can tell, most of the recent immigration has been to Florida, particularly the Miami and Orlando areas. So, the ties aren't as close as the once might have been. Second, I'm not sure how the terrorist pardons will play out if it becomes an issue. There are definitely loud-spoken independence proponents who applauded the move, but considering that the pro-independence vote tops out at 5% of the population, that may not have much effect. (again more on this in the later analysis). I get the impression that people in Puerto Rico didn't pay that much attention when it happened and are less sympathetic to the independence movement (violent and non-violent) than Puerto Ricans living in NYC.

4) Jesse Jackson won in 1988. Sure it's 20 years again, but it suggests there won't be a huge racial issue.

More as we get closer.

Posted by Alexis | March 13, 2008 3:20 PM

Woops, the delegate numbers are of by a little. I got them from Green Papers;

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/PR-D.phtml

I'll be sure to keep up to date so I have the best possible analysis later.

Posted by Alexis | March 13, 2008 3:23 PM

One other thing. I can't imagine what people are going to talk about for the next six weeks before Pennsylvania. I worry that it will be a constant cycle of "gotcha" between HRC and BHO, so I have a suggestion. I know it won't happen, but I was curious what people thought.

The two campaigns should declare a strict four week truce. NO ONE associated with either campaign, not the candidates, not the campaign officials, not surrogates, etc. mentions the other candidate or campaign, even to praise them. Each campaign simply acts as if the other campaign does not exist. Instead, both campaigns go after McCain. This way, we can see a preview of how both campaigns would do this, they're not using money on each other that they could use on McCain, and the air has a chance to clear a little. Pro for Obama - he can demonstrate that he's a capable general election campaigner and he doesn't have to worry about Clinton's campaign for a while.

Pro for Clinton - people stop focusing on whether or not she's unfairly attacking a fellow Democrat and get to see how she might perform in the general. It gives her more legitimacy in continuing the campaign.

With two weeks left to go until Penn., the gloves can come off and they can go back to drawing contrasts or sling mud (however you want to define it based on who you support.

Yeah, you can't really police it, and some remarks will slip through, but I think it would have a decent chance of working.

(Full disclosure - I'm an Obama supporter, but I do think this would be good for both sides.)

Posted by Alexis | March 13, 2008 3:35 PM

Geraldine, why can't you be true? Oh, Geraldine, why can't you be true? You done gone back doing them things you used to do. Seriously, I'll try to keep it reasonable. But you know as well as I do, the finance minister of Hillary Clinton’s vast finance department (Geraldine Ferraro) only parroted what Hillary herself and hubby Bubba have been saying with regard to race. Playing the victim card. It's just so unbecoming for someone with all of Hillary’s advantages. First it’s the press, then it’s the race. What's a girl to do if she can’t win on her own merits, resort to divisive tactics? What bitter irony, what poetic justice: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 13, 2008 5:46 PM

Marc that is the kindest interpretation of Pelosi, Richardson, et al possible. A more likely interpretation is that, as usual, the Democratic Party leaders are too weak-kneed to shut this thing down.

Do you really believe that if this was going on in the Repub party and you had a candidate who had lost 14 of 17 contests and couldn't catch up in either pledged delegates or popular votes that this thing would be allowed to drag out 7 weeks to PA and then beyond?

The Democratic Party really is a bunch of losers. Well-intentioned losers, maybe, but still losers. Presidential primaries are a zero- sum game. The Repubs understand this but zero sum outcomes make liberals reflexively uncomfortable so instead of dealing with the situation everyone just holds their breath and hopes it all works out in the end.

Wake me in November when you're writing a "How did the Dems Lose the WH?" column.

Posted by Harlan | March 13, 2008 7:54 PM

Hillary and Bill accept a negative verdict by
party bigwigs and shuffle off home?!!! They're
not leaving without Obama's pelt. This couple
could put the fear into God. Hell, they scare the
crap outta me!

Posted by interferon | March 14, 2008 12:02 AM