(From RealClearPolitics)
Will Barack Obama take it upon himself to end the National Football League impasse?
For reasons both atmospheric and economic, he should at least think about it.
With Monday's ruling from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that keeps the owners' lockout intact, there is a possibility that both sides will dig in, thus putting the upcoming season in peril. More than two months into the lockout and just two months from the scheduled start of training camp, the NFL is already way behind in preparing for the upcoming season.
Any lost games -- even preseason ones -- have an economic cost to the teams and the cities they do business in. The NFL Players Association estimated that each NFL city stands to lose $160 million over the course of the season, or $16 million per home game. Though these figures may be greatly exaggerated (the most conservative estimate is at $35 million per city for the season), there is no doubt that millions of dollars and thousands of jobs will be lost should the games be canceled.
A number of NFL teams, the Miami Dolphins among them, have already drastically reduced their staff or cut pay during the lockout. Keep in mind that each team and its host city hire a large number of people, from full-time employees who work in custodial, food service and media relations at the training facilities, to contract workers who sell souvenirs, clean up and provide guest services at stadiums. Not to mention thousands of cops and firefighters who depend on overtime income from working on game days.
The economy and jobs. Now do they sound like something President Obama should worry about? Left unmanaged, the damage from a lost season may very well negatively affect his re-election chances in 2012.
In 2008, Obama won 365 electoral votes, comfortably beating John McCain for the presidency. But since the Democrats' 2010 midterm election wipeout, combined with the reallocation of electoral votes following the 2010 Census, his prospects have arguably worsened already. And that doesn't even take into account the bleak employment picture that has persistently dogged his presidency.
Six states, each home to at least one NFL franchise, may just hold the key to his bid for a second term.
These six (North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado) all went for George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004, and they were also the states where Obama's winning margins were the smallest in 2008, ranging from 0.3 percent in North Carolina to 8.9 percent in Colorado.
Nine NFL teams reside in these six states (the Washington Redskins are headquartered in Ashburn, Va.). And if you take the NFLPA's estimates at face value, a whopping $1.44 billion worth of economic activity, not to mention tens of thousands of jobs, may be lost in these states from a canceled season.
If Obama should lose all six states (not a stretch, since neither John Kerry nor Al Gore carried any of them), his electoral vote total would plummet from a census-adjusted 359 to 264 -- the difference between winning the future and winning funds for a presidential library.
Moreover, even states the president won more comfortably in 2008 may be in play in 2012 after the GOP landslide of 2010. A total of 40 electoral votes could be up for grabs in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania -- home to the Vikings, Green Bay Packers, Pittsburgh Steelers and Philadelphia Eagles.
Given this landscape, should the current impasse persist, it may behoove Obama to pick up the phone and -- to paraphrase the 44th president himself when he spoke of college football's lack of a playoff -- "throw my weight around a little bit." Obama can call any number of people, and it's reasonable to surmise that he may have DeMaurice Smith's number on his BlackBerry.
It's not that the head of the NFLPA contributed to the Obama campaign (he did), it's that "De" Smith was elected to head the players' union last year on the strength of his legal and political connections. He was largely unknown by the players he sought to lead, but Smith is a former colleague of Obama confidant and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and he's a former partner at Patton Boggs, a powerhouse law firm with an extensive lobbyist operation and strong ties to the Democratic Party. Three months ago, Patton Boggs adviser Frank Wisner was sent to Egypt as Obama's personal envoy to deal with Hosni Mubarak.
Professional sports are hardly on the same level as Middle East peace, but Obama can pick up the phone and lean on another Patton Boggs man to break the impasse in pro football. That isn't always enough, even for a president of the United States. Bill Clinton learned that lesson when he tried unsuccessfully to mediate the baseball strike of 1994-1995. But voters gave Clinton credit for trying.
If Obama does call and push him to make a deal, even the heretofore stubborn Smith will have incentives to comply. After his grand strategy of litigating instead of negotiating was shredded by the 8th Circuit, Smith doesn't have a lot of options left. Given his track record, it's doubtful that he'd be an NFL lifer, as his predecessor Gene Upshaw was. So his best course of action might be to cut a deal quickly, proclaim it was done in the interest of the fans, tell the players it was all worth it, before exiting gracefully.
Perhaps just in time to land a gig on Obama's reelection campaign.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
17 August 2009
Congress Can't 'Fix' the BCS
(From BCS Guru)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) made a lot of noise earlier this year about reforming the BCS. He even wrote an op-ed in Sports Illustrated. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) went as far as introducing a bill to ban the use of "national championship" by the BCS. Even President Barack Obama (D-World) has promised (or threatened) to "throw his weight around a little bit."
But don't hold your breath. The BCS isn't going anywhere and it's not going to change much.
And that's a good thing in this sense: You do not want the United States government messing with college football.
For those of you who skipped your high school civic classes or didn't care much for polisci in college, here's a quick primer: The U.S. is a federal republic, its government is represented by people from all 50 states, each with its own disparate interest. These representatives don't work for you or me or the United States as a whole, per se. They work for their state, their district and their constituents.
But most of all, they work for themselves to make sure that they get re-elected.
That's why there's all the grandstanding about the BCS when the timing is convenient. When there's nothing going on, it's a cheap way to get some media attention. And since the BCS is about as popular as the Third Reich, it's easy to kick around the BCS and score brownie points.
You do notice, though, that none of these politicians, from Obama on down, offered anything remotely resembling a "solution" to the BCS problem, right?
That's because they don't have one. And they don't know college football well enough to even come up with one.
You do also notice that the people who complain the loudest about the BCS tend to be representing the latest aggrieved party in the BCS saga. Yes, Hatch is all hot because Utah got screwed last year. Barton is pissed because similarly Texas got shut out of the BCS title game (but he went to A&M, so go figure).
In 2007, the loudest critic of the BCS was University of Gerogia president Michael Adams. He was sore because the Bulldogs didn't get their shot at the crystal ball. Guess what? This last offseason you didn't hear a peep from Dr. Adams, presumably because UGA still got its fat BCS check even though its team, ranked No. 1 in the preseason, more or less went in the tank.
So here's a prediction: You won't hear too much from Sen. Hatch next spring - unless BYU becomes the next BCS victim.
When it comes to the BCS, the best you can hope for is that it'll do the right thing not because of government regulation, but because of the market forces. We still live in a nation with an economy that's fueled by capitalistic endeavors (for now, anyway). And make no mistake, college football and the BCS are big business. So at the end, money talks.
Money talked in the 1990s, as Bowl Coalition morphed into Bowl Alliance and then the BCS. It's not a perfect system, but it's at least marginally better than the old bowl regime. The best two championship games of the BCS Era (2002 and 2005) wouldn't have happened without the BCS. There will come a time - maybe in the next 5-10 years - that there will be so much money on the table for the BCS to adopt some sort of a Plus-One or pseudo-playoff system. You can count on that.
What you can't count on is government efficiency, that's why you want it to stay the hell away from college football. The U.S. government is pretty stretched. It's now running the car industry and many of the big banks. Soon, it'll own healthcare, then energy, and before you know it, you and me, too.
Besides, at a time where there is a real fear of inflation, with runaway budget deficits, continuing high unemployment and negative growth in GDP, not to mention nuclear threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, why is anybody in government even talking about college football?
That's why we want our congressmen and senators to butt out. To mind their own business. To take care of business. In the case of the BCS, we don't need their help to "fix" it.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) made a lot of noise earlier this year about reforming the BCS. He even wrote an op-ed in Sports Illustrated. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) went as far as introducing a bill to ban the use of "national championship" by the BCS. Even President Barack Obama (D-World) has promised (or threatened) to "throw his weight around a little bit."
But don't hold your breath. The BCS isn't going anywhere and it's not going to change much.
And that's a good thing in this sense: You do not want the United States government messing with college football.
For those of you who skipped your high school civic classes or didn't care much for polisci in college, here's a quick primer: The U.S. is a federal republic, its government is represented by people from all 50 states, each with its own disparate interest. These representatives don't work for you or me or the United States as a whole, per se. They work for their state, their district and their constituents.
But most of all, they work for themselves to make sure that they get re-elected.
That's why there's all the grandstanding about the BCS when the timing is convenient. When there's nothing going on, it's a cheap way to get some media attention. And since the BCS is about as popular as the Third Reich, it's easy to kick around the BCS and score brownie points.
You do notice, though, that none of these politicians, from Obama on down, offered anything remotely resembling a "solution" to the BCS problem, right?
That's because they don't have one. And they don't know college football well enough to even come up with one.
You do also notice that the people who complain the loudest about the BCS tend to be representing the latest aggrieved party in the BCS saga. Yes, Hatch is all hot because Utah got screwed last year. Barton is pissed because similarly Texas got shut out of the BCS title game (but he went to A&M, so go figure).
In 2007, the loudest critic of the BCS was University of Gerogia president Michael Adams. He was sore because the Bulldogs didn't get their shot at the crystal ball. Guess what? This last offseason you didn't hear a peep from Dr. Adams, presumably because UGA still got its fat BCS check even though its team, ranked No. 1 in the preseason, more or less went in the tank.
So here's a prediction: You won't hear too much from Sen. Hatch next spring - unless BYU becomes the next BCS victim.
When it comes to the BCS, the best you can hope for is that it'll do the right thing not because of government regulation, but because of the market forces. We still live in a nation with an economy that's fueled by capitalistic endeavors (for now, anyway). And make no mistake, college football and the BCS are big business. So at the end, money talks.
Money talked in the 1990s, as Bowl Coalition morphed into Bowl Alliance and then the BCS. It's not a perfect system, but it's at least marginally better than the old bowl regime. The best two championship games of the BCS Era (2002 and 2005) wouldn't have happened without the BCS. There will come a time - maybe in the next 5-10 years - that there will be so much money on the table for the BCS to adopt some sort of a Plus-One or pseudo-playoff system. You can count on that.
What you can't count on is government efficiency, that's why you want it to stay the hell away from college football. The U.S. government is pretty stretched. It's now running the car industry and many of the big banks. Soon, it'll own healthcare, then energy, and before you know it, you and me, too.
Besides, at a time where there is a real fear of inflation, with runaway budget deficits, continuing high unemployment and negative growth in GDP, not to mention nuclear threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, why is anybody in government even talking about college football?
That's why we want our congressmen and senators to butt out. To mind their own business. To take care of business. In the case of the BCS, we don't need their help to "fix" it.
20 January 2009
Inauguration Day Live Blog
RealClearWorld will host a live blog on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, from 9:30 a.m. to noon (EST). Please join us for the historic occasion.
All readers and commenters are welcome.
All readers and commenters are welcome.
24 November 2008
RCW Person of the Year
(From RealClearWorld)
It used to mean something to be selected as Time Magazine's "Person of the Year." Began in 1937, with Charles Lindbergh as the first honoree, the lineup of what used to be "Man of the Year" was filled with the world's movers and shakers, for better or worse.
FDR won it - the only person to be named thrice - but so did Adolf Hilter and Josef Stalin. Ghandi, Churchill, Ike and George Marshall were all among the early honorees. But over time, this list has been populated more often by frivolous choices.
The Computer has won it (1982) ... as did the Earth (1988) ... but the absurdity perhaps reached its apex when the magazine picked approximately 6 billion winners in 2006.
You.
Yeah, you.
Eager to restore its relevance, the magazine actually made a good choice last year - then-Russian president Vladimir Putin, certainly a worthy winner even if a controversial one. And Putin rewarded Time's editors with a lengthy and thought-provoking interview.
In about two weeks, the magazine is due to release its 2008 choice. But RealClearWorld has decided not to wait. We've seen enough from around the world to come up with our own Person of the Year. While there are scientists, humanitarians, artists and athletes who may warrant consideration, our top five candidates are more political in nature.
Here are our choices:
No. 5 Nicolas Sarkozy
It used to mean something to be selected as Time Magazine's "Person of the Year." Began in 1937, with Charles Lindbergh as the first honoree, the lineup of what used to be "Man of the Year" was filled with the world's movers and shakers, for better or worse.
FDR won it - the only person to be named thrice - but so did Adolf Hilter and Josef Stalin. Ghandi, Churchill, Ike and George Marshall were all among the early honorees. But over time, this list has been populated more often by frivolous choices.
The Computer has won it (1982) ... as did the Earth (1988) ... but the absurdity perhaps reached its apex when the magazine picked approximately 6 billion winners in 2006.
You.
Yeah, you.
Eager to restore its relevance, the magazine actually made a good choice last year - then-Russian president Vladimir Putin, certainly a worthy winner even if a controversial one. And Putin rewarded Time's editors with a lengthy and thought-provoking interview.
In about two weeks, the magazine is due to release its 2008 choice. But RealClearWorld has decided not to wait. We've seen enough from around the world to come up with our own Person of the Year. While there are scientists, humanitarians, artists and athletes who may warrant consideration, our top five candidates are more political in nature.
Here are our choices:
No. 5 Nicolas Sarkozy
16 November 2008
Who'll Cause Obama's First 3 a.m. Call?
(From RealClearWorld)
"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking."
This ominous warning was not issued by President-elect Obama's campaign adversary John McCain or any of his surrogates. It came from Joe Biden, Obama's running mate and the nation's next vice president - merely two weeks before Obama's election victory.
Indeed, throughout his two-year campaign for the most powerful office in the world, Obama's lack of executive experience was almost always Topic No. 1. And his virtual blank slate pertaining to foreign policy produced more attack lines by his opponents than anything else.
During the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton made much hay when she unleashed the famed "3 a.m. call" television ad questioning whether a nation at war could risk electing someone so green as its leader. She made dramatic gains following the ad's unveiling, taking Obama to the wire in a spirited intra-party fight.
With an electorate more concerned about the current financial crisis and other more worrisome domestic issues, Obama beat McCain comfortably to win the election. But the world's bad actors and flash points will not simply go away. Fortunately for him, some of the potential problems will remain more long-term and less urgent, such as China, India and Brazil; while others, such as Venezuela, Cuba and Africa, will not be strategically pressing enough to warrant emergency actions.
So just who'll be responsible for Obama's first 3 a.m. phone call at the White House? After careful consideration, these are RealClearWorld's top five suspects:
No. 5 Russia
"Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking."
This ominous warning was not issued by President-elect Obama's campaign adversary John McCain or any of his surrogates. It came from Joe Biden, Obama's running mate and the nation's next vice president - merely two weeks before Obama's election victory.
Indeed, throughout his two-year campaign for the most powerful office in the world, Obama's lack of executive experience was almost always Topic No. 1. And his virtual blank slate pertaining to foreign policy produced more attack lines by his opponents than anything else.
During the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton made much hay when she unleashed the famed "3 a.m. call" television ad questioning whether a nation at war could risk electing someone so green as its leader. She made dramatic gains following the ad's unveiling, taking Obama to the wire in a spirited intra-party fight.
With an electorate more concerned about the current financial crisis and other more worrisome domestic issues, Obama beat McCain comfortably to win the election. But the world's bad actors and flash points will not simply go away. Fortunately for him, some of the potential problems will remain more long-term and less urgent, such as China, India and Brazil; while others, such as Venezuela, Cuba and Africa, will not be strategically pressing enough to warrant emergency actions.
So just who'll be responsible for Obama's first 3 a.m. phone call at the White House? After careful consideration, these are RealClearWorld's top five suspects:
No. 5 Russia
09 November 2008
Candidates for Secretary of State
(From RealClearWorld)
It is the most important position in the cabinet of any administration. It is a post that used to pave the way to the presidency but now mostly filled by career diplomats or long-serving politicians.
Having named his chief of staff, President-Elect Barack Obama now moves to fill his cabinet. His choice for Secretary of State should lend some insight into how he wishes to govern, his true intentions on bipartisanship, as well as his foreign-policy agenda. Also, just how big of a role Vice President-Elect Joe Biden will play in foreign policy decisions may be illuminated by this choice.
RealClearWorld has reviewed a long list of potential candidates and now narrowed it to a short list of five. His appointment must still be confirmed by the Senate, though with the Democrats owning a clear majority, little opposition is expected no matter whom he names.
Obama's choice will replace Condoleeze Rice, the nation's second female and second African-American to hold the post. Rice became the 66th Secretary of State after replacing Colin Powell in January 2005.
The following, in descending order, are the five most probable candidates for Secretary of State in the incoming Obama Administration:
No. 5 - Rand Beers
It is the most important position in the cabinet of any administration. It is a post that used to pave the way to the presidency but now mostly filled by career diplomats or long-serving politicians.
Having named his chief of staff, President-Elect Barack Obama now moves to fill his cabinet. His choice for Secretary of State should lend some insight into how he wishes to govern, his true intentions on bipartisanship, as well as his foreign-policy agenda. Also, just how big of a role Vice President-Elect Joe Biden will play in foreign policy decisions may be illuminated by this choice.
RealClearWorld has reviewed a long list of potential candidates and now narrowed it to a short list of five. His appointment must still be confirmed by the Senate, though with the Democrats owning a clear majority, little opposition is expected no matter whom he names.
Obama's choice will replace Condoleeze Rice, the nation's second female and second African-American to hold the post. Rice became the 66th Secretary of State after replacing Colin Powell in January 2005.
The following, in descending order, are the five most probable candidates for Secretary of State in the incoming Obama Administration:
No. 5 - Rand Beers
07 November 2008
President Obama, Stay Out of My Business!
(From BCS Guru)
One the eve of the presidential election, when asked what's the one thing he'd like to change in sports, Barack Obama fired this stunning rejoinder:
"I think it's about time that we have playoffs in college football. ... Get the top eight teams ... get a playoff, decide on a national champion."
Are you crazy? The Guru thought. What about me? How am I gonna put food on my table for me and my family? What am I gonna do in my spare time? Is this the "socialism" that Rush and Hannity were talking about?
I should've voted for John McCain on that alone!
But now that he's won the election, I'd make this urgent plea to our president-elect: Leave it be. You've got better things to do, like dealing with Ahmadinejad, Kim, Chavez ... not to mention the Republicans, than worrying about the toy department. Just leave us be.
Besides, with a playoff, how on earth would Lubbock - yes, freakin' Lubbock, Texas - become the center of the college football universe - two weeks running?
Yes, the BCS, as flawed as it is, makes every week in college football a playoff week. One loss you might be done. Just ask Pete Carroll and USC. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Trojans are going to chew on what might have been - for eternity - if not for a slipup on a moonless night in Corvallis in September.
It's so cruel, yet so delicious.
In the NFL, nothing really ever happens until December. You might have a few "statement" games, but no loss is ever fatal until it gets really cold. In pro football, regular-season games are no more than debates where people pontificate. In college football, every week could be Hamilton-vs.-Burr.
Which brings us to this week's duel: Oklahoma State vs. Texas Tech.
The Red Raiders may be No. 2 in the BCS standings, but few expects them to stay there for very long. After last week's dramatic last-second victory over former No. 1 Texas, the question is no longer if they're for real, but if they can avoid a hangover against a terrific but underrated Oklahoma State team this week.
Oklahoma State, ranked No. 9, might be the most under-appreciated one-loss team. Yet, the Cowboys will have a lot of say on who wins the Big 12 South. Besides the narrow loss at Texas and Saturday night's game in Lubbock, OSU also will host Oklahoma in the Bedlam game on Nov. 29. The Big 12 South title may well come down to that game.
If you're an Oklahoma fan, you want the Red Raiders to win this game so they will be undefeated and perhaps top-ranked when they come to Norman on Nov. 22. If you're a Texas fan, you want OSU to win this game so you'll have the most favorable situation in the case of a three-way tie. And if you're a fan of Penn State or any other one-loss team, you'd pull for the Cowboys, too.
Besides the Oklahoma State-Texas Tech, 8 p.m. ET game, there are a few other BCS Biggies this week:
No. 1 Alabama at No. 16 LSU, 3:30 p.m. ET - This game was once thought to be a showdown to determine the SEC West winner. While that's no longer the case, and with LSU reduced to an also-ran after surrendering over 100 points in losses to Florida and Georgia, this game is still huge because of BCS implications. Florida needs the Tide to win and stay No. 1 when they face each other in the SEC title game - thus greatly enhance the Gators' chances to get into the BCS championship game. On the other hand, the Big 12 and USC are rooting for an Alabama loss - anytime, but the best chance is here - before the SEC championship game to take the edge off the Gators. But the Tide already got a break as this game will not be played at night, when Tiger Stadium is at its most intimidating.
No. 3 Penn State at Iowa, 3:30 p.m. ET - The Nittany Lions will have just two home games left after this one, so some consider this to be the last hope of knocking them out of the BCS title game. There is a glimmer of hope here - but just a glimmer: The Hawkeyes are 4-1 at home this year, losing to Northwestern. But these two have not played at Kinnick Stadium since 2003, with Iowa winning, 26-14.
No. 21 California at No. 7 USC, 8 p.m. ET - At the very least, the Pac-10 title could be on the line here (though Oregon State still has something to say about that). Bigger picture: The Trojans still have a slim chance of getting into the BCS title game, but an impressive win over Cal is a must - USC does not play another ranked team the rest of the season and needs all sorts of help being at the seventh spot. For the Golden Bears, this is simply the 2008 version of the BGISH: If they win out, the Bears will be in the Rose Bowl for the first time since the 1959 game.
Purdue at No. 18 Michigan State, Noon ET - Huh? You say. The deal is this: If Michigan State wins this game, the Spartans will go to Happy Valley on Nov. 22 to play for the Rose Bowl bid. Yep, you heard it right. With an MSU victory here, that game will decide the Big Ten representative in Pasadena (unless PSU goes to the BCS title game, of course). Sparty owns the tiebreaker in the event of a three-way tie involving Penn State and Ohio State - MSU played fewer games (zero) against Division I-AA teams than either PSU or OSU (one each).
P.S. Finishing the thought on Obama - without the BCS, would a Thursday night game between Utah and Texas Christian, televised on CBS College Sports, ever mean anything? As it is, the Utes are just two wins away from their second BCS bowl berth in five years. The BCS is at least as mind-blowingly addictive and satisfying as the Electoral College. Obama should be the first to appreciate that!
06 November 2008
Unfinished Business from World War II
(From RealClearWorld)
President Dmitri Medvedev's announcement that Russia intends to deploy missiles "near Poland" sent shivers through Eastern Europe and drew condemnation throughout the West.
The term "near Poland" is misleading, for it doesn't even begin to convey the historic significance of exactly where Russia plans to place the missiles. It's a misstep in history that continues to exact a price to this day.
Russia wants to move these missiles to the Kalinigrad Oblast, an exclave that's physically separated from Russia proper after the disintegration of the Soviet Union that led to the independence of Lithuania. It's a sliver of land that used to be part of German East Prussia. "Kalinigrad" is better known as Konigsberg.
At the Potsdam Conference after World War II ended in Europe, the Soviet Union demanded, and received, considerable concessions from its western allies. Half of what used to be Poland was annexed by the Soviet Union, East Prussia was partitioned, and Poland was given most of German Pomerania and Silesia as compensation.
Not quite three months on the job, an eager yet naive President Truman proclaimed that Stalin was someone he could "do business with." He thought "(Stalin's) very honest, but he's also smart as hell."
With an ace in the hole (the A-Bomb), or so he thought, Truman was bent to play his hand to impress his Soviet counterpart. But Stalin was a much better poker player, for his spies in Los Alamos allowed him not to fold. Instead, he got what he wanted out of Truman: A Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe that today's Russia aches to reclaim.
Misreading Russian leaders, and their intentions, apparently is an American pastime. President Bush famous noted that when he looked Vladimir Putin in the eye, he found Putin to be "very straightforward and trustworthy. I was able to get a sense of his soul."
What will an earnest President Obama see in the eyes of Medvedev?
23 May 2008
Game Over? Do the Math
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)