The Legacy Of A Strategic Decision

Barack Obama's victory in Wyoming tonight is an opportunity to remind of the Fundamental Strategic Error committed by the Clinton campaign, an instance where we can link an actual strategic decision made by the campaign to the current delegate predicament it finds itself in.

That is, of course, the decision to allow Obama to run up the popular vote margins in the states holding caucuses, thereby directing an artery of delegates directly into Obama, one that Clinton seemed singularly uninterested in, and as later contests proved, incapable, of, clashing.

There were very few Clinton staffers except for a handful who were aware of the delegate math problem early on, and their advice was largely ignored by the campaign high command, which did not plan for, or envision, a campaign lasting beyond February 5.

Also, Bill and Hillary were seared by the experience of Iowa, which they found profoundly undemocratic.

Also, the campaign ran out of money before the Feb 5 caucuses.

Also, Obama's supporter profile lends itself to the type of Democrat who caucuses.

No matter; bypassing the caucuses hurt Clinton more than anything; more than the race stuff before South Carolina (whatever that was), not the puncturing of the expectation of the inevitable; not even, sorry Steve Hildebrand, your genuinely magnificent field organizations -- no single factor has hurt Clinton more than this decision. ** Please don't read this paragraph as suggesting that the caucus decision is the single most important reason why Obama has done well -- it's just the biggest reason why Clinton seems not to be able to catch up, even though she's won the largest states.

Mr. Obama will pick up two delegates tonight, according to CBS News.

Comments

more than the race stuff before South Carolina (whatever that was), not the puncturing of the expectation of the inevitable

Okay. So the Clintons are incompetent, arrogant race-baiters. Not justa rrogant race-baiters.

Posted by Howard Wolfson | March 8, 2008 8:25 PM

more than the race stuff before South Carolina (whatever that was),

The "race stuff", as you so disparagingly put it, is pivotal for two reasons.

First, Clinton used to have significant support withing the African-American community, but a large slice is now voting anti-Clinton. The cumulative effect of this swing over many states is substantial.

Second, the superdelegates will be unable to overturn a pledged-delegate victory for Obama, no matter how much "momentum" Clinton acquires during a best-case-scenario run between now and the convention, because the African-American community will be absolutely enraged.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | March 8, 2008 8:34 PM

Caucuses are a democratic - though certainly different -- Iowa rewards people without large negatives because the smallest groups must breakup and make another choice. As soon as it is down to two people this dynamic doesn't matter and caucuses reward people with a good ground game.

Clinton is trying to respin this by pushing the popular vote, but not including the caucus states. Her team doesn't say the last part two loudly for fear the tactic will be seen through. Even an attempt to include the caucus states probably diminishes their importance as they typically get less turnout, though the turnout at caucuses has been surprisingly high this year.

Posted by Stephen | March 8, 2008 8:39 PM

It's worth noting that Obama has won more primaries than Hillary to date. Just saying.

Posted by Barry | March 8, 2008 8:45 PM

Gee, you think? Way to crystallize the CW, three weeks after the fact.

Also, Obama picked up three delegates today. Like many caucus states, Wyoming also has a UAD (unpledged add-on delegate.)

Posted by Kevin | March 8, 2008 8:45 PM

"Bill and Hillary were seared by the experience of Iowa, which they found profoundly undemocratic."

What was so searing about their Iowa caucus experience? She finished about six points behind Obama, and I've never seen evidence that she'd have done any better in a primary.

Obama's won both caucuses and primaries (Missouri, Wisconsin) in the Midwest. His Iowa victory seems to have had more to do with his relative appeal in that part of the country than about the caucus format.

I think the big factors in her forfeiting of caucuses were her money problems and her arrogance that she'd have the race in hand by Feb. 5th.

Posted by John Zimmerman | March 8, 2008 8:47 PM

I think the piece of logic that still blinkers so many in the press is that "winning a large state" is meaningless in a primary based on proportional representation.

I know winning big states is important in the GE where basically every state is winner take all for the EC. But it's not in the Democratic primary. What really matters is winning by large margins. So far Obama has understood that and done that. Outside of Arkansas, however, Hillary has failed to rack up big delegate advantages, even in her "key" states like NY, CA, and OH.

Posted by James in NJ | March 8, 2008 8:55 PM

As Chuck Todd said on MSNBC the other day, Penn has an amazing lack of insight into how the primary system works. In any case, you are right. Blow-outs matter a lot in terms of how the delegates get allocated, and Clinton's failure to contest probably allowed a flew blow-outs that hurt her. Today in Wyoming, by contrast, she kept it down to -2.

But it's also worth pointing out that in a couple of caucus states, Clinton did contest and she still got blown out: Washington and Maine. Maybe she didn't have quite the organization. But she did try in both states.

I'm glad to see you question the validity of total vote counts. At a minimum they should include turn-out for caucuses. Even better, there'd be some weighting factor so that caucus states aren't underrepresented in the total vote count. (The problem here is that the system measures 'will of the people' by delegates -- and trying to use a new measure leads to unfairness. If the caucus states had known that it was votes, not delegates that mattered, they might have chosen to select the now unimportant delegates by way of primaries rather than caucuses.)

See? This is what I hate about the whole changing the measurement standards after the game has been played. People made choices based on the original groundrules. Clinton's whole "let's judge based on whatever criteria happens to favor me" is obviously bogus. Except to the media, apparently. It's like she says, let's play a game of baseball -- but lets wait 'til after the game to decide whether it's runs, or home runs, or base hits, or triple plays that count to decide who wins. Oh yeah, and we're not going to say which it is until after we see which one gives me the win.

I think Clinton should be held more accountable for her strategic error here than do you. This is the woman who is currently running on being ready on day one, on her ability to answer the red phone, etc. etc. Well -- we've just seen her blow an important red phone call. Obama got it right. In addition, he's the guy who had to build up the national campaign from scratch. That's also testimony to something.

But probably not. The media seem prepared to accept whatever criteria for judgment Clinton happens to choose. Not sure why we bother with the whole exercise. It's heads I win, tails you lose.

I'm bitter. Can you tell? I became inexorably opposed to Clinton when she pulled the 'let's count the bogus votes from FL and MI' stunt. Her whole campaign is turning out to be run with the same level of integrity. Which is to say none. And it's looking increasingly possible that it's going to work.

But hey. We get the leaders we deserve.

Posted by Maggie | March 8, 2008 8:56 PM

incompetentce IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 8, 2008 9:01 PM

Marc,

Your post makes the assumption that Hillary could have done well in caucuses even if she had put the resources in them, but that is not necessarily the case.

She put plenty of resources into Iowa: She placed 3rd.

Hillary's problem with caucuses is not so much that they are undemocratic or that the campaign failed to organize, it is that Hillary has a huge problem with engaged, high information voters, regardless of socioeconomic status, who are well enough informed to not buy the laughable BS that emanates from her campaign.

The only caucus she did well in was Nevada and that was only with the help of the ruthless Reid Machine in Clark county...and she still lost the delegate margin.

So what I am saying is that even if Hillary had strategically emphasized the caucuses, there is little evidence to suggest she would have done very well in them.

Also, Marc, it's important to note than a lot of Obama's deleage margin comes from huge wins in primary states: Illinois, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia Maryland were all primary blowouts that gave Obama big delegate margins...Hillary has had few routs in big primary states...even NY was less than 20 points...her only rout was arkansas.

Finally, in a world of limited resources, had hillar devoted resources to caucus states, she might not have had the margins she did in the states she went all into like MA, CA, OH, etc. Her margins in those places were only possible because she put a ton of effort into them at the expense of other states....something, by the way, that bodes very poorly for managing a national general electio in which you need to be able to compete in multiple states simultaneously.

In sum, I dispute the notion that HIllary's caucus strategy was all that determinative to the outcome of this race.

Posted by RKA | March 8, 2008 9:02 PM

What was so searing about their Iowa caucus experience? She finished about six points behind Obama, and I've never seen evidence that she'd have done any better in a primary.

38 to her 29 is more than six points. Though I agree that there's no reason to think she would've won Iowa had it been a primary. Turnout was massive, and easily on the level of a primary, and it really does seem like his successes here (to which I'd add the Rocky West and Pacific Northwest states like Utah and the uncontested Washington primary) seems much more based in regionalism and the appeal of his message than caucus vs. primary. Though the process has probably helped inflate his margins of victory, I still think he would've been victorious in these states.

Posted by jbryan | March 8, 2008 9:04 PM

Also, Obama's supporter profile lends itself to the type of Democrat who caucuses.

This is something I was wondering about earlier today. As we all know, Obama is losing among "real" Democrats and leads the popular vote but for the crossover votes of unreliable independents and nefarious Republicans.

As we are equally aware, Obama also only does well in unrepresentative caucus states (none of which particularly count), in which the contests are commandeered by Democratic Party activists, which, by the way, totally disenfranchises a whole bunch of voters.

Given these two self-evident truths, has anyone with the HRC campaign or among her supporters, simultaneously pushing both these theories, ever tried, with at least a marginally straight face, to explain this discrepancy -- this mysterious donut hole between hard-core Democrats and the independents and Republicans they're trying to push out of the big tent?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 8, 2008 9:07 PM

In 2004 Kerry carried 19 states + DC

Lets compare which Obama and HRC won.
I have left out MI, as that is disputed.

WA-Obama
OR-
CA-Clinton
MN-Obama
WI-Obama
IL-Obama
MI-
PA-
DC-Obama
MD-Obama
NJ-Clinton
NY -Clinton
CT-Obama
MA-Clinton
VT-Obama
NH-Clinton
DE-Obama
ME-Obama

So- Obama gets 10 states
Clinton gets 5 states

So you tell me who is winning 'blue' states.

Posted by KathyL | March 8, 2008 9:07 PM

there is a hugely dangerous scenario out there that has been discussed. that is, if she wins the popular vote while he maintains the delegate lead. To me, it now even seems to be the most likely outcome

Many ordinary Americans, who don't much care for byzantine party rules, will have certain uneasy feelings about Obama taking the nomination ("uneasy" won't exactly do justice to how the Clinton supporters out there will feel). This will be especially true if he loses Pennsylvania quite handily and then goes on to lose Indiana and North Carolina (momentum could be huge since the media can't seem to stop focusing on PA--there will be SEVEN weeks of speculation and eager anticipation). If this indeed happens, the general perception will be that Obama had faltered at the end and Clinton is or should be the winner. The popular vote metric will back her up.
However, strictly speaking, that should be of no matter. Obama will likely maintain the delegate lead. Both campaigns have, now or in the past (looking at you Penn and Wolfson), have repeatedly stressed that this is ALL about delegates. That is how we nominate. If the popular vote mattered, Al Gore would be President, correct? This is all going to depend on how the media starts analyzing the race from here on out.
And yes, don't for this potential disaster: Clinton's possible overtaking the delegate lead with the help of the superdelegates--white party elders--would likely create an outcry of epic proportions from the black community. I can see the protest marches in Washington. The damage to African-Americans and the party would be profound and lasting. Quite honestly, I don't understand how the Party establishment could allow this to occur.

Posted by blue MN | March 8, 2008 9:14 PM

Sinbad thinks that this is very similar to Bush's strategy for war in Iraq. Hillary thought that the voters of every state would welcome her with flowers!

Well let Sinbad tell you - as a foreign policy expert and key player in the now famous Kosovo refugee crisis negotiations of 1996, Sinbad knows what it means to plan ahead and understand the different players involved in a crisis. Sinbad understands that contingencies are needed for various and often unpredictable scenarios.

And that's why, since Sinbad has passed the Commander-in-Chief threshold of foreign policy experience, Sinbad throws his hat in the ring for a VP nod on a Clinton ticket.

Clinton/Sinbad - Ready for Comic Relief on Day One!

Posted by Sinbad | March 8, 2008 9:17 PM

Mr. Obama will pick up two delegates tonight, according to CBS News.

Not that I'd expect a professional political commentator to mention this, but this estimate was with a large, strongly pro-Obama county outstanding. So Sen. Obama will net three delegates from the caucus -- which I believe was approximately a third of what Hillary took from her "big" win in Ohio.

In fact, let's review Hillary's "big" week, shall we?

She netted something like six delegates from her three victories on Tuesday.

She lost four (which Sen. Obama gained, giving him a net eight) with the California certification.

She picked up (I believe) four previously uncommitted automatic delegates to Sen. Obama's ten.

So, let's see, after her big week of !!!HILLMENTUM!!!, she's ... eleven delegates farther behind.

Oh my.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 8, 2008 9:18 PM

Jeff:

You might want to add that up until this election cycle, it was taken as a given that Obama's supporter profile was exactly the type that doesn't caucus; after all, who's more unreliable than the youth vote? And everyone knows caucuses are dominated by aging, white, working class voters.

Hell, I even remember Wolfson smirking that Obama's supporters might have a lot of energy, but they don't vote, they don't caucus. Now, Hillary's supporters...

Of course, ex post facto, obviously it's demographics that favor Obama, and not, say, superior effort & organization on the part of his campaign and enthusiasm on the part of his supporters. Naw, couldn't be. It has to be the exact opposite of what the Clinton campaign said before they started losing caucuses!

Posted by Michael | March 8, 2008 9:21 PM

Hey, a bit off topic, but does anyone have a copy of the leaked Obama campaign prediction spreadsheet

Posted by Lloyd Webber | March 8, 2008 9:21 PM

Like her 8 years of experience in DC, where Clinton makes huge strategic blunders in voting for War in Iraq and shows horrible judgement, this counts as experience!!

Posted by jeromy | March 8, 2008 9:22 PM

Michael, I too am mystified.

Lloyd, try Googling "obama delegate spreadsheet" (without the quotes). I think I've found a link to it using that, or a very similar, search.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 8, 2008 9:25 PM

It amazes me how easy it is for the Clinton Campaign to spin people like Marc even at this late date.

The fact is that Clinton has been trying to win these states, but is getting beat. Given this bad state of affairs, they have decided their best spin is to put out the idea that getting beat in these states was the result of a series of strategic choices. I guess the premise is that maybe the superdelegates (or at least her donors) will think at least she can learn from her strategic mistakes, or maybe those mistakes will be inapplicable to the general election, or maybe just that everything could be fixed by firing the Solis Doyle's of the world. In contrast, it would be much more damning to her current "I should be the nominee even though I am losing" campaign if the reason she was winning fewer delegates is that she was a fundamentally less appealing candidate.

Now, one would think that Wisconsin would have put the final nail in the coffin of this nonsense: it wasn't a caucus, it wasn't a demographically unfavorable state, and Clinton manifestally did every thing she could to win ... and still got beat by a large margin. So, one would also think people like Marc would be just a wee bit less willing to take at face value the Clintonian spin that they are only losing states by these margins because of strategic choices. And yet, here we are.

Posted by DTM | March 8, 2008 9:28 PM

Lloyd - here you go:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html

Posted by MP | March 8, 2008 9:29 PM

Tremble, mere mortals, while I, Chairman Clinton, deign to reveal the TRUTH from my celestial sphere! Be it known to ye, quivering wretches, mere drudges, that the state formerly known as Wyoming, and now officially designated as Notcountistan 28, is struck from the map of the real, democratic, United States, where I rule, by divine right and in vritue of my 35,000 eons of experience. None shall match my bringing of peace, my opening of borders, my healthcare glories! Let those who would betray me, beware!

Posted by ChairmanClinton(avatar) | March 8, 2008 9:44 PM

Does anyone have a breakdown of delegates won to date, divided by primaries and caucuses? Would be interesting.

Speaking of caucuses, what the heck is happening with Texas? When are the other 59% going to report? That will be big, big news -- pardon my paranoia, but is someone deliberately keeping the results under wraps?

Posted by lostintranslation | March 8, 2008 9:46 PM

As an additional note to Jeff Larson's piece, it seems that Bill Foster is about to win in Illinois, knocking off Hastert's old seat. Of course, it should be remembered that Obama campaigned for him (did the Monster?) and that he adds another superdelegate to Obama's total.

Posted by snoutthegrumkin | March 8, 2008 9:50 PM

BTW, did you all see that Bill Foster has won Hastert's house seat? Obama's first -- but not last! -- victory over John Mccain!!!!!!

Posted by lostintranslation | March 8, 2008 9:51 PM

lostintranslation,

I'm not sure the primary versus caucus breakdown would really be that interesting unless you controlled for other factors. For example, it appears that caucuses are a lot more popular in some regions than others, and Obama happens to do well in the regions where caucuses are popular. So, until you control for regionalism, any caucus v. primary numbers could be misleading.

Posted by DTM | March 8, 2008 9:52 PM

lostintranslation, it seems we are joint bringers of good news! Should we now join hands, execute a victory dance and sing kumbaya, while Monsters Inc hisses with rage and embitterment?

Posted by snoutthegrumkin | March 8, 2008 9:52 PM

I must admit it, I like the idea of Notcountistan 28 - kinda sums up the whole Clinton view of how America really is.... real states versus Notcountistans.

Posted by snoutthegrumkin | March 8, 2008 9:54 PM

A bit off-topic --or perhaps meta-- but has anybody wondered why a major magazine would actually pay somebody to write such poor prose; to post sloppy and incomplete tables...; and to write oblique narratives with the apparent justification that he is an "insider"? Good reason to read the comments for free and avoid paying for the dead-tree version for which he is --astonishingly-- an associate editor.

Posted by anonymous | March 8, 2008 9:56 PM

The caucuses are distasteful to anyone with a respect for democracy. They are essentially mob rule directed by peer pressure. Actually, "peer pressure" is probably giving the process more respect than it deserves. Mostly it is pressure coming from loud mouthed inferiors. No wonder Obama thrives in that environment.

As to the RACE issue, one group of Americans has proven to be BLATANTLY RACIST in their voting. They aren't voting for Hillary Clinton. Blacks are, and always have been POLITICALLY RACIST. If O.J. Simpson or Mike Tyson were running against Hillary the margin would favor them to the same degree it has Obama.

Posted by robert ethan | March 8, 2008 9:57 PM

Hey, out of curiosity, am I the only one having his comments held for moderation?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 8, 2008 9:58 PM

invitation accepted with pleasure, snoutthegrumkin!

let's get those Texas caucus numbers in now and really start whooping it up! As Mme. and M. Monster try to campaign in Mississippi while pretending that they aren't... And that Pennsylvania is vastly more important than North Carolina... and that she voted for more diplomacy and iraq... and that it is Obama who played the race card ... and.... and...

Posted by lostintranslation | March 8, 2008 10:00 PM

I thought we might get through the day without Bobby Troll screeching at us, but no, the vile little brute slithers out of his dungheap once more.

Posted by talen | March 8, 2008 10:01 PM

OK, I think my comment was moderated because I tried to post a link.

To see a good, current list of pledged delegates:

If you go to the internet domain composed of the first and last name of the current delegate leader of the Democratic primary, followed by the grammatical mark and top-level domain specified by a phrase synonomous with "New economy implosion," followed by a Unix-style directory separator, followed by "resultscenter" (no quotes), you can find a good, reliably accurate list of delegates by state.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 8, 2008 10:04 PM

Hey lostintranslation. It really is hilarious to see how preposterous Clinton has become with her endless claims about what counts and doesn't, where she campaigns, or doesn't, who she endorses or doesn't.... could we say that she's finally become all parse and no parsnips, to adapt that famous Texas phrase about hats and cattle?

Posted by morzer | March 8, 2008 10:05 PM

blue MN,

It might even mean the demise of the Democratic party, in a "disappear entirely into the dustbins of history like the Whigs in the 1850s" sort of way.

But from where I sit, that's a feature, not a bug. :)

Posted by L:arryM | March 8, 2008 10:05 PM

Lost,

The democratic party has stopped counting. The caucus results aren't official until the delegates show up to the county conventions on March 29, anyway.

Not all of the precinct captains called in their results, but they are mailed in and counted and then certified or whatever on March 29. So they released to the media the results of those called in. Obama precinct captains were told to call them in immediately, while it is my understanding that the Clinton people were telling their captains not to call in results so that they could savor their faux victory in Texas a little longer.

So don't expect any more news on that front for three more weeks.

The problem with Marc's post is that it is talking about Clinton's strategic errors, which is like talking about Troy State's errors when they get rolled up in football by the University of Florida. Maybe they should have ran here, or blitzed there, but the bottom line is they didn't have game enough to be on the field with them in the first place.

Posted by Curtis | March 8, 2008 10:07 PM

A bit off-topic --or perhaps meta-- but has anybody wondered why a major magazine would actually pay somebody to write such poor prose; to post sloppy and incomplete tables...; and to write oblique narratives with the apparent justification that he is an "insider"? Good reason to read the comments for free and avoid paying for the dead-tree version for which he is --astonishingly-- an associate editor.

I've worked for several publications for which "associate editor" was roughly synonomous with "bitch." But still, for a publication with the tradition and history of quality of the Atlantic, it is admittedly mystifying.

Has anyone actually read any of Marc's articles in the Atlantic? What are they like? Do the copyeditors dread drawing that assignment?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 8, 2008 10:07 PM

"Mr. Obama will pick up two delegates tonight, according to CBS News."

He's got another one on the night: Bill Foster has defeated Jim Oberweis in IL-14, and one would assume be a likely Obama superdelegate.

Posted by doofman | March 8, 2008 10:08 PM

It doesn't matter, of course, because it's a RED DISTRICT and we don't care about RED DISTRICTS, but Bill Foster -- Obama endorsee from Illinois -- just beat scary-Republican Oberweis in DENNIS HASTERT'S district!

That's right. Hastert's district is now BLUE thanks to Bill Foster and Barack Obama's coattails. The Cook Report last week switched the district from Lean Republican to Toss-up. Now it's officially Blue.

But, Marc, you just keep pretending that only the "big states" and the "blue districts" count.

Posted by evie | March 8, 2008 10:12 PM

Clinton made a major mistake going into 2/5 by neglecting Colorado, Minnesota, and Idaho. Those three states were treasure troves for Obama, and seldom a superdelegate from those states will now turn for Clinton. I think she has put sufficient effort into caucuses since, but her main problem with caucus is due to 1. Demographics of caucus states 2. Clinton's base is undependable (poor women, those without college degrees).

The challenge presented by a proportional system that is seldomly brought up is that it is better to invest resources in states you are going to lose than states you are going to win. Obama did this in NJ, New York, and Mass whereas Clinton avoided Illinois, Georgia, and for the most part Virginia among others. Say Obama would win a state 60-40. There are 20 more undecided voters who might be willing to turn out if a candidate campaigns in their area. If Obama were to win all of them he would win 80-40, if Clinton won all of them it would be tied. The three scenarios are a tie, Obama +20%, or Obama +33%. There is a much bigger change between a tie and Obama +20 than +20 and +33. While Clinton's states represent more electoral votes and a larger population base, her margin of victory has exceeded 20+% in only New York, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, whereas Obama has done this in about 16 states.

Posted by Robert | March 8, 2008 10:13 PM

Marc:

Your readers certainly don't think much of your opinion.

I go with RKA | March 8, 2008 9:02 PM with the concept that caucus supporters are high information voters (I think Hillary refers to us as activists without weekend jobs) and we don't get rolled by 3:00 AM ads.

Barack Obama has brought more voters into the Democratic Party than Bill and Hillary have in all their 35 years of politics or experience.

Posted by RiverRed | March 8, 2008 10:13 PM

So Hillary's 12 down for the week. I suppose compared to many, many, many other weeks, that's a relatively good one.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 8, 2008 10:14 PM

Be fair - at least Ambinder allows comments, unlike that whining little wretch Sullivan. That's something. Of course, Sullivan doesn't bother to correct errors, which is extremely questionable. And Marc does respond to emails sometimes, while Sullivan only likes the ones that stroke his bloated ego.

Posted by tozz | March 8, 2008 10:21 PM

Of course, Sullivan doesn't bother to correct errors, which is extremely questionable. And Marc does respond to emails sometimes, while Sullivan only likes the ones that stroke his bloated ego.

This is to Marc's considerable credit. On the flip side, however, I would submit that he rarely corrects errors, and virtually never reads reader comments. Remember when he spent a whole week shilling... er, soliciting reader comments, which he promised to publish? Finally, a week and a half later, he published four or five from one of the half-dozen open threads.

Not exactly a commitment to participatory readership.

By far the best Atlantic blogger is Fallows. No, he doesn't post a half-dozen times a day, but he's intelligent and careful and precise and has always responded on the few occasions I've emailed him. I like Yglesias too.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 8, 2008 10:26 PM

By the way, it would also be nice if Wyoming (and Mississippi next week) finally killed off the notion that "momentum" is playing a significant role in this contest.

Posted by DTM | March 8, 2008 10:27 PM

I wonder if Foster would be willing to make some (2+ / 0-)
calls to the supers.

Saying "Hi! I just took Denny Hastert's old seat, and I couldn't have done it without the support of Senator Obama. He gets us wins in places no one would have believed a year ago."

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 8, 2008 10:32 PM

I wonder if Foster would be willing to make some
calls to the supers.

Saying "Hi! I just took Denny Hastert's old seat, and I couldn't have done it without the support of Senator Obama. He gets us wins in places no one would have believed a year ago."

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 8, 2008 10:32 PM

RKA: Hillary has a huge problem with engaged, high information voters, regardless of socioeconomic status, who are well enough informed to not buy the laughable BS that emanates from her campaign.

RKA FTW!

Clinton's demagoguery on Obama's "present" votes had no effect on my opinion of Obama, but it sent my mildly favorable opinion of Clinton crashing through the floor. Things have only gotten worse since then.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | March 8, 2008 10:34 PM

Be fair - at least Ambinder allows comments, unlike that whining little wretch Sullivan.

Sullivan just held a vote on whether to allow comments. The no's won, 60-40.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | March 8, 2008 10:42 PM

Fair comments, I think, on Ambinder - and yes, Fallows is far better on his subject and more professional. I sort of like Douthat, even though his views are a bit... well, Republican. Yglesias is ok, but very sloppy with his writing of late.

Posted by tozz | March 8, 2008 10:42 PM

Hmm.. lacking evidence either way, I'd like more proof before I buy Sullivan's claims. I've seen him post some shockingly inaccurate stuff, so my faith in him is not high.

Posted by tozz | March 8, 2008 10:44 PM

Hillary and her husband Bill passionately contested several States that she lost, actually, in blowouts: ME, WI, SC, and VA. Very few talk about Virgina and Wisconsin. Those were Primaries, not caucses. And she was hammered in both, losing all the usual demos that she is unable to carry--plus a good portion of her base.

As I wrote on these blogs nearly 4 weeks ago, it takes someone with financial market experience--and in particular with derivatives and options--to understand the dynamic of Delegate-Awarding. As I wrote, there is a skew that favors heavily a near-even splitting of delegates between two candidates--unless, one candidate can move the needle far over, and score a big win.

The pledged delegate race therefore has two interesting outcomes:

1. Even when you lose, you get delegates, so it keeps losers in the race.

2. Strong wins however are awarded with a large tranche of delegates.

The result?

Exactly what we see right now: Clinton wins enough delegates from every contest to appear competitive, but, because Obama has won nearly all the blowouts, he has a lead that is now impossible to overcome.

This was all pretty clear after Chesapeake Tuesday. (Just like I said several weeks ago).

Posted by Gregor | March 8, 2008 10:53 PM

Want to see something really scary? Check this out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802664.html

"But Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury said that if there is no clear leader, he is prepared to exercise his judgment. 'If the pledged-delegate total is within 100 votes or whatever, I don't think there's a great deal of significance in that,' said Bradbury, who also represents other secretaries of state as a superdelegate."

Posted by Kevin | March 8, 2008 11:04 PM

Curtis, thanks for the info re Texas caucus. I know that technically no national delegates are selected in caucus states until the state conventions, but all other states, like Wyoming today, give a full accounting of their caucus results and the numbers of state convention delegates. Curious that Texas is not doing that...

Like your point very much about 'strategic errors', and I like Gregor's analysis very much too. It might be true that the Clinton folks ran out of money and did not invest in Alaska, Idaho and a couple of others. But Obama is up in total popular vote by a considerable amount, and that is not because of a strategic error.

Posted by lostintranslation | March 8, 2008 11:21 PM

It kills me the way Clinton keeps saying the caucuses are geared more towards party activists. They are geared more towards voters who are more excited about their candidate. Duh!

Posted by bmack | March 8, 2008 11:47 PM

There are probably more people logged onto this blog at the moment than participated in the
Wyoming caucus. Don't go Drudge on us and make it seem like Obama just won the Powerball. He gets paid for ridiculously one sided coverage, no one on here, I assume does. Let a handful of survivalists have their say, but don't make it seem like something more than it was.

Posted by robert ethan | March 8, 2008 11:49 PM

...thereby directing an artery of delegates directly into Obama, one that Clinton seemed singularly uninterested in, and as later contests proved, incapable, of, clashing.

Huh? I'm sorry, but that sentence doesn't scan. I mean gramatically. Clinton was incapable of clashing an artery?

Posted by Jay Rosen | March 8, 2008 11:59 PM

Clinton's demagoguery on Obama's "present" votes had no effect on my opinion of Obama, but it sent my mildly favorable opinion of Clinton crashing through the floor. Things have only gotten worse since then.

I think this is exactly why I despise her. She insults my intelligence almost every time she opens her mouth. Such BS delivered with such faux sincerity. The thought of four years of that makes me nauseous.

Posted by Maggie | March 9, 2008 12:04 AM

Robert,
That's true in Ohio as well. Obama's people knew he'd lose Ohio. But they held the delegate edge to 9. And had the BS NAFTA story not blown up, he might have held the margin to 5.

BTW, poor strategery explains a lot about Clinton's delegate deficit. But it's not the whole picture. Note that the only Clinton blowout states - Oklahoma and Arkansas are states that Obama made zero effort to contest. He also made no effort here in Tennessee, which explains his 11 delegate loss here too.

But Clinton HAS campaigned in states that she's gotten crushed in: Washington, Maine, Wisconsin, Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina and even Wyoming. Some of these were massive delegate pickups, others not as much. Some were caucuses and others primaries. But all were blowouts and each time Clinton campaigned vigorously for the votes.

The only states Clinton simply didn't show up in were Minnesota, Colorado, Idaho, Georgia and Illinois.

So there are many states that have seen them both up close and chose Obama by wide margins.

Posted by Elrod | March 9, 2008 12:08 AM

more than the race stuff before South Carolina (whatever that was),

Whatever that was?

You are too funny for words.

It's called Dogwhistle Racial Politics, Ambinder.

Just because you chose to ignore it as it progressed, doesn't mean others did.

Posted by rikyrah | March 9, 2008 12:26 AM

I wrote on my blog of the Clintons hinting at the "dream team" ticket. My blog is at: http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com/

An excerpt:
If cynicism, political calculation, and manipulation were Olympic events, we'd be talking gold medals for the Clintons.

How the hell can Bill and Hillary Clinton relentlessly hammer Barack Obama as nothing more than a shell, an empty vessel that lacks the substance and experience to be the president and, in the next breath and with a straight face, suggest that Obama would make a great vice presidential choice if she's the Democratic party nominee for president?

They really do think we're stupid.

Posted by Jay McDonough | March 9, 2008 12:47 AM

Jay McDonough, this is the Clinton Presence addressing you. Do not fear. You are not stupid, you simply require re-education. Please report to debriefing camp 102, in the real state of Ohio, where you will be given the truth and enabled to become a real American again. This message brought to you by Monsters Inc, the campaign for a better America, marked out by little triangles in tasteful, politically correct colors.

Posted by ChairmanClinton(avatar) | March 9, 2008 1:08 AM

Have to say it, the Chairman Clinton avatar is alarmingly plausible.

Posted by caffecorrettoliberal | March 9, 2008 1:13 AM

All I can say is up with comments! I just read through this thread and so many were thoughtful, thought provoking and/or hilarious. Where else on the internet does that happen?

Posted by margaret | March 9, 2008 3:12 AM

Tensions must be high inside the Clinton campaign as they try to figure out some way to spin this stunning loss. She had all the momentum and had her all-star team in the state all week to win this thing. It appears that Ohio was an aberration, and the erosion of her core that started in the Potomac and Wisconsin is continuing. This is an unmistakbe rejection of her negative kitchen sink campaigning. There will be a lot of pressure on her to drop out if she cannot win in Mississippi on Tuesday.

Posted by Carson | March 9, 2008 3:17 AM

LOL Carson - "Stunning loss"? Less than 10,000 backwoods survivalists showed up, and Obama supporters strong armed an extra thousand or so (probably all Republicans) into joining The Cult. That hardly qualifies as a stunning loss.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 4:27 AM

Less than 9,000 total voters in Wyoming to be accurate. At least half of them likely Rebublicans who joined The Cult for the day.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 4:33 AM

All Obama is winning (as a Democratic candidate) are the HARD CORE REPBUBLICAN STATES where hatred of the Clinton's by the primarily Rebulican electorate trumps all else. That and the RACE BASED BLACK VOTERS who gave the same sort of overwhelming support to Jesse Jackson a few years back, and would give to any black candidate who lasted long enough in the contest to allow them to cast their votes for him/her.

But come G.E. time all of the backward rural small states go to the right, and the retro 70 ultra lefties can't do much to stem that tide in the less backward small states.

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 4:49 AM

"That is, of course, the decision to allow Obama to run up the popular vote margins in the states holding caucuses, thereby directing an artery of delegates directly into Obama, one that Clinton seemed singularly uninterested in, and as later contests proved, incapable, of, clashing."

I'm a fan of Marc's commentary. But I have to agree with the comments about sloppy writing. I know it's a blog, but I frequently just don't understand what he's on about. Marc - PLEASE PLEASE read your posts through carefully before hitting the publish button!

http://www.marbury.typepad.com

Posted by marbury | March 9, 2008 5:03 AM

By the way, I am crazy and I hate black people and I support Hillary Clinton because although she is a woman at least she is WHITE!

Posted by robert ethan | March 9, 2008 6:31 AM

Please don't read this paragraph as suggesting that the caucus decision is the single most important reason why Obama has done well

But it was the single most important reason. His entire caucus total is only a tad more than Clinton's victory margin in California.

I agree that Clinton wouldn't have had very different results if she had fought, not because there's not solid support for her in the state, but because caucuses just aren't the way that most people want to vote.

Not that it matters. It cracks me up when I read the Obamabots yammering excitedly about how his few thousand votes in Wyoming and his caucus win in Texas completely wipe out Clinton's enormous wins in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas.

Every time you remind Democrats about how absurd the delegate apportionment is, you do Clinton a huge favor.

Last week, two thirds of Texas voters said that the superdelegates should not overrule the pledged votes--even though Clinton won the Democrats.

This week, after learning that Clinton's huge wins didn't give her many delegates, Deocrats are more likely to want superdelegates to "use their judgement":

Should neither Clinton nor Obama secure enough delegates to win the nomination (a scenario that looks increasingly likely), 43 percent of Democrats said they would prefer that the candidate trailing in the delegate count concede the nomination, while 42 percent think superdelegates should choose the nominee. Should the ball end up in the superdelegates' court, most respondents (42 percent) think they should choose the best-qualified nominee in their judgment, while 38 percent believe they should choose the person with the popular vote lead.

That's a big switch.

Every time an Obamabot goes raving on about how a few thousand voters in Wyoming make up Obama's temporary delegate deficit, expect that number to go up.

Remember: the majority of Democrats have voted for Clinton. They will want the superdelegates to overrule the pledged delegates if that gives them Clinton--particularly if they are constantly reminded that the delegate apportionment process is moronic.

Leave the echo chamber, people. A week ago, the Democrat leaders were planning an intervention. After Clinton lost Texas, the plan went, they were going to go to her and insist that she concede. They were going to announce 50 superdelegates for Obama, including prominent Clinton supporters switching sides.

Then the polls came out showing that 2:1, Democrats wanted Clinton to stay in the race even if she lost Texas. Then Clinton won Texas.

Suddenly, all those 50 supers backed way down. No more intervention. No more threats. And lots of press talk about the responsibility of superdelegates to use their judgment.

Now as you all know--and lord knows, you repeat it constantly--Obama is going to be ahead in delegates no matter what. That was true whether or not he won Texas and Ohio. The superdelegates knew this, too.

So why did they back down?

Answer: it suddenly became very real to them that Obama not only wasn't closing the sale, but was the minority candidate (that is, supported by a minority of Democrats).

They backed down because they realized first, that Democrats wanted Hillary and second, that they were willing to override the pledged delegates.

So don't kid yourself. The fact that the "intervention" was cancelled is hugely bad news for Obama, and a big signal that the Democrat superdelegates are willing to "use their judgment". And as more and more Democrats realize that Clinton can't pull out the election on delegates, they are going to support the superdelegates making that call--because most Democrats support Clinton.

I don't know what will happen, because I do agree that African Americans will be furious if Clinton gets the nomination. But I do know that they want to give it to Clinton now, because it's obvious Obama isn't ahead because most Democrats support him.

That's why Clinton's offer of the vice-presidency is so diabolically brilliant.

Posted by Cal | March 9, 2008 7:09 AM

I find it interesting that a few Clinton supporters have deigned to grace us with their presence to whine about the relatively sparse population in Wyoming, and how unfair it is that these voters got to elect delegates, thus parroting the Clinton line that Wyoming Doesn't Matter.

To hear them talk, you'd think that it was just last week that Wyoming was endowed with any delegates at all. The truth is that: 1) Obama's ground game is superior; and 2) the Clintons just can't read a map.

Posted by julie | March 9, 2008 7:32 AM

Cal @ 7:09, your Clintonesque argument that Clinton 'leads among Democrats' might possibly have some merit if self-identified Democrats constituted more than between 37% and 40% of the electorate. Last I checked, even the Clintons' 50% + 1 strategy involved getting more than half of the electoral votes in the general election. In other words, your attempt to move the goalposts to "registered Democrats" is not only meaningless, it's a measurement that would fail in November. If the Democratic Party wanted closed primaries or closed caucuses in every state, they would have had them. The Clintons can't win based on the rules as they are, so they're inventing new rules and trying to get everyone else to change their standards.

To hear you talk, the party should have chosen its nominee based on the desires of white Ohioans. Oh, sorry, white Ohioans who don't drink lattes or drive Volvos. Or read the paper.

When this thing began, everyone agreed that it was a race for pledged delegates elected in largely open primaries and caucuses, from all 50 states & some territories. Be honest about that.

Posted by julie | March 9, 2008 7:42 AM

Sen. Obama is forging a new path. He is courageously and necessarily (that fierece urgency of now) trying to implement a more ethical and cooperative way to run for a Presidency or any American office with truth and a concentration on the issues and to point out political differences without the negative way of destroying an opponent for one's political gain. There is no experience for that, as it is a new path and trend. He is a Pioneer.

He is also trying to necessarily (that fierce urgency of now) implement a new way to Govern through a self-sustaining People's Colliation, taking the power out of special interest groups, corporations, and those with great wealth and returning the power back to the People where it belongs in a true democracy. There is no experience for this -- it is a new way-- he is a Pioneer. Some things call for a different energy than experience in breaking down old barriers that do not work for the good of all. It is a hard and difficult task to break down these old special-interest barriers. He is fighting against a very determined force for that not to happen -- that is why Hillary Clinton often aligns and compares herself with McCain, the Past, the Old and the Status Quo -- Barack represents the Future, the New (newer values) and that which is Progressive.

In essence, America is only as good and strong (a strength forged from goodwill, integrity, a freedom from fear and want) as her politicians and leaders!

Posted by Angelight | March 9, 2008 8:49 AM

"I find it interesting that a few Clinton supporters have deigned to grace us with their presence to whine about the relatively sparse population in Wyoming, and how unfair it is that these voters got to elect delegates, thus parroting the Clinton line that Wyoming Doesn't Matter.

Posted by julie"

Hey julie stop yer crying I'll be happy to help you out:
Statewide, about 14% of the state's 59,000 registered Democrats showed up, compared with fewer than 2% -- or 675 actual voters -- in 2004.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-nuwyoming9mar09,0,544094.story

That's about 8,000 people that went to the dem caucus. There about 200,000 registered repubs. I'll let you figure that out for yourself.

Posted by hadenough | March 9, 2008 9:38 AM

Cal, what win in Texas? Clinton lost on delegates, and the popular vote was hardly hers by a huge margin. You may buy the Clinton spin, but those of us who know math find your claims ludicrous.

Posted by maraschion | March 9, 2008 9:43 AM

Shorter hadenough:

I can't get enough Clinton spin to keep my head in place. Clinton never loses, except where it doesn't count, so she's leading 13-0 among real Democrats.

Posted by tozz | March 9, 2008 9:47 AM

"Shorter hadenough:

I can't get enough Clinton spin to keep my head in place. Clinton never loses, except where it doesn't count, so she's leading 13-0 among real Democrats.

Posted by tozz"

I repoort you decide. Looks like you decided a relative handful of dems in a solid red state dems have zero chance of winning in a general doesn't add up to a whole lot. By the way I'd agree.

Posted by hadenough | March 9, 2008 10:10 AM

Hillary has shown that her ability to lead in open to legitmate question. Expenditures exceeded revenues at a critical juncture in the race right after Super Tuesday. That speaks to mangerial incompetence at time when when our economy needs surgery for the next 3-6 years. That tells me all I need to know.

Posted by Valdez | March 9, 2008 10:18 AM

Excuse me if I misspell a few words, it's hard to type when I am laughing so hard at Cal's long and totally wrong post.

Obama has won more delegates, more states, more popular votes. The only legitimate 'more' that Hillary has is more super delegates, and that gap, a legacy of the period when many endorsed her while not anticipating a serious challenge to her, is shrinking very rapidly. Based on Cal's entirely fictional analysis we should be seeing super dels moving to Clinton's side, but instead, of course, we see the opposite. Since Ohio/Texas he has picked up 5 more of them, from all over the country, while Hillary has only picked up a formal announcement by Barbara Boxer's office that she was indeed, as she had previously stated, going to vote in accord with the outcome of her state's primary. (That's a vote for Hillary but a concept that Hillary is fighting earnestly against!)

Under these circumstances, how can I do anything but laugh at Cal (and so many other Clinton folks) when they rant and rave about her having won 'more Democratic votes', 'more big states', 'more important states', more non-African-American-influenced states, more non-latte voters, etc etc ad nauseum. You can debate each of these, but that misses the real point, which is that Obama is winning this race, fair and square, and his margin is growing bigger all the time. The history of this contest since the voting started has been one of Obama whittling away at her lead, catching up, and then steadily increasing his lead. That pattern is going to continue. That's how you win the nomination, Cal and others. Hillary is losing, despite the huge advantages that she started with.

Get used to it and get ready for the day when Hillary will enthusiastically endorse Obama and ask you to please join her in working for his victory -- it's only a few weeks away!

Posted by lostintranslation | March 9, 2008 10:23 AM

"Under these circumstances, how can I do anything but laugh at Cal (and so many other Clinton folks) when they rant and rave about her having won 'more Democratic votes', 'more big states', 'more important states', more non-African-American-influenced states, more non-latte voters, etc etc ad nauseum.

lostintranslation"

It's pretty simple lostintranslation. Facts are stubborn things. Dems vote for Hillary, repubs and 'independents' vote for the weaker candidate. Get over it.

Certainly the 8,000 that went to caucus in Wyoming are important. Every vote is important. That's why caucuses and especially open caucuses need to be done away with. Primaries are attracting 20% and up while a record breaking caucus can be 5% to 15%. Look at the tiny % of caucus goers in Iowa, Washington State and the smaller read states. Shameful.

As we've seen small numbers of repubs can pick the weaker of the dem candidates in small red states that dems will never win in a general. That's why states like Wyoming, where it has to be tough to be a dem, need closed primaries. Then those small repub states can represent their dems and not the handful of repubs trying to pick our nominee.

Posted by hadenough | March 9, 2008 11:00 AM

It's worth making noise about the problems of saying what the popular vote was--which groups get included. But importantly, as Maggie points out, no one told the caucus states that delegates wouldn't matter, and popular vote would--a lot didn't even keep track of it.

In this year's SuperBowl, the Patriots scored more first downs, the Giants more points. If the Giants had known the outcome would be decided by first downs, they would have played differently. Obama played by the rules to try and amass delegates according to the rules in each state. Don't let Clinton move the goalposts now, even if we're presently ahead on the (very fuzzy) popular vote. If she wanted to win on popular vote, she should have spent the past few years reforming the Democratic primary system. (Which isn't a bad idea. But reforming it mid-election to change the outcome should be laughed off the stage.)

Posted by Deborah | March 9, 2008 11:05 AM

Hey, Robert Ethan -- Wyoming had a closed primary, for which party registration had to take place before a cutoff several weeks ago. Oh no, all those crossovers!!!

And like hadenough helpfully pointed out above, there was 14% turnout by the state's registered Dems. Not outstanding, but a sevenfold improvement on 2004, and by no means a bad turnout figure regardless.

Would Obama win Wyoming? Probably not. But the state does have a Democratic governor in his second term, and it seems a little silly to write it off as part of some retar... misguided "insult 40 states" strategy.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 9, 2008 11:15 AM

That's why states like Wyoming, where it has to be tough to be a dem, need closed primaries. Then those small repub states can represent their dems and not the handful of repubs trying to pick our nominee.

See above, and rest easy, sweet prince.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 9, 2008 11:18 AM

Hadenough:

I'm an independent. I went out and voted for Obama, even though I normally don't pay much attention in primaries--it takes an exceptionally good or bad candidate to get me to weigh in at that stage.

In your little fantasy, all "independents" are secret republicans. If that's the case, the Democrats lose, across the board, because R + I > D almost everywhere.

That isn't what happens because--try and grasp this--we don't vote by party. We might lean one way, but we've voted mixed party tickets based on candidate strengths. And we DON'T vote in the primaries, then get all bored and toddle off before the general election. Quite the reverse.

Wyoming has an open primary. It also had a Republican primary 2 months ago, so people who wanted to vote R already did. This persistent fantasy about a highly organized group of independents, all closeted republicans, coordinating with the secret R headquarters to flood the D primaries is nonsense. Not to mention, as Eugene Robinson pointed out, people are really bad at figuring out who the worst candidate for the other side is. Secret plotters can cancel each other out.

If you want a candidate who Republicans voted for on orders from a conservative to pick the easy to beat candidate, I present: Hillary Clinton, on Rush Limbaugh's orders. I'm not arguing that explains her TX and OH numbers, mind. But there's a real plan with loads of air play that can be pointed to, no vast I-R undetectable secret conspiracy required.

Posted by Deborah | March 9, 2008 11:22 AM

"African Americans will be furious if Clinton gets the nomination. But I do know that they want to give it to Clinton now, because it's obvious Obama isn't ahead because most Democrats support him."

This race is about the future of the Democratic Party. It isn't just that AAs will be furious, so will be the young and so will all those independents and cross overs who the Democratic Party is trying to appeal to.

There are important reasons that primary our system is not winner take all, and many of the primaries are open. You want a system that shrinks the base and only produces aging establishment candidates - try the Republican system.

All those reasons for our system would be defeated along with Obama if only the number of popular votes cast by Democrats are in effect counted by the superdelegates in making their decision.

In short, it would be a disaster.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 9, 2008 11:36 AM

Looks like Clinton did worse in Texas than previous reports suggested:

"The Associated Press has allocated all but 10 of the delegates and says Clinton leads by only one delegate. The Obama campaign claims that Clinton actually finished behind Obama in Texas delegates because of his win in the Texas caucus, netting him a five-delegate advantage in the state. Regardless, Clinton's four-point victory in the Texas primary is translating into little success in the pledged delegate count."

A lot of people said Clinton would have to win by about five points in order to gain any kind of delegate advantage, and it looks like they were exactly right. Texans decisively reject Hillary Clinton's brand of negative campaigning, and whittled away her commanding 20 point lead to next to nothing, and to a loss of delegates in the state.

After her blowout loss in Wyoming, I predict that party elders will seek to move her from the race if she doesn't win Mississippi by a very significant margin.

Posted by Carson | March 9, 2008 11:42 AM

"I'm an independent. I went out and voted for Obama, even though I normally don't pay much attention in primaries--it takes an exceptionally good or bad candidate to get me to weigh in at that stage.

Posted by Deborah"

You didn't vote as an indie for obama in Wyoming.

Participation in Wyoming’s delegate selection process is open to all voters who wish to participate as Democrats. All persons residing in the county and registered to vote as Democrats at least 15 days prior to the county caucus/convention may vote at the county caucus/convention and be elected as delegates to the state and national conventions.
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/WY.html

"Wyoming has an open primary."

Wyoming was a closed caucus. And there is really is no reason to continue.

Posted by hadenough | March 9, 2008 11:56 AM

When this thing began, everyone agreed that it was a race for pledged delegates elected in largely open primaries and caucuses, from all 50 states & some territories. Be honest about that.

Don't be silly. "Everyone" agreed only that the winning candidate would get a majority of the total delegates.

After her blowout loss in Wyoming, I predict that party elders will seek to move her from the race if she doesn't win Mississippi by a very significant margin.

Yeah, try selling that to stupid people.

It isn't just that AAs will be furious, so will be the young and so will all those independents and cross overs who the Democratic Party is trying to appeal to.

Independents and crossovers are irrelevant and unreliable. The youth are unreliable, and no one cares in the slightest about liberals except that they not screw up another election with their wholly unsuitable candidates.

The superdelegates exist precisely so that they can overrule the voters on liberal losers like the Big O.

Posted by Cal | March 9, 2008 12:06 PM

Sorry, Marc. Hillary Clinton has won fewer votes than Barack Obama.

She's behind by about 600,000 votes - and that's without counting four caucus states that do not announce popular vote totals: Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine.

Charitably - very charitably - let's call Iowa and Nevada a wash - though Iowa is a bigger state and he won it by a larger margin than Clinton won NV. That leaves two more states that Obama won by 20+ points.

It's true that Hillary trails among delegates by more than she trails in the number of popular votes. But she is behind in *both*.

As to Michigan and Florida - if there is one thing I am hoping, as an Obama supporter, it's that we have a real primary in those states so I can stop hearing about how Hillary won them by such huge margins. Before you say that, please have a look at the turnout totals. In every blue or purple state except three, more people voted in the Democratic primary than the Republican because that was the race that's captured the public's interest. What are the exceptions? Arizona, John McCain's home state, and ... Michigan and Florida.

Here's a comparison that should bring it home. In Missouri, 823,000 people voted in the Democratic contest, and 528,000 in the Republican; in NH 290,000 voted in the Democratic contest, and 240,000 in the Republican. In Florida and Michigan, the results are reversed - in Michigan 868,000 people voted in the Republican race and only 592,000 in the Dem; in Florida, 1.92m voted in the Republican race and only 1.73m in the Democratic.

Why did the Democratic contests in those states - and only those states - fail to attract more interest? Because voters knew they didn't matter.

Posted by TedL | March 9, 2008 12:16 PM

"and no one cares in the slightest about liberals except that they not screw up another election with their wholly unsuitable candidates."

You mean like those died in wool liberal "Democrats" who want Hillary as opposed to all the "moderates" who have overwhelmingly supported Obama?

Basically, what you are saying is that system of 50 state primaries is a complete waste of time and money, when only the votes of few real Democrats in big states really matter along with those of the superdelegates who know best.

If that's the impression voters come away with after this is done, you won't have to worry about the Democratic Party nominating losers in the future. There won't be any party to speak of.

Posted by C.B. Todd | March 9, 2008 12:45 PM

Shorter hadenough - your weaker candidate is so clearly inferior to mine that... he is winning the popular vote, numbers of states, numbers of delegates. But he is still inferior.

Shorter Cal - see hadenough, but at greater and more pompous length.

Reality: Obama is a great candidate, while Hillary is a desperate and increasingly self-humiliating train-wreck. The only reason she keeps moving is that gravity is helping her out on the long wheeze down the mountain.

Posted by basilbrush | March 9, 2008 12:58 PM

their advice was largely ignored by the campaign high command, which did not plan for, or envision, a campaign lasting beyond February 5

This could be about Bush Administration and Iraq. Not a good portent of what a new Clinton Administration holds.

Posted by Naveen | March 9, 2008 12:59 PM

Hmmm what sort of Democrat is Hillary? Yellow dog? Blue dog? Rose-tinted dog? Or just dead dog?

Posted by maxq | March 9, 2008 1:00 PM

"I'm an independent. I went out and voted for Obama, even though I normally don't pay much attention in primaries--it takes an exceptionally good or bad candidate to get me to weigh in at that stage.
Posted by Deborah"
You didn't vote as an indie for obama in Wyoming.
--Hadenough

Nope, I voted for him in Massachusetts. Which according to the Clinton peopel is a) very important, because it is a large reliably blue state; b) of no importance whatsoever, because independents can vote and that invalidates our election; c) a critical state that shall go overwhelmingly for McCain if it can't have Clinton....I'm sure there will be more reasons we don't count before long.

I voted for him, not because I received instructions from the secret Independent/Republican coalition to ruin Democratic elections, but because I liked his stance on several important issues (torture, foreign policy) and because I decided I wouldn't reward Clinton for her tactics in NC.

Posted by Deborah | March 9, 2008 3:01 PM

Hillary's problem with caucuses is not so much that they are undemocratic or that the campaign failed to organize, it is that Hillary has a huge problem with engaged, high information voters, regardless of socioeconomic status.

Although I don't buy your precise characterization, I think it's safe to say Obama does do well with certain groups. He doesn't do so well with lower income voters. When they are excluded en masse by the exclusionary nature of the caucus format, he wins big.

What an accomplishment.

She's behind by about 600,000 votes - and that's without counting four caucus states that do not announce popular vote totals: Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine.

Nope. More voters have pulled the lever for Hillary Clinton than for any other Democratic candidate, including Barack Obama. Hillary leads Obama by about 90,000 total popular votes. That lead will likely be reduced or eliminated after Mississippi, but she'll probably regain it after Pennsylvannia.

Posted by Maximom | March 9, 2008 3:38 PM

"More voters have pulled the lever for Hillary Clinton than for any other Democratic candidate, including Barack Obama"

Nope, not even close. The popular vote tallies aren't accurate in terms of caucus voters, and, as all real Democrats know, Michigan and Florida currently are not legitimate primaries and thus their popular vote totals don't count. Obama leads the popular vote tally by 600,000 votes. Maximom, please, grow up. Democrats don't need this sort of whining dishonesty.

Posted by juliek | March 9, 2008 3:44 PM

Maximom, your figures include Florida and Michigan. Pretty easy to run up vote totals in beauty contests where your constituency turns out to vote on a property tax referendum and checks your name based on your status as a political wife, or where you're the only name on the ballot other than Gravel and Kucinich. That's my first point. My second point is a reiteration of the excellent football analogy above: that this was never a race for the popular vote, it is a race for *delegates*. Hillary Clinton may have the votes of more left-handed red-heads who smoke Camel Lights, too, but that doesn't mean she is winning. Geez.

Posted by julie | March 9, 2008 3:49 PM

Just an idle thought I have been having for a while:

Although I do think the Clinton Campaign made many crucial strategic errors (going all the way back to when she decided to start her political career by running for the Senate in New York, and her decisions about how to position herself as a Senator), I don't think spending every thing they had--and everything they could borrow--in order to do as well as possible on Super Tuesday was one of those mistakes.

By the time Super Tuesday was approaching, the nature of the Obama coalition and his ability to improve relative to Clinton in states when given time to campaign was already quite clear. Therefore, given the lineup and scheduling of states after Super Tuesday, it was a very good bet that Obama would net at least some delegates on Clinton in the contests remaining after Super Tuesday.

So, she really had no choice but to try to run up the score on Super Tuesday, either knocking Obama out of the race or at least building up such a large delegate lead that he couldn't catch her in the remaining contests. Of course, he ended up not only keeping it close in the pledged delegate contest on Super Tuesday, which would have been bad enough, but actually beating her, which for all practical purposes made it extremely unlikely she could win.

And now people are saying she made a strategic error by not planning for this eventuality. But the fact is that if the contest went in this direction on Super Tuesday, she was almost certainly going to lose in the end, even if she saved some resources. So, in my view it was actually the right decision to put every resource possible into trying to avoid this scenario entirely. Again, the problem is that they just got beat on Super Tuesday, despite wisely doing everything they could to not only win but run up the score.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 3:52 PM

By the way, Obama has won low income voters outside of the regions in which Clinton is strong. Heck, he beat her among low income voters in the very first contest, Iowa. And one would think the fact that Obama beat Clinton among low income voters in states like Virginia and Wisconsin would have dispelled the idea this was a caucus effect as opposed to a regional effect--but I guess not.

Posted by DTM | March 9, 2008 4:04 PM

Although I don't buy your precise characterization, I think it's safe to say Obama does do well with certain groups. He doesn't do so well with lower income voters. When they are excluded en masse by the exclusionary nature of the caucus format, he wins big.

LOL! So there's the straight-faced defense of the donut hole I was asking about, how Obama doesn't do well among "real" Democrats, yet manages to excel in the caucuses dominated by Democratic Party activists.

Nice, maximom. Always a pleasure.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 9, 2008 4:09 PM

Just how much destructive drama are the Clintons going to put this country through? The impeachment over Monica wasn't enough, now they are going to rip the Democratic Party to shreds?

The WashPost article detailing the warfare inside the Clinton campaign ends by quoting an unnamed Clinton adviser: "There was an arrogant attitude on the part of the campaign for many months. And now we're in the fight for our lives."

The incompetence and arrogance of one person, Hillary Clinton, threatens to tear the Democratic Party asunder and lead to certain defeat in the fall.

Because she couldn't even be bothered to fire up Bill's enormous database of democrats and supporters and TRY to organize and contest the caucuses, she now whines that such contests are unfair and unimportant, and she is ENTITLED to win the nomination anyway. What a selfish child.

She is most certainly NOT ready to be president.

Posted by kucinich_fan | March 9, 2008 4:58 PM

What makes you think it was a conscious decision on the part of Team Clinton? The Clinton campaign has been unable to attract active volunteers. You can't organize non-existent people.

Posted by Tom J | March 9, 2008 5:28 PM

Does anyone have a breakdown of delegates won to date, divided by primaries and caucuses? Would be interesting.

Speaking of caucuses, what the heck is happening with Texas? When are the other 59% going to report? That will be big, big news -- pardon my paranoia, but is someone deliberately keeping the results under wraps?

Posted by lostintranslation

What’s going on is that counting the Texas Caucus has turned into something of a mess. Time for a reality check caucus sites that had a less than ten people show up four years ago had hundreds show up this year…

Posted by SC Rose | March 9, 2008 7:25 PM

Hillary was not ready on Day One. Nor was she ready on Day 300. She's still not ready. What does this say about any possible Clinton presidency?

Posted by conradg | March 9, 2008 10:13 PM

I'm sick of this argument put forth by HRC supporters: that Obama "failed" to secure the nomination by pledged delegates only, and therefore his lead does not really matter. Wrong!

Because the DNC, in their infinite wisdom, allocated a whopping 20% to superdelegates, a candidate has to secure 62.5% of pledged delegates to clinch the nomination without supers. In other words, the DNC rules guarantee that the superdelegates would be decisive in any race that was not a blowout.

Superdelegates are the problem and should be abolished.

Posted by Tony in MN | March 10, 2008 11:33 PM