Thursday, April 03, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
When Hillary Clinton allegedly told Bill Richardson that Barack Obama “cannot win” in November—an incident she now denies—she probably didn’t expect it to leak. But the timing couldn’t have been better.
With her shot at the nomination hinging on the whims of the superdelegates, the Clinton campaign is turning the “electability” argument up to 11. (That is, having exhausted the delegates argument, the popular vote argument, and the Florida-Michigan argument.) Their premise is that Clinton is more likely to win swing states than Obama is. In a conference call today, they pointed to a new Quinnipiac poll that puts Clinton two points ahead of John McCain in Florida, whereas Obama trails McCain there by nine points. The same poll also shows Clinton trouncing McCain in Ohio far more thoroughly than Obama would.
The Obama retort is that he would win swing states, too—just different ones—and that he would create new swing states. Today, NBC’s crack team of political oddsmakers drafted the first of many electoral maps, this time projecting that Obama could win the nomination without Florida and Ohio since he would put Colorado and Virginia in play. Blogger Josh Putnam reaches a similar conclusion using polling averages from the 50 states (via Ben Smith). His map shows Obama turning typically red states like Texas, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota into tossups.
Clinton could argue that there’s more risk involved in an Obama nomination, since his would be an atypical path to the presidency. But it’s that same risk—the prospect of the “reshaping of the electorate”—that excites a lot of Democrats (especially after Kerry’s traditional route failed so miserably in 2004). This is all a little premature, given that attitudes change the second you have a nominee, not to mention after months of general-election sparring. But if there’s a kernel of truth to Clinton’s statement that Obama “cannot win,” it’s that he can't win in the traditional way.
-
sponsorship
The mortar in Clinton machine's bulwark, once thought to be
indestructible, continues to crumble as a once-faithful supporter hints
that he might defect. Plus, more good fundraising news for the Obama
camp brings Clinton to an even 9.0 percent chance of survival.
On the face of it, New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine's statement this morning on CNBC
that he reserves the right to defect if Clinton loses the popular vote
sounds more inside baseball than headline news. But consider these
factors: Corzine endorsed Clinton
more than a year ago as part of Clinton's initial sweep of
superdelegates. (Yesterday was the anniversary of that announcement.) A
defection by Corzine would mean the foundation is crumbling. Also,
Clinton won the New Jersey primary
by 11 points on Feb. 5. Jersey is in her backyard, and the fact that
the governor would consider siding with the popular vote over the
overwhelming opinion of his constituents won't go overlooked by other
superdelegates from states she won. If Richardson is "Judas," what
would that make Corzine?
Read more at the Hillary Clinton Deathwatch.
-
sponsorship
There’s a problem with all the superdelegate counts out there: They only include superdelegates who have officially declared their support for a candidate.
Now, granted, that’s the way any scientific tally should work. But it fails to count all the supers who have been hinting, leaning, or publicly praising one candidate or the other. Today, for example, Gov. Jon Corzine said he reserves the right to switch to Obama if he wins the popular vote. Which, if you’re like us in believing that a popular-vote win by Obama is all but mathematically inevitable, amounts to an Obama endorsement.
Or consider Jimmy Carter, who said this to a Nigerian newspaper: “My children and their spouses are pro- Obama. My grandchildren are also pro-Obama. As a superdelegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for but I leave you to make that guess.” Not much room for interpretation there.
Or take Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Clinton supporter who said the other day that Obama would be the next president. It’s statements like these that suggest a lot of superdelegates out there are just looking for an opening—an excuse to jump in without looking as if they’re trying to swing the election.
Since March 4, Obama has picked up 12 superdelegates to Clinton's one. Since Feb. 5, he’s taken more than 50. But I’m guessing the numbers would be even more lopsided if you could somehow count the coy statements and other unsubtle hints of the uncommitted.
-
sponsorship
Yesterday we noted how Obama’s recent gap-closing in Pennsylvania would force the Clinton campaign to adjust the goal posts a bit. Team Clinton held a conference call this morning, and, lo, it came to pass.
Communications director Howard Wolfson said during the call that contrary to media analysis, "a win is a win" for Clinton. In other words, there’s no point spread. Wolfson argued that Obama is campaigning hard in the state, outspending her 4-to-1, and that his campaign "expects to win Pennsylvania."
To understand the problem with that argument—aside from the fact, given Keystone demographics, that no one expects or ever expected Obama to win—you have to look at why people are saying Clinton needs to win big in Pennsylvania.
For one thing, she desperately needs the delegates. A mere win—as opposed to a big win—isn’t going to net her that many. She currently trails Obama by 164 pledged delegates, according to MSNBC. Even winning Pennsylvania by a 10-point margin, as in Ohio, would only net her about 18 delegates more than Obama. Meanwhile, Obama would still be far ahead in pledged delegates as well as total delegates.
Then there’s the popular vote. If Clinton doesn’t win the popular vote, she’s going to have a tough time convincing superdelegates to vote for her. Clinton backer and New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine said today that he reserves the right to switch to Obama if Clinton doesn’t win the popular vote. (He also said she needs a “big win” in Pennsylvania to stay in the race.) Obama currently leads by 800,000 votes, according to Real Clear Politics. Nothing but a major victory in Pennsylvania is going to begin to close that gap. Of course, the popular vote is a messy number, and the Clinton camp will probably find its own way of counting. (Including Florida and Michigan, say, or disregarding caucuses.) But number-bending will only work for so long, especially if supers like Corzine are already getting antsy.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?