Winner Take Not-Enough

Ezra Klein and John Sides explore how winner-take-all rules killed Romney's chances; they also note that if the Democrats were operating under GOP-style rules, Hillary Clinton would be performing slightly better than she is. Which gets at the nub of what's been wrong with her campaign's post-Super Tuesday strategy: She's been campaigning as if the Democratic primaries were winner-take-all, essentially giving up on the run of states where Obama looked likely to win (thus allowing him to rack up huge margins of victory, and overtake her in the delegate count) while doubling down on the later states where she's ahead. It's the Giuliani strategy all over again, in a sense - except that the Giuliani strategy at least made sense in theory, because it promised to deliver Rudy an enormous delegate haul in winner-take-all states like Florida, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. (A haul that McCain eventually claimed, as it happens.) Whereas even if Hillary's strategy works, it won't really work, since she'd need enormous, unrealistic margins in Texas and Ohio to make up the ground she lost by essentially ceding two weeks worth of contests to Obama.

Her only hope, I think, is that Jeff Greenfield is on to something with his Slate speculation today:

Judging by the state's demographics and by its political history, Wisconsin ought to be prime territory for a strong Clinton showing. Indeed, its potential for Hillary is so promising that it's worth pondering whether the "on to Texas and Ohio!" battle cry of her campaign might be one huge head fake, designed to turn a strong Clinton showing—much less a victory—into one of those "Oh my God, what a shocker!" reactions that changes the whole tenor of the political conversation.

But even if that's the strategy, it's too clever by half. Why head-fake and aim for a below-the-radar pyrrhic victory, when a full-throttle campaign might earn you an actual (and desperately-needed) win instead?

These are the questions, I suspect, that Bill Clinton will be pondering over many a late-night game of Oh Hell come 2009.

Comments

I think it's all about momentum. Her "act like it's a winner-take-all system" strategy is to get the media momentum behind her if she should prevail in TX and OH, or even WI. Her campaign, abetted by the idiots in the media, can shout "we're back on track with a huge win in ___!" Lost amid the hubbub (they hope) is the fact that it's how many delegates she got that counts, not whether or not she won the popular vote. By building up such momentum, she hopes to rack up a dominating win in PA, getting to a tie or near-tie in the pledged delegates, and then call in the super-delegate cavalry to come riding to her rescue.

It may work. This morning all the news shows were talking about how she needed to "win" in TX and OH. Not one mention of the delegate count at all. Idiots.

Posted by Claudius | February 15, 2008 12:50 PM

Clinton's campaign reminds me of the way I was playing poker the other night. I slow-played to may big hands and allowed my opponents to out draw me in the end....if Clinton slow-plays WI and loses, she will have to move all-in in OH and TX

Posted by Tiparillo | February 15, 2008 12:58 PM

Greenfield's column misses the most salient detail of any election in Wisconsin...Same Day Voter Registration.

By allowing people who've lived in their district for only 10 days to register to vote on Election Day, with only an official piece of mail as proof of residence, you can guarantee that the Obamamentum will create an atmosphere on campuses throughout the state where students all bring their friends to the polls.

Overwhelming support amongst students is what got Rep. Tammy Baldwin elected in the first place. And it's what's allowed Sen. Russ Feingold to keep his seat throughout Tommy Thompson's reign as Gov., in what Greenfield rightly regards as a "purple" state.

So while Hillary may have had a fighting chance if she'd been more pro-active in contesting the state, the simple fact is, Madison and Milwaukee should have more than enough voters, especially new voters, to bring a victory home for Obama.

Unless, of course, they really hate FIBs in WI!

Posted by DSG | February 15, 2008 1:13 PM

I also wonder if Clinton has the funds to wage a national campaign at this point. I know she has had difficulty fundraising, though I admit not knowing the details on that end.

Posted by Trigger | February 15, 2008 1:36 PM

In any scenario where there are more than two major candidates who are willing to stay in the race through most of the primaries, the proportional system is likely to drage things out, and potentially lead to a brokered convention, since the leading candidate has to actually win more than 50% of the vote in most states if he wants to get more than 50% of the delegates.

However, if there are only two major candidates, then the PR system would probably lead to things being effectively decided more quickly (well, assuming you ignore the possibility of superdelegates overturning the decision of pledged delegates). Yes, with PR, the underdog probably won't fall as far behind in the delegate count, but PR also makes it that much harder to catch back up (especially if the underdog has less $). Once you fall behind (as Clinton has in this case), you need to win by huge margins in the remaining states to catch up. Whereas if it was WTA, then even if you're farther behind, a few 51%-49% victories will help you make up a lot of ground.

Posted by Chris S. | February 15, 2008 1:43 PM

There's no such thing as momentum or bettering expectations anymore (actually bettering expectations never really mattered in the first place). Tim Noah has probably had the best commentary in the whole primary season over at Slate exposing how silly these concepts are. Hillary's got to win delegates instead of playing the media spin game. And Ross is absolutely right.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 15, 2008 2:06 PM

Call me stupid, but has anyone brought up the fact that Clinton didn't have a choice when it came to competing in these contests?
Let's remember that she was BROKE and had to lend herself money just a week or so ago. I'm not naive enough to think that she didn't know her financial condition days before that - Clinton's whole campaign is based on the controlling and/or spinning the media message.
Please let's not be gullible enough to actually think strategy came into this. Am I missing something here?

Posted by Rontrel Johnson | February 15, 2008 3:04 PM

Ross: the problem for Hillary is that you can't manufacture victories in caucus states out of thin air. You need a strong ground organization. Hillary just didn't put such an organization together, and so Obama simply crushed her in all the February caucuses (and what were there, like, ten of them)? I'm pretty sure they realized their peril after Super Tuesday, but by then it was too late to salvage any strong showing in the remaining February caucuses, because it takes time to build a ground organization.

So, they realized their only plausible remaining path to the nomination was strong wins in the those post-February primaries where the demographics look favorable to her.

Unfortunately for Clinton, salvaging residual delegates in the remaining February contests (a tempting strategy, no doubt, when you desperately need every delegate you can win) would have required doing some fairly serious campaigning, and that raises expectations. It may be in the end we'll look back and all conclude that it was the Potomac contests that finally killed her, but they almost certainly would have killed her had her campaign gone in with guns blazing -- and given the media the opportunity to portray Virginia as a winnable state Clinton really needed to capture.

Fortunately for her, she probably can do well in Wisconsin. But already you can see the validity of the situation I outline above, because, now that she's putting a lot of emphasis on Wisconsin, not winning there will be a much bigger deal.

Posted by Jasper | February 15, 2008 3:35 PM

Here is my crappy action movie analogy:

When you've been wounded and are hiding behind the dumpster while your enemy is coming toward you with an automatic weapon, you have two choices -- jump out behind the car and shoot to kill, or wait and hope that help comes before you bleed to death or your enemy finishes you off. Real easy for me to say "Just stand up and start shooting," but it is way more honorable.

P.S. I guess the third option is to toss your gun and beg for mercy.

Posted by Blue Moon | February 15, 2008 4:04 PM

If it's a head fake and she's hoping to pull out an upset victory in Wisconsin, it's one hell of a head fake. Go check out Mark Halperin's "The Page" site and peruse the candidate schedules (http://thepage.time.com/) Obama is all over Wisconsin, holding three rallies today alone. Hillary's not there; she's holding several rallies today in Ohio. Bill's not there; he's holding multiple rallies in Texas..

I'm not convinced that voters can be swayed by candidates appearing in the flesh (how many actually see them?) but at the least this conveys the message that both Clintons have higher priorities than going all-out in Wisconsin. If she wins, it will be despite her campaign strategy, but my guess is that she made the most perfunctory effort (the silly ad about debating Obama) and instead has decided to go the full Giuliani route and hunker down in the Alamo for the final showdown.

Well, Bill's the genius and not me, but this doesn't make a lick of sense. What's the harm in trying your best in Wisconsin? It's not as if she'll get a pass if she loses with the excuse that "she didn't try." So why not go ahead and try and try to shake things up?

Posted by santamonicamr | February 15, 2008 5:51 PM

It is not just the people who see them in person, but if you are in town, you are on the local news, which means you get seen by the people whose news interest is driven more by the weather and the high school basketball team than by politics in general. That is not an insignificant part of the electorate.

Posted by Curtis | February 15, 2008 6:18 PM

It seems crazy to me. If she gets crushed in Wisconsin like she did in Virginia, the march to OH and TX starts to look quixotic. Does she really want to be the Democratic Mike Huckabee?

Maybe she figures it'll be close no matter what she does. Seems like an awfully big gamble to me, though....

Posted by NoahB | February 15, 2008 10:48 PM

The same day registration thing is what explains her decision to cede the state. She doesn't care about wins or delegates anymore. She cares about demographics.

If she wins all the right demographics, and it turns out that Obama won because a bunch of college kids from out of state voted for him, then it will be another win that "doesn't count"--meaning, won't do a thing for him in the big picture.

Hillary isn't stupid, and she's doing exactly the right thing. This race is not about delegates, but demographics. She's banking that the Dems will not give the nomination to a guy who wins caucus white votes, black votes, and college graduates over a woman who won almost every major Democratic state and all the other demographics.

She's almost certainly right. Which means it comes down to her proving in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania that the demographics of the race haven't changed. If they have, it goes to Obama.

Posted by Cal | February 16, 2008 11:26 AM

The Upper Midwest historically votes as a bloc. Iowa, Minnesota, and now Wisconsin will go Obama.
Now that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are back to campaigning like Mr. and Mrs. Willie Stark in Texas and Ohio, eating all of the local foods to show that their real friends own chili parlors, not hedge funds, we'll see if, once again, the contemporary version of southern-fried politics works in '08.
It failed in South Carolina, maybe the Clintons know something we don't know - or they don't know what else to do.
Yesterday Hillary was at the Skyline Chili parlor in Cincinnati eating cheese coneys. Will Cincinnatians fall for it?

Posted by fougasseu | February 16, 2008 11:41 AM

But, Cal, the demographics of the race have *already* changed. He tied her among whites in Virginia. He did well among Hispanics. He beat her in a primary.

In addition, she doesn't look calculating here to me. She's changed her schedule multiple times; she's shaking up her campaign staff, she's losing superdelegates, shes having her campaign make more and more divisive statements about which segments of the electorate do or don't matter. I think they're panicking. (Which isn't to say she couldn't win...but I think at this point it'll be a ton of luck and even more institutional support, not strategy, that carries her to victory.)

Posted by NoahB | February 16, 2008 8:29 PM

No one knows how he did against Hispanics, as there weren't enough of them to register on the exit poll. He lost the white Democrats 56-42. He's only done well on the white vote in open primaries, making up the difference with white independents and Republicans, which is not a group that he can expect to count on in the general.

Virginia was demographically identical to South Carolina (30% black in the primary). That and the white independent vote put him over the top. It would be a huge mistake to confuse that for base support.

She's not shaking up her campaign staff. She fired her manager, something that she'd been waiting to do for a month and waited for a strategic time. She may be changing her campaign schedule, but so what? She can't help the superdelegates--that isn't happening because of her declining position, as no one expected her to win the Potomac primaries. That occurred because of Jesse Jackson Jr. playing hardball among black superdelegates, threatening them with primary opposition and lots of criticism. (an entirely appropriate tack to take.)

I'm sure they're all nervous in Camp Hillary. A lot rides on those three states. Certainly, she's low on money and she's probably figuring out how much she can risk for a good showing in Wisconsin against the same-day registration that benefits Obama in Wisconsin. But the fundamentals haven't changed.

Posted by Cal | February 16, 2008 9:39 PM

Af-Am participation was about 50% in SC.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080126/D8UDRJ100.html

In Virginia it was, as you say 30%
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/12/politics/main3824058.shtml
(That site also argues that the dynamics haven't changed, incidentally. Not sure I quite agree, but there it is.)

It's not just black superdelegates who are moving:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=603

I don't really understand your point about white Republicans and Independents not being someone he can count on. Obviously he does better with these groups than Clinton does. And polls show most of her supporters like him fine (and vice versa.) There's no indication that he's going to have trouble with the base -- it's not that he's unpopular with them, it's just that Clinton (or, at least, the name Clinton) is very popular.

I think either candidate would do fine in the general, personally -- though Clinton seems more likely to eke out a loss if a loss is to be had, based on polls in swing states and on the way she's run her campaign.

I think she's in a position where she needs to win on Tuesday -- and by "win" I mean "pick up some delegates". She hasn't managed to do that on any single day throughout the campaign so far (among delegates, he tied her in NH, beat her in NV, and beat her on Super Tuesday.) No matter how she manages expectations, if she can't start gaining delegates against him, and soon, she's going to lose.

Posted by NoahB | February 17, 2008 12:40 AM

I'm floored by the idea that a candidate would campaign with less than full effort in order to play some expectations game. It actually seems like it may have happened, but I'm still shocked, and I still think it's a really bad idea. If HRC really cut short her stops in VA, MD and DC, so that she could say, "Well, I really didn't campaign there," then she left delegates on the table, no doubt about it. Problem is I'm having trouble figuring out other reasons for her not putting more effort into those places. Whatever effect the expectations-game spin has, it cannot be more than the effect of **actually running a campaign in a state**!

A lot of the post-loss spin has to be really a last resort--it can't be your Plan A or Plan B. It's often such hogwash that only true believers will buy it. And that's what it seems to be designed for--to convince your people to stay with you at least a while longer.

Posted by Colatina | February 17, 2008 12:43 AM

Obviously he does better with these groups than Clinton does.

First, you don't know that. You only know that he does better with independents and Republicans that choose to vote in the Democratic primaries. That isn't the same thing at all.

Assume, however, that he wins more of them than Clinton does, and you've still missed the point. Odds are beyond excellent that white swing voters and moderates go to McCain.

So if Obama's strengths are educated wealthy whites, all blacks, and the independent/moderate voters who choose to vote in Dem primaries, he an only point to two of them with assurance for the general. He might be able to win more of the third than Hillary, but history and logic suggests McCain gets more of them.

Thus, Obama's strengths are among the two most reliably blue of all blue voters. Hillary's strengths are among the groups least firmly tied to the Dem party: Reagan Democrats, Hispanics, Asians, and the one demographic that the Dems must get if they are to win: white women.

if she can't start gaining delegates against him, and soon, she's going to lose.

Delegates don't matter. Demographics do. Obama's only winning because of caucuses. If Obama doesn't win whites and Hispanics in a BIG, decisive way in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, his delegates won't do him any good. Unless the Dems lose their mind, they won't value caucus results over the primaries of 9 of the largest states in the union and the majority of white and Hispanic voters.

Posted by Cal | February 17, 2008 1:56 AM

Obama polls far better among independents than Hillary. In h2h polling, they prefer Obama over McCain and McCain over Hillary. That's why Obama is generally beating McCain in polling and Hillary is losing, and by statistically significant margins. Obama's advantage is even understated because Hillary will stir up more Republican turnout, a fact that isn't going to show up in a preference poll - but will weaken the Democrat's Congressional position if she wins the nomination.

Obama's frequently extra-overwhelming independent margins against Hillary in exit polling just back up his tremendous strength in the group that will likely pick the next president.

Unless the Dems lose their mind, they won't value caucus results over the primaries of 9 of the largest states in the union and the majority of white and Hispanic voters.

So blacks don't count, eh? That kind of attitude (demeaning and dismissing THE most loyal Dem constituency, and one that doesn't get its fair share as it is) is why Hillary will face serious turnout problems if she manages to eek out the nomination somehow. I thought a vote was supposed to be a vote and all people were supposed to be equal. It's not that way in the country yet but can't we at least run it that way in the Democratic party?

Posted by FairEconomist | February 17, 2008 9:34 AM

So blacks don't count, eh? That kind of attitude (demeaning and dismissing THE most loyal Dem constituency, and one that doesn't get its fair share as it is) is why Hillary will face serious turnout problems if she manages to eek out the nomination somehow.

African-American voters have indeed been the most loyal Democratic party constituency. Which is why it is unimaginable that the Democrats will lose the black vote in the general election -- even if Clinton is the nominee. Even if you don't like the woman, why vote against your own economic interest? Moreover, it's certain the Clinton campaign would assiduously court the votes of this cohort, much as they were doing until it was obvious Obama had a lock on their votes. Nobody denies black voter turnout will be higher if Obama leads the ticket (and that he'd get an even more olympian share of the African-American vote than Democrats usually do), but, the reality is that black votes are found in greatest numbers in either comfortably red or blue states. The Hispanic voter is the one who will rightly be pandered to in the general election, and it is Hillary Clinton who is almost certainly the strongest of the three remaining candidates when it comes to this key swing voter constituency.

Posted by The Obama Electability Myth | February 17, 2008 10:49 AM

Obama Electability reiterates one of the sad truths of elections: loyalty gets identity groups nowhere. Good things come to those who put their votes in play. The Hispanic vote is more in play than the black vote.

That said, it's not that blacks are unimportant, but that it's the only demographic that's providing him his wins in primary votes.

I thought a vote was supposed to be a vote and all people were supposed to be equal.

They are all equal. That's why 25K Nebraskans won't count as much as over a million Californians.

Posted by Cal | February 17, 2008 11:56 AM

It's true that blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. However, it's likely that they will turn out in significantly greater margins for Obama at this point.

As FairEconomist says, there is a lot of polling evidence that Independents prefer Obama. Indeed, given the massive turnout he's generated in places like Iowa, there's a good bit of evidence that he attracts Independents to the democratic party (that's the whole point about Independents right? That they might vote for either party?)

As I said, I think a lot of these electability arguments are kind of silly. It's obviously a good year for Democrats, and looking at fundraising, turnout, etc., it seems clear that either Dem would have a very good chance against McCain in November. It's really about downticket races -- and Obama's interest in rural areas, and his potentially strong showing among independents is why folks in red states tend to prefer him.

The idea that Obama is going to somehow lose California and New York -- or for that matter that he's going to lose white women democrats -- seems at least as silly as the idea that the Democrats are going to have trouble attracting African Americans. Indeed, Obama has done much, much better among white women than Clinton has among blacks -- and remember Clinton had an advantage among black voters only a couple of short months ago.

An often overlooked issue re: electability, it seems to me, is who has run a better campaign. I think it's clear Obama has -- Clinton' whining about demographics (which inevitably involves sneering at groups she really needs in the general) seems pretty transparently the strategy of a desperate campaign which is clutching at any possible argumment to give it ongoing legitimacy. I mean, Obama, a black progressive democrat, is running almost evenly with a more centrist white establishment democratic candidate among whites (democratic and otherwise) in Virginia. Think about that for a moment. It's an amazing statistic-- something that would have been considered virtually impossible 10 years, or even 6 months ago. I must say, the way Clinton has run her campaign really makes me worry about her time in the white house. All this spinning crap about how people in Idaho don't matter, blacks don't matter, this state doesn't matter, that state doesn't matter -- it's divisive and stupid. The money troubles she's had and the stories about campaign infighting also make me really nervous, especially given her health care debacle. What really scares me about her is that I think it's perfectly possible that she could get elected in the general, and I think she'd be a lousy president. I'd definitely vote for McCain if it weren't for his all-war-all-the-time policy, which is kind of a deal breaker for me. I'll probably end up voting third party if she wins (but I don't at all represent the average Obama voter, who will happily vote for her, according to polls.)

Posted by NoahB | February 17, 2008 12:13 PM

Or, in shorter form: it seems to me that Clinton's husband gives her natural support among declared democrats and her gender gives her a base of support among white women. It's *her* who needs to prove she can move out of those demographics. Obama has already shown in various places that, given the right circumstances (caucuses, long familiarity as in Illinois) he can trounce her in any demographic. She has yet to prove that she can do the same to him.

Posted by NoahB | February 17, 2008 12:20 PM

Cal, part one of your thesis is that Obama will run poorly among white women. But he wins independent white women now. How do you think he would fare with a female VP on the ticket. Part 2 of the thesis seems to be that black voters will remain part of Hillary's coalition - in which case I don't think you understand how Bill's comments and the Clintons' maneuvering for supers has been received in the black community; you should go to some African-American blogs. They won't go for McCain, but they will stay home. But the key point of your thesis seems to be that McCain will take away most of Obama's independent support and undermine him with Latinos, making him an inferior general election candidate. Here are some numbers from the past week that I'd like you to explain, from Rasmussen Reports.

Independents (National):
Obama 57 - McCain 39
McCain 52 - Clinton 31

Nevada (Latino vote!)
Obama 50 - McCain 38
McCain 49 - Clinton 40

Colorado (More Latino)
Obama 46 - McCain 39
McCain 49 - Clinton 35

Iowa (SUSA)
Obama 55 - McCain 38
McCain 48 - Clinton 44

Kerry 2004 + IA + CO + NV = 272 Electoral Votes

Posted by John M. | February 17, 2008 1:10 PM

I think this by Mark Halperin seems reasonable: basically, he's arguing that it's delegates which matter, and that, to win, Hillary at this point has to get Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, then keep the rest of the races close, and hope for either an act of God or some negative campaign tactic to stick.

http://thepage.time.com/halperins-take-the-current-paths-to-the-nomination-for-obama-and-clinton/

So possible, but not as likely as an Obama win at this point.

Posted by NoahB | February 17, 2008 1:27 PM

Obama has been all over Wisconsin this past week: Waukesha, Eau Claire, Janesville, Wausau. These are not liberal hotbeds like Madison or Milwaukee. After Obama drew 1800 people in Waukesha (an overwhelmingly Republican county west of Milwaukee) Bill Clinton drew 75. Some folks showed up at the Obama rally in Waukesha with signs asking why Barack won't debate Hillary. The local paper put those folks on the front page with a caption that noted that none of the sign-holders were from Wisconsin. Dunno if Obama will win overwhelmingly in Wisco or not, but he's put in the work and a lot of people have seen him. "Assiduously courting" doesn't seem to be the Clinton strategy in Wisconsin this past week.

Posted by Bruce | February 17, 2008 1:28 PM

Cal's arguments are terrible (if they are otherwise more or less evenly matched, going with the primary candidate who does better with core partisans over the candidate who does better with non-core partisans--independents, cross-overs, and people new to the political process--is a horrible idea). But I do think Cal has correctly identified the argument Clinton intends to offer, and indeed is already offering, the superdelegates.

Posted by DTM | February 17, 2008 2:15 PM

"But I do think Cal has correctly identified the argument Clinton intends to offer, and indeed is already offering, the superdelegates."

It's still a very bad one. Some of the superdelegates like Obama more as a candidate, and are not voting based on demographics, delegates, or anything else. Others understand that every democratic system has some institutuional structure, which determines the outcome as much as voter preferences do. The argument that caucuses don't count, this or that demographic doesn't count, are not arguments that Democrats in general all instinctively acknowledge. It's an ad hoc argument that Hillary people have recently come up with in response to losing elections. And it will probably be accepted by fewer Democrats than actually support her.

Hillary and Cal are wishing for a system--indeed, they think such a system now exists--where party elites can fiddle around with the system 2/3 of the way through the contest in response to who's winning and who's losing. In most competitions that's called cheating. If superdelegates all think that Obama would be a disaster, that's their right to vote against him, but they probably like both candidates, and will probaly decide that a guy who wins more delegates and more total votes deserves at least as much super-delegate support as the other candidate.

Posted by Colatina | February 17, 2008 2:48 PM

Obviously, I don't agree with Cal either...but it's interesting the extent to which this is as much about tactics as spin. I think Clinton really does believe that the way to win an election is the Rove way -- get your base to turn out in force and eke out a win where you're strongest. She relies on traditional Democratic machines. That's why she focused so much attention on California and ignored places like Kansas, Idaho, etc. It's not just that she lost them and so she thinks they don't matter. She thinks they don't matter, which is why she lost them. (The campaign's seeming inability to stop insulting people who didn't vote for her is further evidence of this mindset. )

Obama, on the other hand, is pursuing a 50-state strategy, very much in keeping with his slogan about no red states and no blue states, only the United States. I, personally, think it's a much healthier political model. It's one of the reasons I hope he wins.

Posted by NoahB | February 17, 2008 4:43 PM

"Delegates don't matter. Demographics do. Obama's only winning because of caucuses."

Mark Penn, is that you?

This is total Clinton spin. The nominee will be determined by delegates. That includes superdelegates, so yes, it's theoretically possible that enough superdelegates will conclude 1) that demographics, and not elected delegates, are what matter, and 2) that this means they should throw their support to Hillary.

That's theoretically possible-- and totally implausible. If one candidate wins the most elected delegates and the most votes, that person will be the Democratic nominee. If the elected delegate count is very close, and the popular vote (in so far as it can even be determined) tilts in the other direction, then superdelegates might feel justified going either way, though I'd be a little bit surprised. (In that scenario, the MI/FL debate could get started in earnest.)

And this is where I think "momentum" could matter: if the nomination process ended today, Obama would certainly be the nominee, not only because of his delegate lead, but also because he clearly has the wind at his back (he's taken the lead in national polls, for instance, in addition to having a big winning streak), and to give the nod to Clinton would widely be seen as overturning the popular will. If Clinton can mount a credible comeback, though, she may erode the prevailing sense that history is on Obama's side, and-- even if she doesn't quite take the lead-- she could more effectively argue that it's essentially a tie, and superdelegates are free to choose whomever they please (which, of course, they technically are no matter what).

Posted by PJ | February 17, 2008 5:14 PM

I'm sorry but delegates do matter. It's the measure by which the nomination is picked. It's how the system works. You can argue that they shouldn't matter, but that's the measure that determines the winner. So they matter. So she should be trying to win as many as she can. It's that simple.

Posted by Todd | February 17, 2008 5:18 PM

PS. It's amazing how happily the Clinton campaign has played the foil to some of Obama's principal themes. The line about "false hopes," the "fun part," etc.

And now, facing a candidate who has, since he debuted on the national scene, talked ad nauseum about bringing together "red states" and "blue states" and white folks and black folks and brown folks and yellow folks-- in the face of this, the Clinton camp is talking about... demographics? Seriously?

Posted by PJ | February 17, 2008 5:23 PM

Cal must have stepped out to the mailbox to see if the check from the Clinton campaign has arrived yet (sorry Cal, those bonuses are running a lil' behind).

Here's what the results show far have shown conclusively:

1) Obama increases turnout significantly. History (and Karl Rove's diary) prove time and time again that bigger turnouts = better chances for Dems.

2) HRC can't attract the middle. her wins in NY, MA, and CA are about as impressive as Britney winning a talent show at the Spears family reunion. in MO, VA, and CO - states where a Dem CAN win if they can build a coalition beyond the base - Obama's skills were proven superior.

the bottom line is this: the Democratic base can't win an election alone. they haven't since the Southern realignment. since '64, Dems can only win the WH when they attract independents. and the GOP, despite their dumb attempts otherwise, will nominate the best possible candidate to run against Clinton in terms of capturing the middle. the Dems best hope is to attract someone who can a)be competitive in attracting independents and b)get the biggest possible turnout among the base.

so far, Obama has TROUNCED HRC on these two criteria.

Posted by Hester | February 17, 2008 7:05 PM

But he wins independent white women now.

Where's the cite on that? I don't think the exit polls slice and dice by gender and political registration, do they?

I'm sorry but delegates do matter. It's the measure by which the nomination is picked.

No, it's not. That's why superdelegates exist. That said, do remember your claim that delegates matter if the credentials committee lets Michigan and Florida in and Hillary wins the delegate count.

In that scenario, the MI/FL debate could get started in earnest

The delegate count won't matter if Hillary wins TOP. The MI/FL debate will get started in earnest.

I generally agree with your post, though, except I'm not Mark Penn.

As for this being my "argument":

I'm not arguing anything. I am hardly likely to convince anyone here. I enjoy discussing the strategies. As I've said before, I'm a registered Republican (since 2000) who has always voted Dem for president (since I turned 18, which was a really long time ago). Haven't made up my mind between Clinton and McCain, but will certainly vote for McCain over Obama--I'd vote over any Republican over Obama, because he would be a disastrous, incompetent president. But since I'm a fan of McCain, I can't get that worked up over the Dems putting up an incompetent candidate.

So I'm not interested in arguing anything or convincing anyone. I'm predicting that the Dems will not give the nomination to Obama if whites and Hispanics continue to show their strong support for Hillary.

Posted by Cal | February 17, 2008 7:37 PM

Fair enough, Cal. I completely disagree, but only time will tell.

Posted by PJ | February 17, 2008 8:14 PM

The reason the Clintons lose caucus states despite their habit of pitching details to small groups in states they win is the Clintons don't connect like he used to. Both now seem to me to talk down to the little people instead of 'selling' themselves and/or positions (showing deference and respect) as Obama does. A note: the main reason they stick to small groups might be they aren't the draw Obama is.

Which causes one to wonder if Obama might be all hat and no cattle, a curiosity, as HRC claims.

Hard to take McCain seriously. A tired old and legitimate war hero and prototypical senator, the slow son whose best prospects were a military career; retired with glory and entered politics because it was an open door; not too smart, and more about the past than the future.

McCain can't win if the Democrat, Gore, Obama, or Clinton avoids scandal, yet he provides Republicans a Dole-level placeholder for the faithful, who clearly need someone to hug desperately as McCain, in a Stockholm Syndrome Moment, hugged his brutal conqueror, Bush.

Clinton is in my opinion the prohibitive favorite because her primary experience is insider fighting in the clinch rather than great success standing in the shadow of a governor and president. Obama is outclassed by Clinton among voters for whom fear is the primary motivator, or about 60% of western voting populations.

Posted by Zeke Bundren | February 17, 2008 9:07 PM

Very interesting discussion, and sure Hillary would have to win the female vote in the general election.

But let's be frank, any guy, centrist or center-right, (very inclined to vote for Barack and fed up with the Republicans as I am), would far prefer McCain to shrieking Hillary! Guys, can you imagine having to listen to advisers such as Ann Lewis for 4 years? And put up with Mr. Me again! I can't understand how the Clintons generate loyalty among the base and true Democrats. The party holds the Congress for all but 6 years from 1930 through 1994, WJC blows it for them, gives the left NAFTA and welfare reform, and is considered a messiah? He put the party in awful shape until the Republicans shot themselves in the feet so many times after 2001 that Democrats are competitive again since '06. Barack can win independents, Hillary's negatives are way too high - she and only she gives McCain a chance.

Posted by Peter Brinkmann | February 17, 2008 9:59 PM

If you're considering electability, don't you have to weigh the fact that Obama and company (Plouffe, Axelrod, Hildebrand) have run a far, far better campaign than Clinton's camp (Penn, Wolfson, Solis Doyle, Williams, and whomever else)? Is there any reason to think that this would change in a general election?

There are certainly arguments to be made for Hillary on this subject-- such as the one above about her considerable appeal to Latino voters. But given that Obama has won more votes, more states, more delegates, raised more money from more donors, generated more enthusiasm (hence all those caucus wins), the preponderance of the electability evidence is clearly on his side-- even ignoring, for the moment, those head-to-head polls that show him doing better against McCain.

And this is without mentioning the press's love affair with Obama, which, contrary to some claims, will likely not abate during the general election. Sure, the press loves McCain the Maverick-- but do they love him more than the young, attractive newcomer who could become the first black president of the United States? The man with the exotic backstory and the Muslim middle name? The candidate who's drawing adoring crowds and comparisons to the Kennedys?

Does the press, in other words, love John McCain more than the political story of a lifetime?

I doubt it.

Posted by PJ | February 17, 2008 10:41 PM

They haven't run a "far, far better" campaign. They've done an excellent job gaming the system, which is the only way that Obama could win.

It helps, though, that he's plagiarizing all his speeches from Deval Patrick (something that was first reported back in January and is now rearing its ugly head again).

I guess Obama is a better Teleprompter reader than poor Mr. Patrick.

Posted by Cal | February 17, 2008 11:40 PM

He hasn't gamed the system. He's ahead in delegates. He's ahead in the popular vote. He's won more states. By every measure, he's beating her. That's not gaming the system. That's winning.

He did use strategy, certainly. He focused hard on Iowa because he knew electability would be a huge issue for black voters (and white voters, for that matter) and that he had to win early if he was going to be viable. He's focused rural states and red states where there isn't a strong Democratic machine, because Clinton is the establishment candidate and pretty much runs all of those machines. He's done strong organizing in caucus states, because he knew that those were places where he could turn large vote margins and pick up a lot of delegates. He used online fundraising and small donors because he knew Hillary would have the larger democratic donors sewed up. None of these is gaming the system; they're smart strategic choices, and moreover, many of them echo his campaign themes in real and substantive ways.

He's run a brilliant campaign. Lots of stuff can happen, of course, but he looks extremely well positioned to crush McCain in the general, if he gets a chance. You may dislike Obama for lots of reasons...but I sure hope that other Republicans underestimate him as you're doing. For instance, McCain should go on attacking his "inexperience." It's worked so well for Hillary, I'd be very pleased to see it again in the general.

Posted by NoahB | February 18, 2008 12:02 PM

Looking down at all of these numbers in a vain attempt to beat Obama calls to mind those ancient mariners studying old maps to to cross dark waters, more often than not ending in failure.
The Irish found their way to Iceland by following the seasonal flight of swans.
Follow the swans.

Posted by fougasseu | February 18, 2008 12:21 PM

Latino voters are a non-issue outside Tejas.

The Latino vote as "important" is a media fantod intended to threaten rational objection to illegal aliens blighting the national economy while politicians claim the net ten billion dollar drain on taxpayers is in fact some sort of benefit because small business owners and stockholders benefit from peon labor. Uh, no, no benefit there, at least to Americans competing with illegals for jobs.

Major media are promoting Latinos as this election's "in play' demographic attempting to create buzz similar to Democrats for Reagan.

Big Problem, heh heh. Outside maybe three states' primaries Latinos are a negligibly small group, and it will be well into the 2020s before Latinos affect a national result.

Nice try, however.

Posted by Zeke Bundren | February 18, 2008 9:09 PM

How about the simple fact that Hillary is a lousy candidate? And Barack is a sensational one?

Where did she ever win? The Senate race in New York state against a small-fry Republican Congressman?

She has a great intellect and is amazingly articulate. But do "the American People" want her in their living room every night? With Mr. Me to boot?

Posted by PeterBrinkmann | February 18, 2008 10:23 PM