-
sponsorship
Last night Barack Obama won in a bunch of places Democrats don't have a history of winning in the general election. Georgia, Alabama, Utah, Colorado, Alaska, Idaho, and North Dakota all favored Bush over Kerry in 2004 and Obama over Clinton last night. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, won the red states of Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee. Of these states, only Missouri and New Mexico were swing states that went for Bush in 2004. Obama took Missouri, and Clinton took New Mexico—both very, very close races.
Democrats are going to start placing an increasing amount of attention on which Democratic candidate is the stronger general election contender. If the candidate won the primary in a swing state, the thinking goes, then he or she will be better able to rally the troops in the general election. A look at the 2008 Democratic primary results from the 2004 swing states shows an even split. Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri have gone for Barack, New Hampshire, Nevada, and New Mexico for Clinton.
The real battleground is among independents in open primary or open caucus states. If a candidate does well in open primaries, then it's reasonable to think he or she will retain independent votes in the general election. Looking at open contests over the entire primary season shows Obama has slightly more success. Sixty-seven percent of Obama's wins have come in open-contest states (10 of 15 total); 61.5 percent of his Super Tuesday wins were in open caucuses or primaries. Fifty-five percent of Clinton's wins overall and on Super Tuesday came in open contests. That margin is still slim, but it appears to fall in line with the perception that Obama courts more independents than Clinton.
With Alex Joseph
-
sponsorship
We all woke up this morning with a delegate hangover—and it’s not going away anytime soon. The Feb. 5 delegate count is a mess, superdelegate questions abound, and whispers of a brokered convention persist. But there may be a cure-all on the horizon: Michigan and Florida.
The two states were punished because they moved their primaries too early in the calendar. Now, Hillary Clinton wants Michigan's and Florida’s delegates to count because she won the states. The conventional wisdom says Clinton is playing dirty and only wants to seat the delegates because it would help her win the nomination. That’s true only if we end up with a brokered convention.
According to my calculations, Clinton would earn about 220 delegates if the two states were seated. Obama would earn about 130—if he picked up all of the uncommitted slate in Michigan. That’s a plus-90 margin for Clinton, which appears to be a relative behemoth in a race that is separated by as few as a dozen delegates. But in a nonbrokered convention, those delegates are never going to get seated unless they’re totally inconsequential.
Since the DNC stripped the states of their delegates, the only ruling body that can reinstate them is the strangely named “credential committee.” The committee mimics the pledged delegate percentages, so whoever has more delegates controls the committee.
This is where things get screwy. Assuming we’re not in a brokered convention, the person who has more delegates will be the nominee. So, if it’s Barack Obama, and he has more than a 90-delegate lead, he’ll seat the states out of good will. If his lead is less than 90 delegates, then he’ll stop them from being seated. Clinton will cry foul, but rules are rules. Obama will still win because he had control of the committee. If Clinton is ahead in delegates, she’ll have control of the committee and seat the delegates. But by then she won’t need their final push—she’ll do it out of the kindness of her heart.
Now, all of this goes to hell if there’s a brokered convention. Then whoever had the lead in delegates wouldn’t have the majority needed to ensure a nomination, but they would have control of the credential committee. In that case, Obama wouldn’t seat the delegations and Clinton would. This becomes especially dramatic if the totals are so close to a majority that the extra 220 delegates would push Clinton above the threshold needed for the nomination.
Yes, we realize we’re dealing in the hypothetical here. So, for good measure, here’s one last scenario: Michigan and Florida could vote again. Since the beginning of this fiasco, the DNC has implored both states to hold a second contest within the sanctioned primary and caucus window (early February through June). That would mean the first results wouldn’t count toward delegate allocations, which won’t make Clinton happy. Furthermore, rumor has it that the contests would be caucuses—not primaries. That’s even worse news for Clinton—Obama won every caucus state on Feb. 5.
So, to review, our options are:
1. Nonbrokered convention -- Michigan and Florida don't matter. Maybe seated, maybe not.
2. Brokered convention -- Michigan and Florida might matter, if Clinton is close to the majority threshold needed for the nomination. Maybe seated, maybe not, depending on who controls the committtee.
3. New contests -- Michigan and Florida might matter, definitely seated.
How's that hangover feeling?
-
sponsorship
Slate intern Jonathan Rubin filed this dispatch after watching Obama's speech last night.
Last night at a rally in Chicago, Barack Obama coined a new catch phrase. While talking about time spent as a young community organizer, he said he was surrounded by “doubt” and “cynicism.” He then offered his usual hope shtick: The task of repairing America seemed insurmountable, he said, but ordinary people are still not only capable of affecting change, they are essential to it. And they always have been. Finally, he brought the rhetoric to a climax. “We are the ones we've been waiting for,” he said, and the crowd, which had been applauding throughout the night, roared back. Great line, but was it his?
No, and it wasn’t even the first time his campaign used it. California first lady Maria Shriver used the line while endorsing him in Los Angeles Sunday. At the rally, she gave credit to the real authors—the Hopi Indians, a dwindling Native American tribe now living entirely in Arizona reservations.
Shriver wasn’t the first to adapt the message to politics, either. The liberal left has used it on anti-government rants on YouTube, as have Green Party members. The phrase has percolated in the black community, as well. Alice Walker used it as the title of her 2006 book—We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For: Inner Light in a Time of Darkness. African-American AIDS organizations have used it, and it was the title of a 2006 hip-hop album.
But it’s most fitting for Obama. He appeals to many of America’s skeptics—he’s young, he’s bold, he’s black, and he seems different. Obama might be trying to take advantage of Americans’ frustration with their government. Obama’s campaign has always been centered around the hope that Americans are tired of waiting for others to save them. His quote makes the American people their own redeemers—putting the onus on them to change the country. He is just a leader, he implies, while they are the troops on the ground. It’s a nice sentiment, even if it also sounds a little like Gandhi’s famous line, "Be the change you want to see in the world."
Maybe the next slogan after this won’t come from Hopis or hippies, but somewhere else entirely—like Facebook, perhaps. There, on Obama’s page, a fan wrote this gem:
"Tell yo mama to vote fo obama!"
-
sponsorship
Today’s developing story—well, by now pretty well-developed—is the revelation that Hillary Clinton loaned $5 million of her own money to her campaign.
Time’s Mark Halperin first brought up the loan at a conference call this morning. Howard Wolfson said he didn’t know and would check on that, then released a statement saying the loan “illustrates Sen. Clinton’s commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation.”
At a press conference here in Arlington, Va., Hillary smilingly confirmed the amount of the loan. “I think the results last night prove the wisdom of my investment,” she said. But she wouldn’t say much more. Where did she get the money? “It was my money.” Would she loan herself any more? She referred reporters to her official statement.
The loan suggests the Clinton campaign might have been spooked by Obama’s $32 million January haul. She wouldn’t say how much her campaign had raised last month—“You can wait to see the report”—but campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told Tim Russert on Monday that the total was “about $13 million.” Whether that includes Clinton’s own $5 million or not, who knows.
Donating money to yourself looks bad not just for financial reasons. It also flies in the face of Democratic ideals about campaign finance. Ben Smith points to something Bill Clinton said back in Iowa, that if he loaned money to his wife’s campaign that would “violate the spirit of campaign finance reform.” If any Democrat ended up facing Mitt Romney in the general election, that candidate would no doubt invoke his massive self-gifting as a vice. But now, if Hillary ends up facing a publicly financed John McCain in the general, he would be the one holding that weapon. She seems determined to play it as a necessary move to match Obama’s fund-raising machine. But she might have a tough time making Democrats—not to mention her own donors—see it that way.
-
sponsorship
In case you haven’t seen it, the Super Tuesday popular vote tally on the Democratic side is insanely close—like, within 100,000 votes or so.
NBC puts it at:
Clinton 48.97 percent (6,967,302)
Obama 48.04 percent (6,835,447)
Time says:
Clinton: 50.2 percent (7,347,971)
Obama: 49.8 percent (7,294,851)
Whatever the count, it looks like Hillary won. (Will she accept front-runner status now?) But the tightness of the count bolsters extended-calendar theories, which suggest we could be waiting until Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary for answers. But I also think it boosts the this-could-hurt theory. In previous years, even the most virulent supporters of the loser (think Howard Dean) have had little trouble rallying behind the winner (Kerry). But Dean’s “support” proved empty when he couldn’t sustain it even through Iowa. Both Clinton and Obama, by contrast, have fought and won numerous battles by now. Their supporters have tasted victory, and probably like the flavor.
Sure, most Democratic voters tell pollsters they would be happy if the other candidate won. But the longer this drags on, the more polarized it gets. When it all shakes out, it looks like as many as 50 percent of Democrats will be disappointed.
-
sponsorship
Here’s the best part about the battle for front-runnership. Both candidates claim to have the delegate lead. (Obama says he’s ahead if you count only pledged delegates; Hillary says she’s winning if you include superdelegates.) But neither of them is willing to take credit for being the front-runner!
NBC’s First Read points out that in conference calls this morning, both candidates vied for underdog status.
Clinton strategist Mark Penn repeated several times that the Obama campaign is now the “establishment” campaign—citing superior January fundraising, high-profile endorsements, and even Sunday’s Super Bowl ad.
Fast forward to less than an hour later: In a press conference in Chicago, Obama maintained that he is still the underdog. “Senator Clinton is a formidable opponent,” he said, calling her organization a “political machine honed over two decades.”
“From my perspective, this makes her the frontrunner,” he added.
So, each candidate claims to be winning the delegate race—but not the actual race. It’s like two people standing in front of a door, each one saying, “No, you go first,” just so they can trip the other when she moves first.
-
sponsorship
As if counting delegates weren’t confusing enough, news organizations are calculating their own totals. And they’re all different! Some, like the Associated Press and CNN, include projected delegates in caucuses like Iowa and Nevada, as well as superdelegates. The New York Times numbers don’t include projected delegates. NBC’s most recent estimate doesn’t say what their methodology is. And, of course, counts will differ based on which states have reported (and how thoroughly) and how conservative news organizations are willing to be in their estimates.
Given all that, here are the projections on the Democratic side:
NBC
Clinton: 582
Obama: 485
AP
Clinton: 845
Obama: 765
CNN (Updated 12:54 a.m.)
Clinton: 823
Obama: 741
CBS (Updated 12:54 a.m.)
Clinton: 1058
Obama: 984
New York Times (Updated 12:54 a.m.)
Clinton: 892
Obama: 716
-
sponsorship
Count us among those who think Barack Obama's comeback win in Missouri was a moral victory, at best. The difference between losing by 1 percent and winning by 1 percent is negligible, but Obama still gets to brag about winning a key swing state, no matter how close the vote was. So, given that the AP called Missouri for Clinton earlier in the night, what the hell happened?
Nearly the same thing that happened in 2006. Claire McCaskill, Missouri's junior senator and an outspoken Obama advocate, was badly trailing her Republican opponent as election night wound on in the midterm elections. After making gains across the country, it looked like the Democrats were going to fall one senator short of gaining a majority. But then the returns started gushing in from the metro areas and McCaskill mounted a comeback, eventually beating GOP incumbent Jim Talent by a couple percentage points.
Flashforward to tonight, where the AP calls the race for Clinton, then uncalls it, then recalls it—this time for Obama. Thanks to our friends over at the Electoral Map blog, it's pretty easy to see where Obama's support comes from—metro areas. Obama sometimes doubled Clinton's support in densely populated areas, which ensured him the narrow win.
A similar process occurred for the Republicans, whose delegate assignment process was winner-take-all. Mike Huckabee led for most of the night thanks to rural support and then withered under John McCain's metro returns. When it's not 2 a.m., we'll try to call Missouri to see why the metro polls always seem to come in so late. Hillary, meanwhile, can request a recount in the state, but why would she? It's not like that one percentage point matters. Mike Huckabee, on the other hand ...
-
sponsorship
California results are still trickling in, but the networks have called it for Hillary. With 22 percent of precincts reporting, she’s got a 20-point lead of 54 to Obama’s 34. (See up-to-date results here.) Her actual delegate lead probably won't be huge, but she can now claim victory in the biggest, if not the most important, state. How did it happen?
Most polls from the past few days showed Obama gaining on her, and one or two even projected he would win. But judging from the voting results, he was too late. The state of California allows voters—not just seniors and absentees, but anyone—to cast an absentee ballot by mail. As a result, more than 3 million Californians voted early this year (one elections official put the number at 4.1 million). And judging from polls in previous weeks, they voted largely for Clinton. If Obama was actually gaining in recent days, the vote totals may not reflect it.
Apparently the “semi-open” election didn’t help Obama much either. “Open” elections normally let independents and Republicans vote in Democratic primaries. California is slightly different: Independents can ask for “decline-to-state” ballots that allow them to vote Democratic, but they have to make a special request. There have been some reports of complications, but nothing widespread.
Exit polls tell a fairly predicable story. (Disclaimer: They’re misleading/wrong/unscientific/godless blah-blah-blah.) They show Clinton winning among white women and Latinos, whereas Obama wins among white men and blacks. Clinton wins among every age group, even the young’uns. (Explanation: America Ferrera.) She also won among voters who attend church by double digits. No matter what the spin, Clinton beat Obama fair and square.
And she sure plans to make the most of it. In their last e-mail blitz of the day, the Clinton team called her win a “Golden Finish” and argued that “Senator Obama made an unprecedented effort to win CA—he campaigned throughout the state and his campaign ended its efforts in the Golden State with a large rally over the weekend.” We’re not going to begrudge her the win, but for the record, this is a stretch. In the past week, Barack Obama appeared at a total of two events in California, including the Los Angeles debate; Clinton attended five. Likewise, he has made five stops in the state since Jan. 1, whereas she has made 11. If Obama’s effort in the Golden State may be “unprecedented,” that’s only because he has never run for president before.
We’ll have more details on the California results once all the precincts have reported. In the meantime, check out the California SecState’s home page for absurdly granular county-by-county and district-by-district results. You can also cross-check that with our analysis of each district’s delegate numbers. Or just wait for us to do it tomorrow.
-
sponsorship
Mitt Romney's time has come. But will he admit it?
Romney has won six primaries and caucuses tonight. None of them matters. The two primaries—Utah and Massachusetts—took place in his home state. Four caucuses—North Dakota, Colorado, Montana, and Minnesota—have turned Romney Red. Not exactly an all-star list of high-impact states. The Washington Post is projecting he'll take home 67 delegates.
Even worse: Mike Huckabee is pouring metaphor-laced salt in his wounds. The South badly wanted to elect somebody other than McCain, and it seems nearly every state (with the possible exception of Missouri) chose Huckabee over Romney. Republican voters, faced with a choice between a say-anything robo-pol and a genuine, slightly nutty Southern boy, chose the guy without any money. Romney was so noxious that Republicans actually chose the less viable candidate—not what Republicans are supposed to do.
So, what now? Romney's last hope was to remain relevant in California, but that worked about as well as his two-dozen different campaign messages. The next few contests—Kansas, Louisiana, Washington, Virginia, and Maryland—don't really favor him, but that's because the country doesn't favor him. The only region where Romney did especially well was in the mountain West, where Mormons live and news stories go to die. His political life has run its course. It's time to end it.
We may not see a withdrawal tomorrow, but we should--if only for Romney to save face and his bank account. Between him and Giuliani, the fall's front-runners have both faltered miserably. Instead we're left with two candidates, both of whom had no money, no momentum, and no chance in hell in December. It looks like Romney really is a turnaround specialist. Except this time, he turned himself around.
-
sponsorship
Both Clinton and Obama agree that this is a race about delegates. They just can’t agree on how to count.
The two camps spent the last few days bickering over how many delegates each one had—Hillary’s camp insisted on including superdelegates, while Obama has always stuck with pledged delegates. Their philosophies then colored their post-Super Tuesday predictions. And now that the results are coming in, the fight is escalating.
How many delegates will Clinton win tonight? She would “reject the premise of the question,” in flak-speak. Her team doesn’t deal in pledged delegates. Rather, they insist on including superdelegates in the count. The reason is obvious: Recent superdelegate estimates show Clinton leading Obama by at least 100. She’ll emerge from Super Tuesday with a lead in overall delegates no matter what, making that vague prediction fairly useless.
Obama’s people are more specific: On a conference call tonight, Obama strategist David Plouffe projected that Obama was ahead in terms of delegates, 606-534. (There are a total of 1,681 delegates at stake tonight; a candidate needs 2,025 to secure the nomination.) Press Secretary Bill Burton just sent out this email: “With California not yet counted, we currently lead Clinton by 43 pledged delegates -- Obama: 677 – Clinton: 634.” Now that wasn’t so hard, was it? (Of course, it’s easy to be specific when you’re winning.)
The problem with including superdelegates is that they can change their mind whenever they want. Unless the race goes all the way to the DNC—the “brokered convention” scenario Hillary’s camp occasionally floats—the the 800 or so superdelegates will back whoever wins the actual election. If the race is close, however—and especially if the dispute over Florida and Michigan's delegates continues—then the superdelegates could influence who wins the nomination. The division of pledged delegates and superdelegates reflects a tension within the party over how much power to put in the hands of voters vs. how much to vest in party leaders. Historically that balance of power has been adjusted whenever it’s perceived to shift too far in one direction (think 1968) or another (think 1972). If the race comes down to superdelegates this year, the battle could well produce another overhaul of the system.
Clinton is right to play by the rules they’ve been given. If superdelegates matter, and you’re winning by that count, then why not emphasize them? And of course it’s the press team’s job to paint things in the best light. But if we want an honest reflection on the election at hand—and not the potential deal-making power struggle we will hopefully avoid—then we should be looking at pledged delegates. You know, the election part of the election.
UPDATE Feb. 6 1:21 p.m.: Even news organizations can't agree on the delegate count. Check out this item for all the different, contradictory totals.
-
sponsorship
A quick assessment of pre-election polling versus election results over at RealClearPolitics shows a typical sampling of accuracy and error in RCP's average of major polls. (See chart at end of post.) But social psychologist Jon Krosnick, a professor at Stanford and an expert on polling methodology, points out that, whether the various polls are dead-on or egregiously off-base at the end of the night, we still will not learn anything about how to do it better next time.
The problem, Krosnick said when I caught up with him this evening, is that pollsters refuse to release their methodology after the fact. There are enough variables in the process -- most importantly, how the pollsters defines the slippery concept of a "likely voter" -- that it is very difficult to independently assess which are more robust.
"What it comes down to is that the people who are
making money by doing polling don’t want to reveal anything that can be used against
them," Krosnick says. "But if
they’re reluctant now, why shouldn’t they release the [complete] polls they did five years
ago?"
Simply releasing the complete data sets, not just the conclusions, he says, would allow him and his colleagues to reconstruct the methodology and compare it to actual voters in previous elections, enabling them to determine which estimates of likely voters were most accurate. As it stands, he says, "there’s really no potential for us to have a
solid scientific basis to determine this."
State
|
% Reporting
|
Margin
|
RCN Poll Avg.
|
Georgia
|
85%
|
Obama + 29
|
Obama + 18
|
New Jersey
|
84%
|
Clinton + 8
|
Clinton + 8
|
Missouri
|
89%
|
Clinton + 3
|
Clinton + 6
|
Tennessee
|
91%
|
Clinton + 18
|
Clinton + 13
|
Alabama
|
97%
|
Obama + 14
|
Clinton + 13
|
|
|
|
State
|
% Reporting
|
Margin
|
RCN Poll Avg.
|
Georgia
|
84%
|
Huckabee + 4
|
McCain + 3
|
New Jersey
|
84%
|
McCain + 28
|
McCain + 26
|
Missouri
|
89%
|
Huckabee + 1
|
McCain + 6
|
Tennessee
|
91%
|
Huckabee + 2
|
McCain + 3
|
Alabama
|
97%
|
Huckabee + 3
|
McCain + 4
|
|
|
|
|