Why isn't the Democratic nomination race over? While the pundits around the country are coming up with various explanations and speculations, no one seems capable of breaking out a calculator. Because if they did, they'd know that this contest is so over.
How is it over? With only three primaries remaining -- in Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota -- only 86 pledged delegates are left at stake. Assuming the worst-case scenario for Barack Obama (a blowout loss in PR and narrow wins in MT and SD), he'd earn 36 delegates with the remaining 50 going to Hillary Clinton.
If you do the math (with numbers provided by RealClearPolitics), you'd know that this race is over in many different ways -- and in every way:
1. Playing by the rules -- This would be the one that makes the most sense, but the one Clinton is fighting the hardest not to abide by. Under this scenario, Florida and Michigan don't count and the magic number is 2,026.
Barack Obama would have 2,001 delegates after the final primaries, leaving him 25 short of the majority required. He closes out the race if he gets just 25 of the uncommitted 209 super delegates to support him.
Result: Obama expected to clinch as of June 3.
2. Counting only pledged delegates -- Obama has favored using this as an argument to compel the super delegates to throw in their lot. To-date, he has 1,656 pledged delegates, already more than half of the 3,253 pledged delegates in play. If the super delegates are supposed to follow the lead of the pledged delegates, then this game is already over.
Result: Obama already clinched.
3. Counting only pledged delegates, including Florida and Michigan -- By adding the two renegade delegations, the pledged delegate pool expands to 3,570, meaning 1,785 would be needed to reach a majority.
The trickier part of this scenario is whether to allocate the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan to Obama, since he took his name off the ballot. If the "uncommitted" goes to Obama, then he'll have 1,826 pledged delegates, still a majority. If those "uncommitted" votes go to no one -- i.e. Obama gets zero delegates from Michigan -- then he'd fail to reach the majority. But he'd still have more pledged delegates then Clinton: 1,766-1,733, with neither reaching the majority because of the uncommitted votes.
Result: Obama wins as of June 3, whether he gets Michigan's pledged delegates or not.
4. Counting all delegates, including Florida and Michigan -- Hillary is fighting hard to reach this outcome, but the reality is she still has no chance to win. It merely puts more super delegates on the spot. By admitting all delegates from Florida and Michigan, the magic number goes up to 2,182.
If Obama is allowed to capture the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan, he'd have 2,135 delegates after the final primaries, leaving him 47 super delegates short of the majority. In contrast, Clinton's only goes up to 2,012, still needing 170 of the remaining 209 (81 percent) super delegates to support her. If Obama doesn't get Michigan's "uncommitted," he'd need more super delegates to put him over the top, but he'd still be ahead of Clinton, 2,075-2,012.
Result: Obama ahead in either scenario, needing either 47 or 102 super delegates for majority.
5. The popular vote -- This is Hilary's ace in the hole -- or so she thinks. When all else fails -- and they're destined to, as I have outlined -- this is the only thing she'll have going for her.
But even this specious piece of twisted logic doesn't necessarily work in her favor. Note her line: "More Americans have voted for me." What she conveniently left out is that since Obama's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot, he technically received no votes from Michigan. Even if Hillary wins a landslide in Puerto Rico, a territory that does not have a say in the general election, she'd still be trailing Obama in popular vote -- as long as Obama can claim the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan.
Result: Obama ahead if Michigan's "uncommitted" votes go to him. Clinton ahead if not.
As I had previously and presciently stated, it was stupid for Obama's people to bring the "popular vote" issue into the argument, and it's now biting them back something fierce. It was never part of the contest and now this becomes one last lifeline for Hillary's floundering campaign.
But no matter. Obama has a clear path to bring about the endgame well before the August convention. He should argue for seating Florida and Michigan's delegations, with the single caveat that Michigan's "uncommitted" delegates be allocated to him. Hillary will have virtually no rebuttal to this arrangement since she'd reap the benefits of the two contests she "won." And Obama merely has to persuade an additional two dozen or so super delegates (out of 209) to support him and make him the Democratic Party's nominee.
It all adds up. Really. Just do the math.
Showing posts with label 2008 Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Election. Show all posts
23 May 2008
21 May 2008
Losing Graciously is un-Democratic
If you lose, change the rules. If you can't change the rules, cry that the rules are unfair. If nobody wants to hear you whine, you throw a tantrum and refuse to go away. If all else fails, you can still go hire a lawyer.
Is this where we're headed with Hillary Clinton?
Taking a page -- heck, maybe the whole enchilada -- out of Al Gore's playbook, Hillary is fighting to the death because "people" exhorted her to. Yeah, people, like Bill, Chelsea, Howard Wolfson and a handful of others from the HRC campaign that's running low on cash and even lower on class and dignity.
If you thought Hillary already said some unbelievably crass stuff, well, the hits just keep on coming. Her latest gem: She's leading in popular votes. She should've had one of those announcers who can read fine print at warp speed (like the ones on TV or radio commercials) say the following: "That's if you count Florida and Michigan, never mind we all agreed beforehand that those two delegations broke the rules and should be excluded and that Barack Obama will have zero votes from Michigan because he took his name off the ballot, and if you don't count the results from Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington -- three of them won by Obama -- then Hillary Clinton would be ahead by 1/3 of one percent. Not all figures are reliable and restrictions apply. See HillaryClinton.com for details. Offer expires June 3rd."
Whew. But like the Bosnian sniper, Hillary is again hoping against hope that nobody would pay attention to details. And that the super delegates -- the real audience she's appealing to -- would be as stupid as the Florida voters who claimed that the butterfly ballots were too confusing in the 2000 election.
Hillary doesn't want to make sure every vote counts. She wants to make sure every vote that works in her favor counts. In her twisted logic, even though she will never surpass Obama's lead in pledged delegates -- even if Florida and Michigan's results are tabulated as the way they went, i.e. Obama gets zero in Michigan -- by coming close that ought to be enough. Never mind the pre-existing rules and the pledge by all candidates before the election to exclude those two renegade states.
Rules are for Republicans and everybody else. We're Democrats. We don't need no stinking rules!
The aversion to rules is right up there among allergies that afflict Democrats. And this sickness owes much of it to Gore's refusal to concede what was clearly a lost election. By contesting the 2000 election to its bitter conclusion, Gore ensured the kind of rancor and discontent that ensnared American politics for the next eight years. Whereas Samuel Tilden and even Richard Nixon(!) graciously conceded in elections they might have been robbed, Gore chose his own grievance over what was good for the country.
Much of his spurious arguments are given a rebirth by Gore's former housemate. Yeah, Hillary and Al might've despised each other, but they think eerily alike. Both are elites masquerading as champions of the people. Both possess a kind of supreme entitlement mentality as if democratic politics are merely a charade for imperial succession. Both have a penchant to exaggerate their credentials. And both envied Bill for his political gifts -- and neither has them.
If 2000 is prelude, this Democratic nomination process will go to the convention floor in August in Denver. Hillary won't let it die, even if she can't win. She has already done plenty to undermine Obama's electability -- and she'll do more to that effect, despite the rhetoric that she'll "work" for the Democratic nominee. Come to think of it, Hillary really is a lot like Tonya Harding. If she attacks Obama savagely enough, he'll become unelectable and therefore the nomination must go to her.
Will it work? That depends on the density of the super delegates' collective backbone. But if Democrats are known for their balls, why are they called the Mommy Party?
Is this where we're headed with Hillary Clinton?
Taking a page -- heck, maybe the whole enchilada -- out of Al Gore's playbook, Hillary is fighting to the death because "people" exhorted her to. Yeah, people, like Bill, Chelsea, Howard Wolfson and a handful of others from the HRC campaign that's running low on cash and even lower on class and dignity.
If you thought Hillary already said some unbelievably crass stuff, well, the hits just keep on coming. Her latest gem: She's leading in popular votes. She should've had one of those announcers who can read fine print at warp speed (like the ones on TV or radio commercials) say the following: "That's if you count Florida and Michigan, never mind we all agreed beforehand that those two delegations broke the rules and should be excluded and that Barack Obama will have zero votes from Michigan because he took his name off the ballot, and if you don't count the results from Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington -- three of them won by Obama -- then Hillary Clinton would be ahead by 1/3 of one percent. Not all figures are reliable and restrictions apply. See HillaryClinton.com for details. Offer expires June 3rd."
Whew. But like the Bosnian sniper, Hillary is again hoping against hope that nobody would pay attention to details. And that the super delegates -- the real audience she's appealing to -- would be as stupid as the Florida voters who claimed that the butterfly ballots were too confusing in the 2000 election.
Hillary doesn't want to make sure every vote counts. She wants to make sure every vote that works in her favor counts. In her twisted logic, even though she will never surpass Obama's lead in pledged delegates -- even if Florida and Michigan's results are tabulated as the way they went, i.e. Obama gets zero in Michigan -- by coming close that ought to be enough. Never mind the pre-existing rules and the pledge by all candidates before the election to exclude those two renegade states.
Rules are for Republicans and everybody else. We're Democrats. We don't need no stinking rules!
The aversion to rules is right up there among allergies that afflict Democrats. And this sickness owes much of it to Gore's refusal to concede what was clearly a lost election. By contesting the 2000 election to its bitter conclusion, Gore ensured the kind of rancor and discontent that ensnared American politics for the next eight years. Whereas Samuel Tilden and even Richard Nixon(!) graciously conceded in elections they might have been robbed, Gore chose his own grievance over what was good for the country.
Much of his spurious arguments are given a rebirth by Gore's former housemate. Yeah, Hillary and Al might've despised each other, but they think eerily alike. Both are elites masquerading as champions of the people. Both possess a kind of supreme entitlement mentality as if democratic politics are merely a charade for imperial succession. Both have a penchant to exaggerate their credentials. And both envied Bill for his political gifts -- and neither has them.
If 2000 is prelude, this Democratic nomination process will go to the convention floor in August in Denver. Hillary won't let it die, even if she can't win. She has already done plenty to undermine Obama's electability -- and she'll do more to that effect, despite the rhetoric that she'll "work" for the Democratic nominee. Come to think of it, Hillary really is a lot like Tonya Harding. If she attacks Obama savagely enough, he'll become unelectable and therefore the nomination must go to her.
Will it work? That depends on the density of the super delegates' collective backbone. But if Democrats are known for their balls, why are they called the Mommy Party?
08 May 2008
Chickens Coming Home to Roost
The Democratic primary race is all over but the counting. Barack Obama will win the nomination.
And he will lose to John McCain in the November general election.
Thank you, Mrs. and Mr. Clinton!
By staying in the race after 10 consecutive drubbings in February, Hillary Clinton made sure that Obama got fully exposed for what he is -- a rank amateur not quite capable of firing a political kill shot. By dragging the race to its ugly conclusion, when no mathematical probability supports her continued candidacy, Hillary did the Republicans their bidding by going full throttle with the kind of identity politics that the Democrats are famous for.
Famous for losing presidential elections.
Make no mistake, the race card, gender card and even the AARP card are all now on the table. It will be fair game for McCain to play them come summer and fall because it was the Democrats who dealt them.
For Obama, he already got a losing hand.
If the blue-collar whites had reservations about voting for a black man, Hillary went out of her way to assure them that there's nothing wrong with racist feelings. If women resented a younger man taking away something that they perceive to belong to a woman who's put in her dues, Hillary said resent away. If old folks felt the country couldn't be trusted in the hands of an inexperienced neophyte, Hillary cleared it all up with, you know, that red phone thing.
All these constituencies are not gonna break Obama's way, even after he formally seals the nomination. And they're still not coming his way even if he makes an astonishing move by tapping Hillary as his VP candidate.
Now, Obama is not that green. He doesn't want Hillary running around the White House showing him where everything is, much less Bill telling him what to do. In this case, if he wins the election, he will be indebted to the Clintons, and will be forced to pack his cabinet with the Clintons' cronies. That's not change you can believe in.
But the truth is that even if Hillary is on his ticket, she won't be that much help. The only demographic group she truly has an influence on is the downscale women voters. The rest of them, they're all up for grabs.
And let's face it. Many of the Clintons' "supporters" during the primary have their own agendas. There are plenty of Republicans who disingenuously tried to influence the Democratic ticket. Some are whites who couldn't bear to vote for a black man but will have no trouble pulling the lever for McCain in the fall. And there are those who are truly concerned about national security -- yeah, whom do you think they want to answer that red phone?
No matter how you look at it, Obama is a badly damaged candidate. Battered by the incessant identity politics, he's right back into the mud-slinging that he had hoped to transcend.
Obama's best shot to stop the bleeding is to exert so much pressure on Hillary that she'd finally quit the race. With just a handful of primaries left to contest, Obama needs only about, at best 50, at worst 90, of the remaining 260 or so uncommitted super delegates to cast their lot with him to put him over the magic number of 2,025.
But does he have the clout and gravitas to force the issue? Not now. Obama might've been able to push another male candidate off the stage, but not Hillary. She's special because she's the first woman to legitimately vie for the presidency of the United States. With that being the case, no man had dare tell her what to do.
And that goes for the rest of the identity-obsessed Democrats. Yeah, talk about chickens coming home to roost.
And he will lose to John McCain in the November general election.
Thank you, Mrs. and Mr. Clinton!
By staying in the race after 10 consecutive drubbings in February, Hillary Clinton made sure that Obama got fully exposed for what he is -- a rank amateur not quite capable of firing a political kill shot. By dragging the race to its ugly conclusion, when no mathematical probability supports her continued candidacy, Hillary did the Republicans their bidding by going full throttle with the kind of identity politics that the Democrats are famous for.
Famous for losing presidential elections.
Make no mistake, the race card, gender card and even the AARP card are all now on the table. It will be fair game for McCain to play them come summer and fall because it was the Democrats who dealt them.
For Obama, he already got a losing hand.
If the blue-collar whites had reservations about voting for a black man, Hillary went out of her way to assure them that there's nothing wrong with racist feelings. If women resented a younger man taking away something that they perceive to belong to a woman who's put in her dues, Hillary said resent away. If old folks felt the country couldn't be trusted in the hands of an inexperienced neophyte, Hillary cleared it all up with, you know, that red phone thing.
All these constituencies are not gonna break Obama's way, even after he formally seals the nomination. And they're still not coming his way even if he makes an astonishing move by tapping Hillary as his VP candidate.
Now, Obama is not that green. He doesn't want Hillary running around the White House showing him where everything is, much less Bill telling him what to do. In this case, if he wins the election, he will be indebted to the Clintons, and will be forced to pack his cabinet with the Clintons' cronies. That's not change you can believe in.
But the truth is that even if Hillary is on his ticket, she won't be that much help. The only demographic group she truly has an influence on is the downscale women voters. The rest of them, they're all up for grabs.
And let's face it. Many of the Clintons' "supporters" during the primary have their own agendas. There are plenty of Republicans who disingenuously tried to influence the Democratic ticket. Some are whites who couldn't bear to vote for a black man but will have no trouble pulling the lever for McCain in the fall. And there are those who are truly concerned about national security -- yeah, whom do you think they want to answer that red phone?
No matter how you look at it, Obama is a badly damaged candidate. Battered by the incessant identity politics, he's right back into the mud-slinging that he had hoped to transcend.
Obama's best shot to stop the bleeding is to exert so much pressure on Hillary that she'd finally quit the race. With just a handful of primaries left to contest, Obama needs only about, at best 50, at worst 90, of the remaining 260 or so uncommitted super delegates to cast their lot with him to put him over the magic number of 2,025.
But does he have the clout and gravitas to force the issue? Not now. Obama might've been able to push another male candidate off the stage, but not Hillary. She's special because she's the first woman to legitimately vie for the presidency of the United States. With that being the case, no man had dare tell her what to do.
And that goes for the rest of the identity-obsessed Democrats. Yeah, talk about chickens coming home to roost.
11 March 2008
Eye on the Prize, Foot on the Gas
As the curtain draws on the Mississippi primary, this topsy-turvy election season hits the snooze button. The next contest is six weeks away, and the Democratic combatants will dig in for the April 22 showdown in Pennsylvania.
Whether they're digging trenches or the party's own grave in the general election is uncertain. But this much we know: Barack Obama has the math on his side. The question is: Will he put it to good use?
After Pennsylvania, there are only seven states -- plus Puerto Rico and Guam -- left to vote. Leaving out Guam and its puny lot of 4 delegates aside, it will probably be played to a draw. Obama should be favored to win North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota and pick up around 200 delegates. Hillary Clinton will win Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico and around 200 delegates.
With that in mind, here are the crucial strategic choices that Obama must make to keep math on his side, and Clinton's thinly veiled attempt to steal the nomination at bay.
1. Minimize his losses in Pennsylvania -- This election has proved that momentum means nothing and demographics mean everything. The Keystone State is not going to be Obama's friend. It has a fairly polarized electorate and lots of downscale white voters. Gov. Ed Rendell will stop at nothing -- cheating if necessary -- to help the Clintons. Michael Nutter, the mayor of Philadelphia, the only Pennsylvania city with a significant black population, also endorses Clinton.
Obama needs to borrow a page out of the Clinton playbook, which sustained her during an 11-game losing streak. He must keep expectations way down, to the media and publicly. Send out surrogates to paint a bleak picture of a lost cause and act shocked when he loses by only 10 points and somehow spin it as a "victory." Go ahead, it's not that hard to do. Hillary has made a whole campaign season out of it.
2. Keep presence and pressure in North Carolina -- On the other hand, Obama must win North Carolina, and maybe win big. The Tar Heel State comes two weeks after Pennsylvania and really is the last significant race in the nominating contest. It is delegate-rich; and a convincing win here will firmly entrench him as the frontrunner with mostly friendly terrain left on the campaign trail.
He should act like Pennsylvania and North Carolina are a combo deal and work on an appearance of a split. Invest most of his resources in North Carolina and find ways to dissuade Republicans from flooding the polling places to vote for Hillary.
3. Make a decision on Michigan and Florida -- This is a toughie, but the reality is, no matter what happens in these two states, no vote, re-vote, mail-in vote, it will make surprisingly little difference in the delegate math.
Assuming the delegates will be seated and that Hillary carries both states by 55-45 margins, she will still lose the race for pledged delegates by about 100. If the delegates from Michigan and Florida are banned, then Obama needs about 150 additional super delegates (beyond the current 200 already committed to him) to make the magic number. If those rogue states are seated, he still only needs about 170, not a big jump.
It actually makes a lot more sense for Obama to allow the previous votes to stand and the delegates to be seated -- as long as he can lay claim to all the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan -- and here's why: a) It denies Hillary two much-needed victories late in the campaign; b) Obama will appear to be magnanimous and fighting for the voters even though it's to his disadvantage; c) It keeps the cost to him contained because he could easily lose by bigger margins in the event of a re-vote.
4. Stay away from the popular vote myth -- Obama brought this debate into the game and now he needs to mute it. There is no benefit to him to make this argument. The argument should be all about delegates and the popular vote is meaningless.
This is the reasons why Obama should steer clear of this bogus talking point: It's not a true popular vote contest anyway. He gets punished severely in caucus states (where he's dominated) because the popular vote counts are severely skewed. For example, he won the Colorado caucuses by 35 points, yet picked up only a 40,000 popular vote lead. In Louisiana, with similar number of delegates at stake, he won by 20 points in the primary, and gained an 80,000 popular vote edge.
At the moment, he has a lead of 700,000 in popular vote. But that will be wiped out if Michigan and Florida are put in the mix and Pennsylvania goes to Clinton as expected. He does not want Hillary to use the popular vote as a smoke-screen to steal the nomination. Giving in on Michigan and Florida actually will help his cause because that just makes the popular vote argument even more illegitimate since he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.
5. Push hard toward the magic number (whichever) -- Slowly but surely, he's eating into Hillary's lead in the super delegates. What once was a lead of about 100 for Hillary has shrunk to about 30. If he can pick up another 100 or so supers in the coming three months, that will create enormous pressure on others to bring him across the finish line.
If the magic number stays at 2,025, and he's at about 1,990 when Montana and South Dakota are done on June 3, then it shouldn't be all that difficult to shake down another 35 or so supers to fall in line for the good of the party. Even if Michigan and Florida are added back in the mix and the magic number moves up to 2,182, he'll have to convince about 50 of the over 300 yet-to-commit supers at that point.
The reality is that Obama has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. By winning Mississippi, he also guaranteed that he'll have won more states no matter what happens the rest of the way. His job is now helping the voters (and the media) to filter out all the noise that should be inconsequential to winning the nomination.
Whether he's equal to this simple task will determine whether he's fit for the highest office in the land.
Whether they're digging trenches or the party's own grave in the general election is uncertain. But this much we know: Barack Obama has the math on his side. The question is: Will he put it to good use?
After Pennsylvania, there are only seven states -- plus Puerto Rico and Guam -- left to vote. Leaving out Guam and its puny lot of 4 delegates aside, it will probably be played to a draw. Obama should be favored to win North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota and pick up around 200 delegates. Hillary Clinton will win Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico and around 200 delegates.
With that in mind, here are the crucial strategic choices that Obama must make to keep math on his side, and Clinton's thinly veiled attempt to steal the nomination at bay.
1. Minimize his losses in Pennsylvania -- This election has proved that momentum means nothing and demographics mean everything. The Keystone State is not going to be Obama's friend. It has a fairly polarized electorate and lots of downscale white voters. Gov. Ed Rendell will stop at nothing -- cheating if necessary -- to help the Clintons. Michael Nutter, the mayor of Philadelphia, the only Pennsylvania city with a significant black population, also endorses Clinton.
Obama needs to borrow a page out of the Clinton playbook, which sustained her during an 11-game losing streak. He must keep expectations way down, to the media and publicly. Send out surrogates to paint a bleak picture of a lost cause and act shocked when he loses by only 10 points and somehow spin it as a "victory." Go ahead, it's not that hard to do. Hillary has made a whole campaign season out of it.
2. Keep presence and pressure in North Carolina -- On the other hand, Obama must win North Carolina, and maybe win big. The Tar Heel State comes two weeks after Pennsylvania and really is the last significant race in the nominating contest. It is delegate-rich; and a convincing win here will firmly entrench him as the frontrunner with mostly friendly terrain left on the campaign trail.
He should act like Pennsylvania and North Carolina are a combo deal and work on an appearance of a split. Invest most of his resources in North Carolina and find ways to dissuade Republicans from flooding the polling places to vote for Hillary.
3. Make a decision on Michigan and Florida -- This is a toughie, but the reality is, no matter what happens in these two states, no vote, re-vote, mail-in vote, it will make surprisingly little difference in the delegate math.
Assuming the delegates will be seated and that Hillary carries both states by 55-45 margins, she will still lose the race for pledged delegates by about 100. If the delegates from Michigan and Florida are banned, then Obama needs about 150 additional super delegates (beyond the current 200 already committed to him) to make the magic number. If those rogue states are seated, he still only needs about 170, not a big jump.
It actually makes a lot more sense for Obama to allow the previous votes to stand and the delegates to be seated -- as long as he can lay claim to all the "uncommitted" votes in Michigan -- and here's why: a) It denies Hillary two much-needed victories late in the campaign; b) Obama will appear to be magnanimous and fighting for the voters even though it's to his disadvantage; c) It keeps the cost to him contained because he could easily lose by bigger margins in the event of a re-vote.
4. Stay away from the popular vote myth -- Obama brought this debate into the game and now he needs to mute it. There is no benefit to him to make this argument. The argument should be all about delegates and the popular vote is meaningless.
This is the reasons why Obama should steer clear of this bogus talking point: It's not a true popular vote contest anyway. He gets punished severely in caucus states (where he's dominated) because the popular vote counts are severely skewed. For example, he won the Colorado caucuses by 35 points, yet picked up only a 40,000 popular vote lead. In Louisiana, with similar number of delegates at stake, he won by 20 points in the primary, and gained an 80,000 popular vote edge.
At the moment, he has a lead of 700,000 in popular vote. But that will be wiped out if Michigan and Florida are put in the mix and Pennsylvania goes to Clinton as expected. He does not want Hillary to use the popular vote as a smoke-screen to steal the nomination. Giving in on Michigan and Florida actually will help his cause because that just makes the popular vote argument even more illegitimate since he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.
5. Push hard toward the magic number (whichever) -- Slowly but surely, he's eating into Hillary's lead in the super delegates. What once was a lead of about 100 for Hillary has shrunk to about 30. If he can pick up another 100 or so supers in the coming three months, that will create enormous pressure on others to bring him across the finish line.
If the magic number stays at 2,025, and he's at about 1,990 when Montana and South Dakota are done on June 3, then it shouldn't be all that difficult to shake down another 35 or so supers to fall in line for the good of the party. Even if Michigan and Florida are added back in the mix and the magic number moves up to 2,182, he'll have to convince about 50 of the over 300 yet-to-commit supers at that point.
The reality is that Obama has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. By winning Mississippi, he also guaranteed that he'll have won more states no matter what happens the rest of the way. His job is now helping the voters (and the media) to filter out all the noise that should be inconsequential to winning the nomination.
Whether he's equal to this simple task will determine whether he's fit for the highest office in the land.
05 March 2008
Obama's Lost Tuesday
There is no question that Barack Obama was the big loser Tuesday night. While John McCain and Hillary Clinton celebrated, Obama must be wondering if he'd just blown his chance at the presidency of the United States.
Tuesday was his opportunity to finish off Clinton, for good. All he needed was an undisputed victory in Texas -- that would've brought forth enormous pressure to get Hillary to fold up shop, or at least completely marginalized her campaign. But he lost, and with it, Clinton regained the initiative in the Democratic contest.
Yes, it's true. Don't be fooled by the numbers. They lie.
Obama can spin it all he wants that this is all about delegates. That he still has a mathematically insurmountable lead among pledged delegates. That he prevented Hillary from denting his lead by keeping it close in Texas. That all Hillary managed on Tuesday was gaining 10 more delegates than he did out of nearly 400 in play.
All true, but all meaningless now.
Hillary has the upperhand because she's winning the spin war. It's rather amazing how her campaign has managed the game of low expectations to such scintillating perfection. Three weeks ago, she had double-digit leads in both Ohio and Texas. Tuesday, she takes Ohio by 10 points and ekes out a close win in Texas; and suddenly, she's achieved this amazing "comeback" victory.
Not to mention until Tuesday, she'd lost 11 straight contests.
The fact that she's still in the race after such a losing streak was less a tribute to her tenacity but more of an indictment against Obama's lack of political instincts. A candidate on that sort of losing streak should've been kicked to the curb remorselessly like a piece of trash. A better frontrunner would've destroyed his opponent with a resounding coup de grace.
If you weren't paying attention, McCain did just that to Rudy Giuliani in Florida -- and Rudy had only lost three in a row up to that point.
Obama's inability to finish off Clinton will come back to haunt him, because he's now allowed the game to go on and armed Clinton with real ammunition. The only question is whether Obama will have the wherewithal to still win the nomination.
It comes down to spin. Obama has the numbers on his side. But Hillary has a more compelling storyline.
She now has won six of the eight states with the biggest electoral haul -- California, New York, Texas, Florida*, Ohio and Michigan*. She'll fight hard to remove the asterisks from Florida and Michigan. And as the prohibitive favorite to win Pennsylvania on April 22, she should make it seven of eight, with Obama claiming only his home state of Illinois.
Clinton also has fared better in those battleground states that will become crucial in November. Of the seven states decided by 3 percentage points or less during the 2004 election, she's won four -- New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio and Nevada -- with Pennsylvania still to come. She can rightfully argue that she has a better chance to capture these "purple" states.
If Obama has a counter argument, he'd better hone it and bring it out now. And "I'm leading the race for delegates" won't do.
Obama has to roll up his sleeves and get ready to fight a dirty war. His days as a political prince are over. He's had the "kitchen sink" thrown at him and he's been wounded. His task now is to throw stuff back at the Clintons like he means it.
And he should also forget about McCain, at least for the moment. Just like playing sports, you don't talk about the next opponent when you haven't beaten the one you have on hand.
In any event, he's up against it now. A grueling battle, sure to culminate in a cauldron of acrimony and recrimination, will go on until August at the Democratic Convention. That's a price Obama will be paying, dearly, for not vanquishing Clinton on Tuesday.
Tuesday was his opportunity to finish off Clinton, for good. All he needed was an undisputed victory in Texas -- that would've brought forth enormous pressure to get Hillary to fold up shop, or at least completely marginalized her campaign. But he lost, and with it, Clinton regained the initiative in the Democratic contest.
Yes, it's true. Don't be fooled by the numbers. They lie.
Obama can spin it all he wants that this is all about delegates. That he still has a mathematically insurmountable lead among pledged delegates. That he prevented Hillary from denting his lead by keeping it close in Texas. That all Hillary managed on Tuesday was gaining 10 more delegates than he did out of nearly 400 in play.
All true, but all meaningless now.
Hillary has the upperhand because she's winning the spin war. It's rather amazing how her campaign has managed the game of low expectations to such scintillating perfection. Three weeks ago, she had double-digit leads in both Ohio and Texas. Tuesday, she takes Ohio by 10 points and ekes out a close win in Texas; and suddenly, she's achieved this amazing "comeback" victory.
Not to mention until Tuesday, she'd lost 11 straight contests.
The fact that she's still in the race after such a losing streak was less a tribute to her tenacity but more of an indictment against Obama's lack of political instincts. A candidate on that sort of losing streak should've been kicked to the curb remorselessly like a piece of trash. A better frontrunner would've destroyed his opponent with a resounding coup de grace.
If you weren't paying attention, McCain did just that to Rudy Giuliani in Florida -- and Rudy had only lost three in a row up to that point.
Obama's inability to finish off Clinton will come back to haunt him, because he's now allowed the game to go on and armed Clinton with real ammunition. The only question is whether Obama will have the wherewithal to still win the nomination.
It comes down to spin. Obama has the numbers on his side. But Hillary has a more compelling storyline.
She now has won six of the eight states with the biggest electoral haul -- California, New York, Texas, Florida*, Ohio and Michigan*. She'll fight hard to remove the asterisks from Florida and Michigan. And as the prohibitive favorite to win Pennsylvania on April 22, she should make it seven of eight, with Obama claiming only his home state of Illinois.
Clinton also has fared better in those battleground states that will become crucial in November. Of the seven states decided by 3 percentage points or less during the 2004 election, she's won four -- New Mexico, New Hampshire, Ohio and Nevada -- with Pennsylvania still to come. She can rightfully argue that she has a better chance to capture these "purple" states.
If Obama has a counter argument, he'd better hone it and bring it out now. And "I'm leading the race for delegates" won't do.
Obama has to roll up his sleeves and get ready to fight a dirty war. His days as a political prince are over. He's had the "kitchen sink" thrown at him and he's been wounded. His task now is to throw stuff back at the Clintons like he means it.
And he should also forget about McCain, at least for the moment. Just like playing sports, you don't talk about the next opponent when you haven't beaten the one you have on hand.
In any event, he's up against it now. A grueling battle, sure to culminate in a cauldron of acrimony and recrimination, will go on until August at the Democratic Convention. That's a price Obama will be paying, dearly, for not vanquishing Clinton on Tuesday.
03 March 2008
The Coronation? Not Just Yet
Funny how most media pundits are lemmings. There is one narrative and nobody ever seems to stray from that.
First, it was the inevitable Hillary Clinton. When that proved wrong, everyone rushed to dissect the how and the why. Then it was the fight to the finish. And when Barack Obama won 11 straight contests, another "correction" set in. Finally, on the eve of the "showdown" contests in Ohio and Texas, everybody is busy writing the obits of the Hillary campaign.
As Lee Corso is prone to say: "Not so fast, my friend."
There is a chance, a good chance, that Clinton will win both Ohio and Texas primaries. And if that were to happen, the obits will be suddenly written for the Obama campaign, and for good reason. If with all the momentum and adulation of the press on his side, he's still unable to deliver the knockout blow to the dysfunctional Clinton campaign, then his viability as the Democrats' nominee must be questioned, severely.
Simply put, Tuesday may represent the Battle of the Marne, or Stalingrad, for Obama, depending on which World War is closer to your heart.
There is a good reason to worry about Obama's prospects. First and foremost, the polls are telling. For the last two weeks, he's had a lead in Texas, but never statistically meaningful. So at best he's in a dead heat in the Lone Star State. As for Ohio, after surging to close down a double-digit deficit, Obama has seen his support collapse. While he came within 4 points of Clinton about a week ago, the new polls show that the gap has again reached double digits.
He will lose Ohio, maybe big, thus delivering Clinton a reprieve she needed, no matter what happens in Texas.
And let's not forget Rhode Island and Vermont, either, even if both candidates apparently did. Clinton might win both, adding to victories in Ohio, perhaps even Texas, she'd be the one riding on a four-state sweep and that magic carpet -- momentum.
So how did this gloomy picture emerge for Obama, completely unnoticed?
Besides the media's propensity of being a herd, their inability to peel away a seemingly reliable trend is to blame. The narrative goes like this: Clinton has the name recognition, but when people get to know Obama, they gravitate toward him and abandon Clinton.
The narrative is on target, with a heretofore undiscovered caveat: It only works when the exposure is rapid and short. When the voters see too much of Obama, they go back to the default choice Clinton.
After winning the opening contest in Iowa, Obama has won a string of victories where he either had only about a week to sell himself to the voters, or, in the case of Tsunami Tuesday, he had to spread himself around to a number of states. When the voters saw him in short appearances and got the "hopeful" soundbites, they fell for him en masse.
But when the voters head to the polls on Tuesday, it will have been three weeks since Obama's resounding victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii. Three weeks, in politics, is an eternity. Ohio and Texas voters will have had ample opportunities to examine the candidates. And upon further review, it's likely that their initial excitement about Obama would've worn off by election day.
Obama has been winning with this formula: Have a terrific ground operation that's well organized to get him into the voters' consciousness; then he swoops in to close the deal. Aside from New Hampshire, when he was not yet battle-hardened, he's been a great closer. And as anyone in sales will tell you: When you close the deal, pick up the check and leave, before anybody changes their mind.
In this case, Obama made his sale but he had to hang around the house for far too long. By the time he's finally allowed to leave, he might end up empty-handed.
If he is unable to close the deal in Ohio or Texas, big problems lie ahead for Obama. Clinton might not catch him in the delegate count, but she would've seized the high ground once again by dominating in two more big states, adding to her haul of California, New York, New Jersey and disingenuously, also Florida and Michigan. And with six weeks to campaign in Pennsylvania, with no one else holding a contest between March 11 and May 3, Clinton will be the heavy favorite to gobble up another big state on April 22.
The trouble with being the frontrunner is you're forced to play defense. Protecting is more important than invading. Obama has done well in the two debates with Clinton, fighting her to a draw. But there is this nagging sense that Obama-fatigue has set in for the voters: They're now once again vacillating and wondering if he is the real deal.
Tuesday is a big day. Not just for Hillary Clinton. But it might be a do-or-die, for both candidates.
First, it was the inevitable Hillary Clinton. When that proved wrong, everyone rushed to dissect the how and the why. Then it was the fight to the finish. And when Barack Obama won 11 straight contests, another "correction" set in. Finally, on the eve of the "showdown" contests in Ohio and Texas, everybody is busy writing the obits of the Hillary campaign.
As Lee Corso is prone to say: "Not so fast, my friend."
There is a chance, a good chance, that Clinton will win both Ohio and Texas primaries. And if that were to happen, the obits will be suddenly written for the Obama campaign, and for good reason. If with all the momentum and adulation of the press on his side, he's still unable to deliver the knockout blow to the dysfunctional Clinton campaign, then his viability as the Democrats' nominee must be questioned, severely.
Simply put, Tuesday may represent the Battle of the Marne, or Stalingrad, for Obama, depending on which World War is closer to your heart.
There is a good reason to worry about Obama's prospects. First and foremost, the polls are telling. For the last two weeks, he's had a lead in Texas, but never statistically meaningful. So at best he's in a dead heat in the Lone Star State. As for Ohio, after surging to close down a double-digit deficit, Obama has seen his support collapse. While he came within 4 points of Clinton about a week ago, the new polls show that the gap has again reached double digits.
He will lose Ohio, maybe big, thus delivering Clinton a reprieve she needed, no matter what happens in Texas.
And let's not forget Rhode Island and Vermont, either, even if both candidates apparently did. Clinton might win both, adding to victories in Ohio, perhaps even Texas, she'd be the one riding on a four-state sweep and that magic carpet -- momentum.
So how did this gloomy picture emerge for Obama, completely unnoticed?
Besides the media's propensity of being a herd, their inability to peel away a seemingly reliable trend is to blame. The narrative goes like this: Clinton has the name recognition, but when people get to know Obama, they gravitate toward him and abandon Clinton.
The narrative is on target, with a heretofore undiscovered caveat: It only works when the exposure is rapid and short. When the voters see too much of Obama, they go back to the default choice Clinton.
After winning the opening contest in Iowa, Obama has won a string of victories where he either had only about a week to sell himself to the voters, or, in the case of Tsunami Tuesday, he had to spread himself around to a number of states. When the voters saw him in short appearances and got the "hopeful" soundbites, they fell for him en masse.
But when the voters head to the polls on Tuesday, it will have been three weeks since Obama's resounding victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii. Three weeks, in politics, is an eternity. Ohio and Texas voters will have had ample opportunities to examine the candidates. And upon further review, it's likely that their initial excitement about Obama would've worn off by election day.
Obama has been winning with this formula: Have a terrific ground operation that's well organized to get him into the voters' consciousness; then he swoops in to close the deal. Aside from New Hampshire, when he was not yet battle-hardened, he's been a great closer. And as anyone in sales will tell you: When you close the deal, pick up the check and leave, before anybody changes their mind.
In this case, Obama made his sale but he had to hang around the house for far too long. By the time he's finally allowed to leave, he might end up empty-handed.
If he is unable to close the deal in Ohio or Texas, big problems lie ahead for Obama. Clinton might not catch him in the delegate count, but she would've seized the high ground once again by dominating in two more big states, adding to her haul of California, New York, New Jersey and disingenuously, also Florida and Michigan. And with six weeks to campaign in Pennsylvania, with no one else holding a contest between March 11 and May 3, Clinton will be the heavy favorite to gobble up another big state on April 22.
The trouble with being the frontrunner is you're forced to play defense. Protecting is more important than invading. Obama has done well in the two debates with Clinton, fighting her to a draw. But there is this nagging sense that Obama-fatigue has set in for the voters: They're now once again vacillating and wondering if he is the real deal.
Tuesday is a big day. Not just for Hillary Clinton. But it might be a do-or-die, for both candidates.
16 February 2008
The Race for Delegates (Feb. 16)
The scoreboard watching is getting a bit more interesting.
After routing Hillary Clinton in the "Potomac Primaries," (hmmm, it feels like a reference to the Battle of Bull Run or Army of Northern Virginia would be appropriate here), Barack Obama opened up a 100-plus delegate lead in the race for pledged delegates:
Contrast that with his lead before the "Potomac Primaries," but after a coast-to-coast romp in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine:
Obama has nearly doubled his lead, from an advantage of 69 delegates, to 134. And his current lead is about five times the edge he had coming out of the Tsunami Tuesday standoff:
One thing the Main Stream Media is finally catching on is that the super delegate count really is somewhat inconsequential at this point. The Clinton campaign, until the rout of the Potomac, had always insisted on including the super delegate count as the overall package -- because Hillary was always in the lead that way. Now Obama is leading, no matter how you count the delegates.
But more important, super delegates are free to change their minds, all the way to the convention floor in Denver in August. Clinton may have built a 70-super-delegate lead, but that is tenuous. In fact, a number of prominent super delegates have openly talked about switching their commitment, and some already jumped ship. For the record, this is what the super delegate count looks like at the moment:
Obama leads in other areas that are more meaningful than the current super delegate counts:
1) States won (including D.C.)
Routs are defined as states won with either 60 percent of the vote, or by at least 20 percentage points (or both). Nailbiters are ones won by 2 percentage points or less. Wins are everything in between.
Obama has won twice as many states as Clinton. And as you can see, most of his wins are routs, six of which came during his current seven-game winning streak. Clinton's two routs are from Oklahoma and Arkansas, where she was the former first lady.
2) Popular Vote
For a party that likes to cry about "the will of the people" ever since losing the 2000 presidential election, this is a big deal. If the Democrats are still sore about Al Gore losing to George W. Bush eight years ago despite winning more popular votes, then they can't in good conscience send up a candidate that lost the popular vote battle during the primaries to the general election, can they?
Obama currently leads by a count of 9,377,155 to 8,670,342. That's a whopping 7.5%, a lead Clinton is unlikely to overcome. Clinton's people would like to include results from the Michigan and Florida primaries, even though the party and all candidates had agreed that the contests would be invalid and Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.
But even counting Michigan and Florida, Obama still leads by about 83,000 votes, though that's a margin Clinton might be able to overcome, thus her campaign is hot about getting those contests to count retroactively.
Obama's road to the nomination is open, but it's hardly without obstacles. First, he must deliver two more victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii next Tuesday, contests that Clinton has feigned disinterest but is desperate to pull out an upset. Then, he must minimize his losses in Ohio and Texas on March 4. If he can somehow bag the Lone Star State, then the game might finally be over.
If not, the show must go on. (And so does the math.)
After routing Hillary Clinton in the "Potomac Primaries," (hmmm, it feels like a reference to the Battle of Bull Run or Army of Northern Virginia would be appropriate here), Barack Obama opened up a 100-plus delegate lead in the race for pledged delegates:
Contrast that with his lead before the "Potomac Primaries," but after a coast-to-coast romp in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine:
Obama has nearly doubled his lead, from an advantage of 69 delegates, to 134. And his current lead is about five times the edge he had coming out of the Tsunami Tuesday standoff:
One thing the Main Stream Media is finally catching on is that the super delegate count really is somewhat inconsequential at this point. The Clinton campaign, until the rout of the Potomac, had always insisted on including the super delegate count as the overall package -- because Hillary was always in the lead that way. Now Obama is leading, no matter how you count the delegates.
But more important, super delegates are free to change their minds, all the way to the convention floor in Denver in August. Clinton may have built a 70-super-delegate lead, but that is tenuous. In fact, a number of prominent super delegates have openly talked about switching their commitment, and some already jumped ship. For the record, this is what the super delegate count looks like at the moment:
Obama leads in other areas that are more meaningful than the current super delegate counts:
1) States won (including D.C.)
Routs are defined as states won with either 60 percent of the vote, or by at least 20 percentage points (or both). Nailbiters are ones won by 2 percentage points or less. Wins are everything in between.
Obama has won twice as many states as Clinton. And as you can see, most of his wins are routs, six of which came during his current seven-game winning streak. Clinton's two routs are from Oklahoma and Arkansas, where she was the former first lady.
2) Popular Vote
For a party that likes to cry about "the will of the people" ever since losing the 2000 presidential election, this is a big deal. If the Democrats are still sore about Al Gore losing to George W. Bush eight years ago despite winning more popular votes, then they can't in good conscience send up a candidate that lost the popular vote battle during the primaries to the general election, can they?
Obama currently leads by a count of 9,377,155 to 8,670,342. That's a whopping 7.5%, a lead Clinton is unlikely to overcome. Clinton's people would like to include results from the Michigan and Florida primaries, even though the party and all candidates had agreed that the contests would be invalid and Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.
But even counting Michigan and Florida, Obama still leads by about 83,000 votes, though that's a margin Clinton might be able to overcome, thus her campaign is hot about getting those contests to count retroactively.
Obama's road to the nomination is open, but it's hardly without obstacles. First, he must deliver two more victories in Wisconsin and Hawaii next Tuesday, contests that Clinton has feigned disinterest but is desperate to pull out an upset. Then, he must minimize his losses in Ohio and Texas on March 4. If he can somehow bag the Lone Star State, then the game might finally be over.
If not, the show must go on. (And so does the math.)
11 February 2008
The Race for Delegates (Feb. 11)
For those who consider politics as sport, or live for horserace politics, the 2008 Democratic contest is like a dream come true. Pardon me while I pinch myself purple!
Between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, this is all about delegates now -- pledged delegates, super delegates, stolen delegates, you name it. The more the better. And doesn't matter where you get them. If it takes kissing the ring of snake-oil salesman John Edwards, pucker up.
But the delegates business is a confusing one. Unlike the Republican race, which features a number of winner-take-all contests and more streamlined proportional allocation in others, the Democrats have a system that basically rewards participation. They are afraid to hurt the candidates' feelings -- there's no place like first place, except second place, sometimes third place. For instance, when Clinton finished a distant third in Iowa, she got 15 delegates, exactly one fewer than Obama's 16.
To ease some of the confusion, as a public service, I'm here to provide a scoreboard for the ongoing Democratic contest. This will be updated each time primaries and caucuses are held.
SECTION ONE -- PLEDGED DELEGATE COUNT
OBAMA CLINTON
RCP 1004 925
CNN 986 924
CBS 999 922
AP 964 905
AVG 988 919
NOTE: It seems like even the news orgaizations cannot agree on the methodology of counting delegates, so we are accepting all their numbers and taking the average. As of now, Obama leads in all four by an average of 69 delegates.
SECTION TWO -- SUPER DELEGATE COUNT
OBAMA CLINTON
RCP 140 213
CNN 135 224
CBS 140 210
AP 160 242
AVG 144 222
NOTE: Unlike pledged delegates, super delegates are beholden to no one -- and they may change their minds at any given time, all the way to the convention. Clinton has a lead of about 78 on average, but that may shift quickly.
SECTION THREE -- STATES WON
OBAMA 19*
CLINTON 11**
* Also won U.S. Virgin Islands; ** Also won American Samoa
NOTE: "Winning" is defined strictly on more popular votes received, even if the "winning" candidate earned equal or even fewer delegates than the losing candidate, i.e. Clinton is considered to have won Nevada even though Obama took more delegates, 13-12.
SECTION FOUR -- FORECASTING THE REST (19 STATES PLUS D.C. AND PUERTO RICO)
Next primaries/caucuses: Feb. 12 in Maryland, Virginia, District of Columbia
OBAMA ROUTS: MARYLAND, D.C., WYOMING, MISSISSIPPI, OREGON, MONTANA, SOUTH DAKOTA
OBAMA WINS: VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN, HAWAII, VERMONT
TOSSUP: RHODE ISLAND, NORTH CAROLINA
CLINTON ROUTS: PUERTO RICO
CLINTON WINS: TEXAS, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, INDIANA, WEST VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY
NOTE: "Rout" is defined as a candidate expected to win by 10 percentage points or more. The forecast owes much of its existence to the invaluable regression analysis done by Poblano of the Daily Kos. The only issue I take with the model is the inclusion of "Southern Baptists" as a variable. I believe this explanation by an Andrew Sullivan reader may be more relevant in locating a more revealing variable in terms of racial politics.
Between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, this is all about delegates now -- pledged delegates, super delegates, stolen delegates, you name it. The more the better. And doesn't matter where you get them. If it takes kissing the ring of snake-oil salesman John Edwards, pucker up.
But the delegates business is a confusing one. Unlike the Republican race, which features a number of winner-take-all contests and more streamlined proportional allocation in others, the Democrats have a system that basically rewards participation. They are afraid to hurt the candidates' feelings -- there's no place like first place, except second place, sometimes third place. For instance, when Clinton finished a distant third in Iowa, she got 15 delegates, exactly one fewer than Obama's 16.
To ease some of the confusion, as a public service, I'm here to provide a scoreboard for the ongoing Democratic contest. This will be updated each time primaries and caucuses are held.
SECTION ONE -- PLEDGED DELEGATE COUNT
OBAMA CLINTON
RCP 1004 925
CNN 986 924
CBS 999 922
AP 964 905
AVG 988 919
NOTE: It seems like even the news orgaizations cannot agree on the methodology of counting delegates, so we are accepting all their numbers and taking the average. As of now, Obama leads in all four by an average of 69 delegates.
SECTION TWO -- SUPER DELEGATE COUNT
OBAMA CLINTON
RCP 140 213
CNN 135 224
CBS 140 210
AP 160 242
AVG 144 222
NOTE: Unlike pledged delegates, super delegates are beholden to no one -- and they may change their minds at any given time, all the way to the convention. Clinton has a lead of about 78 on average, but that may shift quickly.
SECTION THREE -- STATES WON
OBAMA 19*
CLINTON 11**
* Also won U.S. Virgin Islands; ** Also won American Samoa
NOTE: "Winning" is defined strictly on more popular votes received, even if the "winning" candidate earned equal or even fewer delegates than the losing candidate, i.e. Clinton is considered to have won Nevada even though Obama took more delegates, 13-12.
SECTION FOUR -- FORECASTING THE REST (19 STATES PLUS D.C. AND PUERTO RICO)
Next primaries/caucuses: Feb. 12 in Maryland, Virginia, District of Columbia
OBAMA ROUTS: MARYLAND, D.C., WYOMING, MISSISSIPPI, OREGON, MONTANA, SOUTH DAKOTA
OBAMA WINS: VIRGINIA, WISCONSIN, HAWAII, VERMONT
TOSSUP: RHODE ISLAND, NORTH CAROLINA
CLINTON ROUTS: PUERTO RICO
CLINTON WINS: TEXAS, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA, INDIANA, WEST VIRGINIA, KENTUCKY
NOTE: "Rout" is defined as a candidate expected to win by 10 percentage points or more. The forecast owes much of its existence to the invaluable regression analysis done by Poblano of the Daily Kos. The only issue I take with the model is the inclusion of "Southern Baptists" as a variable. I believe this explanation by an Andrew Sullivan reader may be more relevant in locating a more revealing variable in terms of racial politics.
08 February 2008
Democratic Brawl Continues
Tsunami Tuesday turned out about expected -- a dead-heat for the two Democratic contenders and emergence of a clear front-runner and presumptive nominee in John McCain for the Republicans.
With Mitt Romney dropping out of the race, it is all but settled for the GOP. McCain, who appeared in front of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) to make his case on his conservative credentials, should formally wrap up his party's nomination by no later than March 4. In any event, the Republican establishment has already circled the wagon for its man, something Republicans do best.
Not so much for the Democrats.
Tuesday's outcome left Barack Obama with 13 more delegates than Hillary Clinton, 878-865, not counting the super delegates, who may opt to de-commit if they wish. Counting the super delegates, Clinton has a 70-delegate lead, 1,076-1,006.
Of course, neither, by any count, is close to the 2,025 needed for nomination. And with only 22 states remaining, plus Puerto Rico and D.C., this will be a protracted fight, perhaps all the way to the Democratic Convention in Denver.
Obama had an opportunity to deliver a crushing blow -- if not the knockout punch -- with a win in California on Tuesday. Getting the biggest piece in the delegate pie would at least give him a decisive and symbolic victory over Clinton. But with Hillary holding together a women-Latino-Asian coalition, she escaped with a tie even though she won only eight of the 22 states contested that day.
The next 10 days present Obama with another opportunity to seize the momentum. Of the eight states, and D.C., that are holding caucuses and primaries, he should win at least seven. Maryland, Virginia, D.C., Louisiana, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Hawaii should all be friendly turf. He'll have to battle Clinton in Maine and Washington State.
This is how I see these nine contests unfold: Obama should win decisively in Maryland, D.C., Louisiana, Nebraska and Hawaii and narrowly in Virginia and Wisconsin. Hillary will eek out close victories in Maine and Washington.
As far as delegate counts, I project Obama to come away with 269, to Hillary's 242. This gives him a 40-delegate lead with 14 states left to compete.
But even a sweep of all nine contests by Obama will not force Clinton to quit, and there would be no reason to, anyway. The Democrats' fatally flawed proportional allocation of delegates, borne out of their own incessant yearning for unmitigated egalitarianism, all but forces the race to the convention floor.
And that means the nomination likely will be a brokered deal, with three parties holding all the cards: 1) The 796 super delegates, party luminaries and functionaries who are unanswerable to the electorate but own nearly 20 percent of the vote; 2) delegates from Michigan and 3) delegates from Florida, potentially may cast the tie-breaking votes even though their presence has been banned from the convention floor as punishment for moving up their primary dates against party rules.
If the process drags onto the convention floor, it would seem to favor Hillary. She has more clout with the party establishment, recent defections not withstanding. And she also "won" the primaries in Michigan and Florida, even though she was running unopposed in Michigan and reneged on a pledge not to campaign in Florida.
So like a boxing match, Obama's best chance to succeed rests with ending the match before it goes to the judges' cards. But upon examining the remaining races, that's improbable.
Even if he should sweep the remaining 12 states (highly unlikely, with Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania in the mix) by large margins, the best he could hope for is still about a 1,800-1,700 lead over Clinton, not enough to clinch the nomination. With that being the case, the 500 or so yet-to-commit super delegates -- if not the Floridians and Michiganders -- will cast the deciding votes at the convention.
That's democracy, Democratic-style. You gotta love it -- if you're a Republican.
With Mitt Romney dropping out of the race, it is all but settled for the GOP. McCain, who appeared in front of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) to make his case on his conservative credentials, should formally wrap up his party's nomination by no later than March 4. In any event, the Republican establishment has already circled the wagon for its man, something Republicans do best.
Not so much for the Democrats.
Tuesday's outcome left Barack Obama with 13 more delegates than Hillary Clinton, 878-865, not counting the super delegates, who may opt to de-commit if they wish. Counting the super delegates, Clinton has a 70-delegate lead, 1,076-1,006.
Of course, neither, by any count, is close to the 2,025 needed for nomination. And with only 22 states remaining, plus Puerto Rico and D.C., this will be a protracted fight, perhaps all the way to the Democratic Convention in Denver.
Obama had an opportunity to deliver a crushing blow -- if not the knockout punch -- with a win in California on Tuesday. Getting the biggest piece in the delegate pie would at least give him a decisive and symbolic victory over Clinton. But with Hillary holding together a women-Latino-Asian coalition, she escaped with a tie even though she won only eight of the 22 states contested that day.
The next 10 days present Obama with another opportunity to seize the momentum. Of the eight states, and D.C., that are holding caucuses and primaries, he should win at least seven. Maryland, Virginia, D.C., Louisiana, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Hawaii should all be friendly turf. He'll have to battle Clinton in Maine and Washington State.
This is how I see these nine contests unfold: Obama should win decisively in Maryland, D.C., Louisiana, Nebraska and Hawaii and narrowly in Virginia and Wisconsin. Hillary will eek out close victories in Maine and Washington.
As far as delegate counts, I project Obama to come away with 269, to Hillary's 242. This gives him a 40-delegate lead with 14 states left to compete.
But even a sweep of all nine contests by Obama will not force Clinton to quit, and there would be no reason to, anyway. The Democrats' fatally flawed proportional allocation of delegates, borne out of their own incessant yearning for unmitigated egalitarianism, all but forces the race to the convention floor.
And that means the nomination likely will be a brokered deal, with three parties holding all the cards: 1) The 796 super delegates, party luminaries and functionaries who are unanswerable to the electorate but own nearly 20 percent of the vote; 2) delegates from Michigan and 3) delegates from Florida, potentially may cast the tie-breaking votes even though their presence has been banned from the convention floor as punishment for moving up their primary dates against party rules.
If the process drags onto the convention floor, it would seem to favor Hillary. She has more clout with the party establishment, recent defections not withstanding. And she also "won" the primaries in Michigan and Florida, even though she was running unopposed in Michigan and reneged on a pledge not to campaign in Florida.
So like a boxing match, Obama's best chance to succeed rests with ending the match before it goes to the judges' cards. But upon examining the remaining races, that's improbable.
Even if he should sweep the remaining 12 states (highly unlikely, with Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania in the mix) by large margins, the best he could hope for is still about a 1,800-1,700 lead over Clinton, not enough to clinch the nomination. With that being the case, the 500 or so yet-to-commit super delegates -- if not the Floridians and Michiganders -- will cast the deciding votes at the convention.
That's democracy, Democratic-style. You gotta love it -- if you're a Republican.
31 January 2008
Tsunami Tuesday Projections
Just what exactly should we expect from Tsunami Tuesday, when voters from 23 states go to the polls to decide on the parties' respective nominees? Well, it could very well be a whole lot of nothing.
At least as far as the Democrats are concerned.
While the Republicans, with a preponderance of winner-take-all contests, have at least a possibility of finding a winner (John McCain), such a scenario does not exists for the Democrats. In fact, Tsunami Tuesday may very well yield a near dead heat between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
While some of you know me as the BCS Guru, the number-cruncher extraordinaire (if you don't mind me saying so myself), I'm putting my skills to good use now for the purpose of projecting the all-important delegate count. And this is what I have to say:
By the end of Tsunami Tuesday, Clinton will lead Obama by one single delegate, 1,069-1,068.
Keep in mind that because of the complexity of the Democrats' system, there is no simple formula to come to this conclusion. And this score does not include super delegates, who are free to commit to any candidate at any time throughout the nominating process.
I divided the 21 primaries/caucuses into four categories: Obama wins, Obama routs, Clinton wins and Clinton routs. A win would be a contest where the winner gets a single-digit victory by percentage and a rout would be a double-digit victory. And this is how they shake out:
Obama wins (6): Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma.
Obama routs (6): Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Illinois, Tennessee, Utah.
Clinton wins (6): Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts.
Clinton routs (3): Connecticut, New Jersey, New York.
These results, combined with delegates already claimed from contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, will give Clinton the one-delegate edge. As of now, Obama leads Clinton by 15 delegates, 63-48.
The key to achieving this outcome hinges on Obama's ability to keep it close in California and Massachusetts. Senator Ted Kennedy's recent endorsement of Obama gives him a shot to stay in the game in the Bay State. And in California, with the Republicans running a closed primary and driving independents to the Democratic side, combined with the notoriously unreliable Latino turnout, Obama has a fighting chance to keep his losses there to a minimum.
Should Tsunami Tuesday provide this type of stalemate, the Democrats would move a step closer to a brokered convention. If McCain emerges with a big victory on Tuesday, it's possible that the Republicans would have their nominee settled six months before the Democrats do.
That, would be the Democrats' worst nightmare. And it's very close to becoming a reality.
At least as far as the Democrats are concerned.
While the Republicans, with a preponderance of winner-take-all contests, have at least a possibility of finding a winner (John McCain), such a scenario does not exists for the Democrats. In fact, Tsunami Tuesday may very well yield a near dead heat between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
While some of you know me as the BCS Guru, the number-cruncher extraordinaire (if you don't mind me saying so myself), I'm putting my skills to good use now for the purpose of projecting the all-important delegate count. And this is what I have to say:
By the end of Tsunami Tuesday, Clinton will lead Obama by one single delegate, 1,069-1,068.
Keep in mind that because of the complexity of the Democrats' system, there is no simple formula to come to this conclusion. And this score does not include super delegates, who are free to commit to any candidate at any time throughout the nominating process.
I divided the 21 primaries/caucuses into four categories: Obama wins, Obama routs, Clinton wins and Clinton routs. A win would be a contest where the winner gets a single-digit victory by percentage and a rout would be a double-digit victory. And this is how they shake out:
Obama wins (6): Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma.
Obama routs (6): Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Illinois, Tennessee, Utah.
Clinton wins (6): Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts.
Clinton routs (3): Connecticut, New Jersey, New York.
These results, combined with delegates already claimed from contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, will give Clinton the one-delegate edge. As of now, Obama leads Clinton by 15 delegates, 63-48.
The key to achieving this outcome hinges on Obama's ability to keep it close in California and Massachusetts. Senator Ted Kennedy's recent endorsement of Obama gives him a shot to stay in the game in the Bay State. And in California, with the Republicans running a closed primary and driving independents to the Democratic side, combined with the notoriously unreliable Latino turnout, Obama has a fighting chance to keep his losses there to a minimum.
Should Tsunami Tuesday provide this type of stalemate, the Democrats would move a step closer to a brokered convention. If McCain emerges with a big victory on Tuesday, it's possible that the Republicans would have their nominee settled six months before the Democrats do.
That, would be the Democrats' worst nightmare. And it's very close to becoming a reality.
29 January 2008
McCain the Uniter or Divider?
John McCain's hard-fought victory in Florida solidifies his front-runner status in a quick-thinning GOP field. From here on out, it's mano-a-mano between him and Mitt Romney.
But the rancorous affair that spun out of control over the final days leading up to the Florida Primary will take some time to heal. McCain's sucker-punch of a claim on Romney's alleged flip-flop on Iraq was Clintonesque. It worked, too, as the verbal jousting shifted the topic away from the economy -- a real Romney strong suit and a McCain weakness.
As McCain took pains to point out during his victory speech -- he's won a "Republican-only" primary, which in his mind allays doubts about his standings among the true believers. Whereas he received considerable help from independents in victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina, in Florida, only registered Republicans could vote in the Republican Primary.
But just how solid was McCain's victory? It's significant, but not a knockout blow -- not on Romney, anyway. He did eliminate Rudy Guiliani, who in turn endorsed McCain. And Mike Huckabee, limping home with a fourth-place finish, is just about finished.
That leaves McCain and Romney, who has emerged as the GOP establishment candidate and fiercely backed by the conservative talk-show glitterati, first and foremost Rush Limbaugh. In fact Limbaugh, and a few others, have trashed McCain so much it's to a point that if he does win the nomination, there will be much lingering animosity and recrimination.
A disturbing trend that's emerged and under-reported by the media, is that Romney has an electability problem because of his faith. I have spoken to a number of fair-minded individuals who would not vote for Romney -- under any circumstances -- because of his affiliation with the Mormon Church. Forget the whole business with people not willing to vote for a woman or a black, being a member of the LDS Church apparently disqualifies you for the nation's highest office, according to some.
With that in mind, McCain might be the only GOP candidate with a shot at retaining the White House for the party, against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. The most recent polls showed that he's either ahead or even in a head-to-head contest against the top two Democratic candidates.
That may be the case, but he'll have to do some big-time fence-mending with the party's conservatives first. Otherwise, with a grumpy GOP base sitting out in November, independents are not going to be enough to deliver McCain a victory.
But the rancorous affair that spun out of control over the final days leading up to the Florida Primary will take some time to heal. McCain's sucker-punch of a claim on Romney's alleged flip-flop on Iraq was Clintonesque. It worked, too, as the verbal jousting shifted the topic away from the economy -- a real Romney strong suit and a McCain weakness.
As McCain took pains to point out during his victory speech -- he's won a "Republican-only" primary, which in his mind allays doubts about his standings among the true believers. Whereas he received considerable help from independents in victories in New Hampshire and South Carolina, in Florida, only registered Republicans could vote in the Republican Primary.
But just how solid was McCain's victory? It's significant, but not a knockout blow -- not on Romney, anyway. He did eliminate Rudy Guiliani, who in turn endorsed McCain. And Mike Huckabee, limping home with a fourth-place finish, is just about finished.
That leaves McCain and Romney, who has emerged as the GOP establishment candidate and fiercely backed by the conservative talk-show glitterati, first and foremost Rush Limbaugh. In fact Limbaugh, and a few others, have trashed McCain so much it's to a point that if he does win the nomination, there will be much lingering animosity and recrimination.
A disturbing trend that's emerged and under-reported by the media, is that Romney has an electability problem because of his faith. I have spoken to a number of fair-minded individuals who would not vote for Romney -- under any circumstances -- because of his affiliation with the Mormon Church. Forget the whole business with people not willing to vote for a woman or a black, being a member of the LDS Church apparently disqualifies you for the nation's highest office, according to some.
With that in mind, McCain might be the only GOP candidate with a shot at retaining the White House for the party, against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. The most recent polls showed that he's either ahead or even in a head-to-head contest against the top two Democratic candidates.
That may be the case, but he'll have to do some big-time fence-mending with the party's conservatives first. Otherwise, with a grumpy GOP base sitting out in November, independents are not going to be enough to deliver McCain a victory.
26 January 2008
Not Buying this Garbage
It's rather amusing, over the last few days, how the mainstream and left-leaning media have finally discovered that the Clintons are sleazebags.
Like Captain Renault bellowed in Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here" at a casino, then proceeded to collect his winnings -- we've been around the Clintons for the better part of 15 years, and this is news?
What's surprising is not that the Clintons' tactics of the last week were universally condemned -- in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, the Nation, the New Republic, Slate and Vanity Fair -- but the ferocity with which the pundits derided the Clintons.
Former president and would-be First Lad Bill Clinton was the attack dog, let loose to exploit all racial and class divides. Hillary did her own saber rattling during a contentious debate at Myrtle Beach, and her other surrogates did the rest.
But the win-at-all-cost, damn-the-torpedoes approach didn't work in South Carlina. In fact, the voters turned out in record numbers to repudiate the Clintons.
Hillary was crushed by Barack Obama in the most comprehensive defeat so far in this election season.
The dirty politics that began shortly after Hillary's stunning third-place finish in Iowa helped her score narrow victories in New Hampshire and Nevada. But the escalation in rhetoric and distortions in South Carolina simply reminded the voters -- and the country at large -- just how much they won't miss having the Clintons back in the White House.
This is the one case where "the Surge" clearly didn't work.
Obama's victory is as stunning in its depth as it is in its breadth. He won the black vote, as expected, by a larger-than-expected margin. He won over a quarter of the white votes. He carried young and old, rich and poor. And he won the majority of women's votes.
His victory speech matched the intensity of his triumph. For once, he did not back away from a fight, hammering the Clintons for their misdeeds without dignifying them by name. But amidst a ruckus crowd resembling a rock concert, his speech was nonetheless majestic and uplifting.
If you're a Republican candidate, you must be thinking to yourself: "Gosh, I hope Hillary somehow pulls this out. I sure wouldn't want to go up against this guy."
Of course, the nomination process is far from settled, with Tsunami Tuesday looming just 10 days ahead. Anything can happen. The Clintons, ever more desperate, will find more dirty tricks from their scorched-earth battle manual. To them, if winning back the White House requires the destruction of the Democratic Party, so be it.
It's never about the party or anybody else. It's all about them.
And the Democrats are finally figuring this out, after defending every one of Bill's peccadilloes and lies during his tumultuous time as president.
This is not about the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. It's about the soul of the Democratic Party.
The choice seems pretty obvious. But are the Democratic voters -- but more important -- their leaders, smart enough to put their money on the no-brainer? Are they as perceptive as the voters of South Carolina?
We shall see.
Like Captain Renault bellowed in Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here" at a casino, then proceeded to collect his winnings -- we've been around the Clintons for the better part of 15 years, and this is news?
What's surprising is not that the Clintons' tactics of the last week were universally condemned -- in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, the Nation, the New Republic, Slate and Vanity Fair -- but the ferocity with which the pundits derided the Clintons.
Former president and would-be First Lad Bill Clinton was the attack dog, let loose to exploit all racial and class divides. Hillary did her own saber rattling during a contentious debate at Myrtle Beach, and her other surrogates did the rest.
But the win-at-all-cost, damn-the-torpedoes approach didn't work in South Carlina. In fact, the voters turned out in record numbers to repudiate the Clintons.
Hillary was crushed by Barack Obama in the most comprehensive defeat so far in this election season.
The dirty politics that began shortly after Hillary's stunning third-place finish in Iowa helped her score narrow victories in New Hampshire and Nevada. But the escalation in rhetoric and distortions in South Carolina simply reminded the voters -- and the country at large -- just how much they won't miss having the Clintons back in the White House.
This is the one case where "the Surge" clearly didn't work.
Obama's victory is as stunning in its depth as it is in its breadth. He won the black vote, as expected, by a larger-than-expected margin. He won over a quarter of the white votes. He carried young and old, rich and poor. And he won the majority of women's votes.
His victory speech matched the intensity of his triumph. For once, he did not back away from a fight, hammering the Clintons for their misdeeds without dignifying them by name. But amidst a ruckus crowd resembling a rock concert, his speech was nonetheless majestic and uplifting.
If you're a Republican candidate, you must be thinking to yourself: "Gosh, I hope Hillary somehow pulls this out. I sure wouldn't want to go up against this guy."
Of course, the nomination process is far from settled, with Tsunami Tuesday looming just 10 days ahead. Anything can happen. The Clintons, ever more desperate, will find more dirty tricks from their scorched-earth battle manual. To them, if winning back the White House requires the destruction of the Democratic Party, so be it.
It's never about the party or anybody else. It's all about them.
And the Democrats are finally figuring this out, after defending every one of Bill's peccadilloes and lies during his tumultuous time as president.
This is not about the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. It's about the soul of the Democratic Party.
The choice seems pretty obvious. But are the Democratic voters -- but more important -- their leaders, smart enough to put their money on the no-brainer? Are they as perceptive as the voters of South Carolina?
We shall see.
22 January 2008
Sowing the Seeds of Defeat
In the summer of 2007, when the Iraq War was going nowhere, the housing crisis was bubbling to the surface and President Bush's approval rating was reaching its nadir, it looked all but over for the Republicans. It looked like Hillary Clinton would be the next president of the United States.
Things don't look so bad for the GOP now, doesn't it?
And the Republicans themselves have little to do with their good fortune. As it is, it's a muddled race with no clear frontrunner. But with the Democrats bent on self-destruction, the November election is very much up for grabs, perhaps with a slight edge to the GOP.
After promises of a "nice," "issue-oriented" campaign for months, the gloves have come off for the main Democratic contestants, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- or Barack HUSSEIN Obama, as preferred by some of Hillary's ardent associates.
To be fair, Clinton's camp did most of the dirty work, beginning during the desperate hours just before the New Hampshire primary. With Hillary on the brink of defeat, her camp pulled out all stops to steal a surprise win and halted Obama's momentum.
The nastiness has continued, with the race card, gender card, now even the religion card fully in play. Hillary's smear campaign has paid off with a narrow win in Nevada, even though Obama ended up collecting more delegates.
Obama, tired of playing defense, finally started to hit back. During a live TV debate full of rancor, one that relegated John Edwards to his appropriate third wheel status, Obama fired off a few rejoinders of his own, including Hillary's history as a Wal-Mart board member and her propensity to twist facts, aided and abetted by her husband.
Hillary, not crying now, unleashed her own attack zingers, calling out Obama for his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature and his questionable association with an indicted slum landlord.
It made for great television, and it might've sent the Democrats back on the road of wilderness for four more years.
The Democrats now are more divided than ever. It's whites against blacks. Hispanics against blacks. Men against Women. Big Labor against the rank-and-file. Atheists against Muslims.
This exposes the ugly truth about today's Democratic Party: At the very base level, it's all about identity politics. Obama had tried to transcend all that. He was running as an American, not African-American. He was trying to play for the whole of the United States, not just blue states.
But Hillary said, uh-uh. And the era of good feelings is over.
The problem is, Hillary might have won the battle, but she might have lost the war as well. She might have regained her status as the presumptive nominee, but in the process, she picked up many more enemies.
Her new enemies will be her biggest obstacle on the way back to the White House. Never mind the conservatives who will show up just to vote for the other guy in the general election, her campaign might be doomed by those who DON'T show up.
If the black electorate perceive their man -- the first African-American with a realistic chance to win the presidency -- was nudged out by Hillary's dirty politics, they will stay away in droves. No amount of get-out-to-vote effort will get them off their porch to vote against a guy they've got no beef with, whether it's McCain, Romney or Huckabee.
Also, in the general election, women will not outnumber men by a 60-40 margin, as has been the case in the first few nominating contests. And Republican women's distaste for Hillary sometimes overwhelms that of the Republican men. Basing almost your entire campaign on soliciting female votes has always proved to be a losing proposition.
Hillary has almost check-mated herself. By beating Obama with the tired old identity politics, she has proved that she has no fresh policy ideas beyond the usual left-wing pu pu platter. By turning off a large majority of black voters, she's left herself no margin for error in a national election. By alternating between female victim and raging man-eater, she left no doubt that she's as manipulative and insincere as she's ever been.
As for Obama, he's learned a few valuable lessons. Even if it might be too late for this year, he'll know now that high-minded politics only works against certain opponents. Not against the Clinton Machine.
But fear not, in four years, he'll get to run against an incumbent Republican. President McCain or President Romney will seem like such a nice chap.
Things don't look so bad for the GOP now, doesn't it?
And the Republicans themselves have little to do with their good fortune. As it is, it's a muddled race with no clear frontrunner. But with the Democrats bent on self-destruction, the November election is very much up for grabs, perhaps with a slight edge to the GOP.
After promises of a "nice," "issue-oriented" campaign for months, the gloves have come off for the main Democratic contestants, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- or Barack HUSSEIN Obama, as preferred by some of Hillary's ardent associates.
To be fair, Clinton's camp did most of the dirty work, beginning during the desperate hours just before the New Hampshire primary. With Hillary on the brink of defeat, her camp pulled out all stops to steal a surprise win and halted Obama's momentum.
The nastiness has continued, with the race card, gender card, now even the religion card fully in play. Hillary's smear campaign has paid off with a narrow win in Nevada, even though Obama ended up collecting more delegates.
Obama, tired of playing defense, finally started to hit back. During a live TV debate full of rancor, one that relegated John Edwards to his appropriate third wheel status, Obama fired off a few rejoinders of his own, including Hillary's history as a Wal-Mart board member and her propensity to twist facts, aided and abetted by her husband.
Hillary, not crying now, unleashed her own attack zingers, calling out Obama for his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature and his questionable association with an indicted slum landlord.
It made for great television, and it might've sent the Democrats back on the road of wilderness for four more years.
The Democrats now are more divided than ever. It's whites against blacks. Hispanics against blacks. Men against Women. Big Labor against the rank-and-file. Atheists against Muslims.
This exposes the ugly truth about today's Democratic Party: At the very base level, it's all about identity politics. Obama had tried to transcend all that. He was running as an American, not African-American. He was trying to play for the whole of the United States, not just blue states.
But Hillary said, uh-uh. And the era of good feelings is over.
The problem is, Hillary might have won the battle, but she might have lost the war as well. She might have regained her status as the presumptive nominee, but in the process, she picked up many more enemies.
Her new enemies will be her biggest obstacle on the way back to the White House. Never mind the conservatives who will show up just to vote for the other guy in the general election, her campaign might be doomed by those who DON'T show up.
If the black electorate perceive their man -- the first African-American with a realistic chance to win the presidency -- was nudged out by Hillary's dirty politics, they will stay away in droves. No amount of get-out-to-vote effort will get them off their porch to vote against a guy they've got no beef with, whether it's McCain, Romney or Huckabee.
Also, in the general election, women will not outnumber men by a 60-40 margin, as has been the case in the first few nominating contests. And Republican women's distaste for Hillary sometimes overwhelms that of the Republican men. Basing almost your entire campaign on soliciting female votes has always proved to be a losing proposition.
Hillary has almost check-mated herself. By beating Obama with the tired old identity politics, she has proved that she has no fresh policy ideas beyond the usual left-wing pu pu platter. By turning off a large majority of black voters, she's left herself no margin for error in a national election. By alternating between female victim and raging man-eater, she left no doubt that she's as manipulative and insincere as she's ever been.
As for Obama, he's learned a few valuable lessons. Even if it might be too late for this year, he'll know now that high-minded politics only works against certain opponents. Not against the Clinton Machine.
But fear not, in four years, he'll get to run against an incumbent Republican. President McCain or President Romney will seem like such a nice chap.
09 January 2008
Race, Gender and the Crying Game
It took a while, but the ugly little secret of the 2008 presidential race bubbled to the surface in New Hampshire yesterday.
Race matters. And people lie.
Of all the polls conducted after Barack Obama's Iowa victory, only one predicted a close election, and none projected a Clinton victory. On the Republican side, the polls appeared to be pretty accurate. So what happened?
When that many polls agree, especially a couple with robust sample size, then the possibility of sampling error diminishes. There is only one plausible explanation for the huge disparity of the polls and the outcome of the election: Lying.
Lying is a common occurrence in poll surveys and it greatly influences the results. And it's the one bias that pollsters have a hard time controlling. The biggest cause for lying, in American politics, is typically race.
This was a taboo subject. And after Obama's resounding victory in the overwhelmingly white Iowa Caucus, it seemed like a non-starter. But in New Hampshire, it played a big role.
New Hampshire's voters are older and crankier than Iowa's voters. The medium age in New Hampshire is almost two years older than the national average, placing it and neighboring Vermont as two of the oldest states in the union. Large colleges, where Obama's young voter initiative succeeded spectacularly in Iowa, are not prominent in the New Hampshire landscape.
In other words, your grandma probably won't be for Obama. And lots of grandmas voted in New Hampshire.
With Obama riding on the victory wave from Iowa, many of the poll respondents in New Hampshire felt compelled to answer Obama when asked whom they'd vote for. But the reality is that either they never had any intention of voting for him (lying) or were simply unsettled on the choice but decided Obama would be the right answer (equivocating).
The result is a surprise Clinton victory. Her camp no doubt will mark this as the turning point of the campaign and anoint her as the "Comeback Gal," as her husband Bill was similarly dubbed in 1992. But this win will prove Pyrrhic for a number of reasons.
1) Clinton cannot count on an electorate as friendly as the one in New Hampshire again. Her base, put it bluntly, is women, particularly older women, which New Hampshire has in abundance. More women voted than men in New Hampshire and they opted for Hillary by a whopping 13-point margin. Even with such support, she only eked out a narrow victory.
2) You can only use the ace in the hole once. The crying game obviously worked. It's even noted by some in the Clinton camp as a key event. The problem is: It worked only in New Hampshire and it will only work once. If anyone suspects her of cynical manipulation, then it may only be confirmed should she try it again. I normally do not agree with virtually anything Maureen Dowd has to say, but her column is definitely worth a read.
3) African-Americans are fired up and rearin' to go. Up to this point, very few black people have had a chance to vote and have their voice heard, as both Iowa and New Hampshire are overwhelmingly white. But after Iowa, blacks are convinced that Obama is a legitimate candidate and his narrow loss in New Hampshire changes nothing. In fact, it serves to reinforce how much support he will need from African-American voters. The next key state in the primary season is South Carolina, where black turnout will be high and most of it will be for Obama.
4) Obama runs better as an underdog. The narrow loss allows Obama to sling back and play the role of an upstart fighting the establishment. That's his message and he plays it effectively. In New Hampshire there was palpable confusion in the Obama camp on how to handle the sudden and new found front-runner status. No worries now.
5) The New Hampshire result was affirmation, not repudiation, of Obama's electability versus Hillary's. Obama nearly doubled Hillary's votes among independents. This despite his more liberal and left-wing politics. The perception is that he's the candidate who's more capable of eliciting a look from those sitting on the fence. Hillary, for the most part, is preaching to the converted.
Make no mistake, the Iowa Caucus is still the earthquake event. New Hampshire merely prolongs Hillary's viability until at least "Tsunami Tuesday" on Feb. 5. The setback will force Obama's camp to be more focused and more desperate, which is the optimum condition it operates under. The Clintons, on the other hand, may be lulled back into the "inevitability" mindset.
Inevitably, that's a losing proposition.
Race matters. And people lie.
Of all the polls conducted after Barack Obama's Iowa victory, only one predicted a close election, and none projected a Clinton victory. On the Republican side, the polls appeared to be pretty accurate. So what happened?
When that many polls agree, especially a couple with robust sample size, then the possibility of sampling error diminishes. There is only one plausible explanation for the huge disparity of the polls and the outcome of the election: Lying.
Lying is a common occurrence in poll surveys and it greatly influences the results. And it's the one bias that pollsters have a hard time controlling. The biggest cause for lying, in American politics, is typically race.
This was a taboo subject. And after Obama's resounding victory in the overwhelmingly white Iowa Caucus, it seemed like a non-starter. But in New Hampshire, it played a big role.
New Hampshire's voters are older and crankier than Iowa's voters. The medium age in New Hampshire is almost two years older than the national average, placing it and neighboring Vermont as two of the oldest states in the union. Large colleges, where Obama's young voter initiative succeeded spectacularly in Iowa, are not prominent in the New Hampshire landscape.
In other words, your grandma probably won't be for Obama. And lots of grandmas voted in New Hampshire.
With Obama riding on the victory wave from Iowa, many of the poll respondents in New Hampshire felt compelled to answer Obama when asked whom they'd vote for. But the reality is that either they never had any intention of voting for him (lying) or were simply unsettled on the choice but decided Obama would be the right answer (equivocating).
The result is a surprise Clinton victory. Her camp no doubt will mark this as the turning point of the campaign and anoint her as the "Comeback Gal," as her husband Bill was similarly dubbed in 1992. But this win will prove Pyrrhic for a number of reasons.
1) Clinton cannot count on an electorate as friendly as the one in New Hampshire again. Her base, put it bluntly, is women, particularly older women, which New Hampshire has in abundance. More women voted than men in New Hampshire and they opted for Hillary by a whopping 13-point margin. Even with such support, she only eked out a narrow victory.
2) You can only use the ace in the hole once. The crying game obviously worked. It's even noted by some in the Clinton camp as a key event. The problem is: It worked only in New Hampshire and it will only work once. If anyone suspects her of cynical manipulation, then it may only be confirmed should she try it again. I normally do not agree with virtually anything Maureen Dowd has to say, but her column is definitely worth a read.
3) African-Americans are fired up and rearin' to go. Up to this point, very few black people have had a chance to vote and have their voice heard, as both Iowa and New Hampshire are overwhelmingly white. But after Iowa, blacks are convinced that Obama is a legitimate candidate and his narrow loss in New Hampshire changes nothing. In fact, it serves to reinforce how much support he will need from African-American voters. The next key state in the primary season is South Carolina, where black turnout will be high and most of it will be for Obama.
4) Obama runs better as an underdog. The narrow loss allows Obama to sling back and play the role of an upstart fighting the establishment. That's his message and he plays it effectively. In New Hampshire there was palpable confusion in the Obama camp on how to handle the sudden and new found front-runner status. No worries now.
5) The New Hampshire result was affirmation, not repudiation, of Obama's electability versus Hillary's. Obama nearly doubled Hillary's votes among independents. This despite his more liberal and left-wing politics. The perception is that he's the candidate who's more capable of eliciting a look from those sitting on the fence. Hillary, for the most part, is preaching to the converted.
Make no mistake, the Iowa Caucus is still the earthquake event. New Hampshire merely prolongs Hillary's viability until at least "Tsunami Tuesday" on Feb. 5. The setback will force Obama's camp to be more focused and more desperate, which is the optimum condition it operates under. The Clintons, on the other hand, may be lulled back into the "inevitability" mindset.
Inevitably, that's a losing proposition.
06 January 2008
Unloved, Unelectable
These are some exciting times. We may be witnessing one of the biggest political collapses in American history. And we're just getting started.
While Saturday night's debate was largely a yawner, it served as a reminder how damaged and wounded Hillary Clinton is. And she's digging herself into a deeper hole.
The debacle in Iowa -- a third-place finish for the candidate of "inevitability" -- was not met with serious soul-searching and a much-needed change in strategy. Instead, Hillary's camp lashed out, at the voters. Her spokesman dismissed the caucus result by suggesting that one shouldn't "extrapolate" too much out of 230,000 people.
Right, when you lose, just dis the voters and tell them how their vote really don't mean jack.
But that statement, made on the plane ride from Iowa from New Hampshire, was mere prelude to the continuing slide. Lacking any sort of political nimbleness her husband was blessed with, Hillary plodded ahead with what didn't work. Juxtaposing that she's the agent for change and the one with Beltway experience, Hillary's message amounted to a big "huh?"
Make no mistake, Clinton will fight on, because she doesn't know any other way. It probably won't do any good, though, because there is one thing that she cannot overcome.
People simply don't like her.
Thousands of political science papers have been written over the past 100 years -- including by yours truly -- on models that allegedly might predict outcomes of presidential elections. But the most tried-and-true is this one: Assholes don't win. (Pardon the language)
The last Asshole to occupy the Oval Office was Richard Nixon, and we all know how that turned out. But even Nixon was elected twice against candidates less likeable than he was (as hard to believe as that is). The last presidential contest won by the less likeable guy was Truman over Dewey in 1948, and that was one big upset.
Check out this list:
2004 Bush > Kerry
2000 Bush > Gore
1996 Clinton > Dole
1992 Clinton > Bush I
1988 Bush I > Dukakis
1984 Reagan > Mondale
1980 Reagan > Carter
1976 Carter > Ford (?)
1972 Nixon > McGovern
1968 Nixon > Humphrey
1964 Johnson > Goldwater
1960 Kennedy > Nixon
1956 Eisenhower > Stevenson
1952 Eisenhower > Stevenson
Pretty unbeatable trend, huh? The only one that's slightly in question was 1976. But Ford was Asshole-by-Association. His pardon of Nixon doomed his chances in a close election against Carter.
Hillary is an Asshole (and I'll spare her the B-word in fear of being labeled a sexist). If she were nominated, she will be instantly less likeable than anybody the Republicans might come up with, save maybe Rudy Giuliani. The Democrats, sick of being out of power for eight years, know this. At the end of the day, they are having a hard time putting forth a candidate who generates nothing but contempt for a large part of the electorate.
On the other hand, Barack Obama is likeable to the n-th degree. Leave out his dyed-in-the-wool liberal credentials for a moment, what's not to like about the guy? He's multi-cultural in the best sense of the word. He's glib, charming, sincere and sunny. All qualities in short supply for Hillary.
Does that mean Obama will win the general election if he's nominated? No, not necessarily. But if history is any indication, he's a much better bet than Hillary Clinton. And the Democrats, to their credit, are putting their chips on Obama.
While Saturday night's debate was largely a yawner, it served as a reminder how damaged and wounded Hillary Clinton is. And she's digging herself into a deeper hole.
The debacle in Iowa -- a third-place finish for the candidate of "inevitability" -- was not met with serious soul-searching and a much-needed change in strategy. Instead, Hillary's camp lashed out, at the voters. Her spokesman dismissed the caucus result by suggesting that one shouldn't "extrapolate" too much out of 230,000 people.
Right, when you lose, just dis the voters and tell them how their vote really don't mean jack.
But that statement, made on the plane ride from Iowa from New Hampshire, was mere prelude to the continuing slide. Lacking any sort of political nimbleness her husband was blessed with, Hillary plodded ahead with what didn't work. Juxtaposing that she's the agent for change and the one with Beltway experience, Hillary's message amounted to a big "huh?"
Make no mistake, Clinton will fight on, because she doesn't know any other way. It probably won't do any good, though, because there is one thing that she cannot overcome.
People simply don't like her.
Thousands of political science papers have been written over the past 100 years -- including by yours truly -- on models that allegedly might predict outcomes of presidential elections. But the most tried-and-true is this one: Assholes don't win. (Pardon the language)
The last Asshole to occupy the Oval Office was Richard Nixon, and we all know how that turned out. But even Nixon was elected twice against candidates less likeable than he was (as hard to believe as that is). The last presidential contest won by the less likeable guy was Truman over Dewey in 1948, and that was one big upset.
Check out this list:
2004 Bush > Kerry
2000 Bush > Gore
1996 Clinton > Dole
1992 Clinton > Bush I
1988 Bush I > Dukakis
1984 Reagan > Mondale
1980 Reagan > Carter
1976 Carter > Ford (?)
1972 Nixon > McGovern
1968 Nixon > Humphrey
1964 Johnson > Goldwater
1960 Kennedy > Nixon
1956 Eisenhower > Stevenson
1952 Eisenhower > Stevenson
Pretty unbeatable trend, huh? The only one that's slightly in question was 1976. But Ford was Asshole-by-Association. His pardon of Nixon doomed his chances in a close election against Carter.
Hillary is an Asshole (and I'll spare her the B-word in fear of being labeled a sexist). If she were nominated, she will be instantly less likeable than anybody the Republicans might come up with, save maybe Rudy Giuliani. The Democrats, sick of being out of power for eight years, know this. At the end of the day, they are having a hard time putting forth a candidate who generates nothing but contempt for a large part of the electorate.
On the other hand, Barack Obama is likeable to the n-th degree. Leave out his dyed-in-the-wool liberal credentials for a moment, what's not to like about the guy? He's multi-cultural in the best sense of the word. He's glib, charming, sincere and sunny. All qualities in short supply for Hillary.
Does that mean Obama will win the general election if he's nominated? No, not necessarily. But if history is any indication, he's a much better bet than Hillary Clinton. And the Democrats, to their credit, are putting their chips on Obama.
03 January 2008
Dawn of a New Era
Barack Obama wins the Democratic Caucus in Iowa. And the 2008 presidential election has taken a dramatic turn, for the better.
First, Obama's victory was surprisingly comfortable, despite polls showing a tight three-way race. The outcome legitimizes his candidacy, from a novel, flavor of the day, to perhaps the front-runner. He is already locked in a close race with Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. Now, buoyed by this resounding win, he just might run away with the Granite State on Jan. 9, too.
Second, this is very bad news for Hillary. Armed with the largest war chest, the biggest organization and unrivaled name recognition, she managed only a third-place finish, behind both Obama and John Edwards. This speaks to her vulnerability as a national candidate. And if she is beaten by Obama again in New Hampshire, the Clinton campaign will be on full crisis mode.
While Edwards vows to fight another day, this is now a two-person race, albeit a new race, with the air of invincibility clearly deserting Clinton. Now, Hillary should not be counted out because of her prolific fund-raising ability and the fact that she is still backed by the Democratic establishment. But it would not be a surprise to see some supporters switching camps after the Iowa debacle.
For Obama, what an opportunity. He's taken Clinton's best shots and has beaten her soundly. More important, now he'll be viewed as someone who can win. Black voters, previously on the fence about Obama because of his perceived electability (or the lack thereof), might now throw their support behind him. After all, Iowa, as one pundit quipped, is as white as the North Pole.
As for the Republicans, the Iowa Caucus was not encouraging. First, it decided very little other than that Mike Huckabee will have to be taken seriously. Second, Huckabee's runaway victory will have to be viewed as a major concern. Huckabee is not the best candidate the GOP has to offer, but his ascendancy demonstrates that the party is fractious and in disarray.
There are major issues about Huckabee's bona fides as a fiscal conservative -- not to mention his stance on immigration and the death penalty. And his religiosity, while helpful in Iowa, will be a liability should he qualifies for the general election. He has limited appeal as a national candidate, and hardly will be someone who can mobilize enough voters in what will be an uphill battle for the GOP.
Mitt Romney's second-place finish has to be seen as a major disappointment. Despite outspending all his foes with a formidable organization, Romney lost to a heretofore fringe candidate. And he's got bigger dogs to fight down the road, with Rudy Giuliani choosing to sit out Iowa in an unconventional gamble.
While it's unlikely for GOP candidates to be officially eliminated after New Hampshire, the field will be whittled down soon enough. John McCain and Fred Thompson are both running campaigns on life support. And if Giuliani can't hit a home run in the south -- Florida in particular -- the GOP race will be a two-man competition between Huckabee and Romney.
Don't look now, but who has an electability problem?
First, Obama's victory was surprisingly comfortable, despite polls showing a tight three-way race. The outcome legitimizes his candidacy, from a novel, flavor of the day, to perhaps the front-runner. He is already locked in a close race with Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire. Now, buoyed by this resounding win, he just might run away with the Granite State on Jan. 9, too.
Second, this is very bad news for Hillary. Armed with the largest war chest, the biggest organization and unrivaled name recognition, she managed only a third-place finish, behind both Obama and John Edwards. This speaks to her vulnerability as a national candidate. And if she is beaten by Obama again in New Hampshire, the Clinton campaign will be on full crisis mode.
While Edwards vows to fight another day, this is now a two-person race, albeit a new race, with the air of invincibility clearly deserting Clinton. Now, Hillary should not be counted out because of her prolific fund-raising ability and the fact that she is still backed by the Democratic establishment. But it would not be a surprise to see some supporters switching camps after the Iowa debacle.
For Obama, what an opportunity. He's taken Clinton's best shots and has beaten her soundly. More important, now he'll be viewed as someone who can win. Black voters, previously on the fence about Obama because of his perceived electability (or the lack thereof), might now throw their support behind him. After all, Iowa, as one pundit quipped, is as white as the North Pole.
As for the Republicans, the Iowa Caucus was not encouraging. First, it decided very little other than that Mike Huckabee will have to be taken seriously. Second, Huckabee's runaway victory will have to be viewed as a major concern. Huckabee is not the best candidate the GOP has to offer, but his ascendancy demonstrates that the party is fractious and in disarray.
There are major issues about Huckabee's bona fides as a fiscal conservative -- not to mention his stance on immigration and the death penalty. And his religiosity, while helpful in Iowa, will be a liability should he qualifies for the general election. He has limited appeal as a national candidate, and hardly will be someone who can mobilize enough voters in what will be an uphill battle for the GOP.
Mitt Romney's second-place finish has to be seen as a major disappointment. Despite outspending all his foes with a formidable organization, Romney lost to a heretofore fringe candidate. And he's got bigger dogs to fight down the road, with Rudy Giuliani choosing to sit out Iowa in an unconventional gamble.
While it's unlikely for GOP candidates to be officially eliminated after New Hampshire, the field will be whittled down soon enough. John McCain and Fred Thompson are both running campaigns on life support. And if Giuliani can't hit a home run in the south -- Florida in particular -- the GOP race will be a two-man competition between Huckabee and Romney.
Don't look now, but who has an electability problem?
27 December 2007
All Eyes on Iowa
Exactly one week from the first action of the 2008 presidential election, the big picture remains pretty muddled. It's expected yet surprising: Expected because 2008 will mark the first time since 1928 that no incumbent president or vice president is running in the election. Surprising because many pundits had thought this should be just the beginning of a yearlong coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Hillary's relentless march back to the White House was in the works ever since the Clintons vacated it on Jan. 20, 2001. It has always been the ultimate goal of one of the most ambitious politicians of our time -- male or female. The whole show about being a New York senator was just biding time to raise money.
But little did she know that the road bump would become the size of a treacherous mountain, in the person of Barack Obama. The junior senator from Illinois is bereft of policy experience but has charm in spades. And in American politics, having the voters like you sometimes can overcome inconveniences like completely lacking in foreign policy expertise.
Without a doubt, Hillary is in a vicious fight with Obama in Iowa, and beyond, despite the candidates' assurances that they'd play nice. Hillary -- and her camp -- has already broken out the girl card, the race card, and lately, the drug card. Obama should be rightly relieved because Clinton's people have worked long and hard to find all the skeletons, and yet, her numbers are not improving.
Let's deal with numbers. The latest polling data shows that Clinton, who once held a commanding double-digit lead, is running neck-and-neck with Obama, with John Edwards a close third. For now, I'm disregarding the latest polling data from American Research Group, which reports that Hillary is 15 points ahead of Obama, up from 4 points just a week ago. That, coupled with a similar wild swing in its poll for Republican candidates, leads me to believe that there is bias in the sampling.
Keep in mind that the winner of the Iowa Caucus hardly becomes the automatic favorite to win the party's nomination. In the last three contested elections (when neither the incumbent President or VP was running), only John Kerry emerged as the party's nominee. Both Tom Harkin (1992) and Dick Gephardt (1988) disappeared pretty quickly after that.
What the Iowa Caucus does, however, is to root out pretenders, as it famously did Howard Dean in 2004, after his infamous Munchian Scream. In 2008, it means this contest is most crucial for Edwards. If he does not come in as at least a strong third, he can expect that his tenuous support would be quickly siphoned by either Clinton or Obama.
So just what's my take on Iowa? My prediction is that Clinton will narrowly edge Obama, with Edwards coming in a relatively strong third, allowing him to limp into New Hampshire to fight another day. An outright loss by Clinton, however, might prove disastrous, as her once iron-clad grip on the Granite State is showing serious signs of erosion.
So much for the coronation, eh?
Hillary's relentless march back to the White House was in the works ever since the Clintons vacated it on Jan. 20, 2001. It has always been the ultimate goal of one of the most ambitious politicians of our time -- male or female. The whole show about being a New York senator was just biding time to raise money.
But little did she know that the road bump would become the size of a treacherous mountain, in the person of Barack Obama. The junior senator from Illinois is bereft of policy experience but has charm in spades. And in American politics, having the voters like you sometimes can overcome inconveniences like completely lacking in foreign policy expertise.
Without a doubt, Hillary is in a vicious fight with Obama in Iowa, and beyond, despite the candidates' assurances that they'd play nice. Hillary -- and her camp -- has already broken out the girl card, the race card, and lately, the drug card. Obama should be rightly relieved because Clinton's people have worked long and hard to find all the skeletons, and yet, her numbers are not improving.
Let's deal with numbers. The latest polling data shows that Clinton, who once held a commanding double-digit lead, is running neck-and-neck with Obama, with John Edwards a close third. For now, I'm disregarding the latest polling data from American Research Group, which reports that Hillary is 15 points ahead of Obama, up from 4 points just a week ago. That, coupled with a similar wild swing in its poll for Republican candidates, leads me to believe that there is bias in the sampling.
Keep in mind that the winner of the Iowa Caucus hardly becomes the automatic favorite to win the party's nomination. In the last three contested elections (when neither the incumbent President or VP was running), only John Kerry emerged as the party's nominee. Both Tom Harkin (1992) and Dick Gephardt (1988) disappeared pretty quickly after that.
What the Iowa Caucus does, however, is to root out pretenders, as it famously did Howard Dean in 2004, after his infamous Munchian Scream. In 2008, it means this contest is most crucial for Edwards. If he does not come in as at least a strong third, he can expect that his tenuous support would be quickly siphoned by either Clinton or Obama.
So just what's my take on Iowa? My prediction is that Clinton will narrowly edge Obama, with Edwards coming in a relatively strong third, allowing him to limp into New Hampshire to fight another day. An outright loss by Clinton, however, might prove disastrous, as her once iron-clad grip on the Granite State is showing serious signs of erosion.
So much for the coronation, eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)