Last fall, I posted about the selection Ms. Clinton should be making for her running mate because Mr. Obama seemed to have seriously hurt his campaign with a case of foot-in-mouth disease. Several months later, Mr. Obama has propelled himself to within sniffing distance of the Democratic nomination, but he is still suffering from foot-in-mouth.
Unlike many of the media poobahs, I never expected Mr. Obama to defeat Ms. Clinton in Pennsylvania. I seriously expected him to challenge her, outspend her in the state, bring the polls to within 3-5 points and then stall out with Ms. Clinton ending up with the 7-8 point win. Essentially, I expected the same result as Ohio just over a longer stretch. However, Mr. Obama’s comment threatens to expand what was already an expected loss, into a nasty pitch off the handlebars.
Framed from the perspective of bitterness, there is a nugget of truth to what Mr. Obama has said. In bad economic times, people do become bitter and seek explanations outside themselves (hence the constant blaming of NAFTA for the loss of industrial jobs). However, his examples of what people use as a crutch to get through this bitterness have potentially hobbled him. To frame the idea that people use hunting, racism, or even religion as a crutch against not being like the wealthy elite, smacks of a “poor, impoverished masses” mentality. Worse, Mr. Obama’s dismissal of the faith of the middle-class as a crutch skirts him dangerously close to the philosophy that “religion is the opiate of the masses.” I doubt Mr. Obama wants his face placed next to Karl Marx in too many campaign ads.
It will be interesting to see how Mr. Obama recovers from this. He is already trying to spin this thing, but the absolutism of his statements does not lend themselves too much spin. Eventually the media will tire of the story, but if Ms. Clinton is able to parse this into a greater than 10-point victory in Pennsylvania and a better than 7-point win in Indiana, she will be sowing that many more seeds of doubt in the minds of the remaining 300+ Superdelegates.
Regardless, Mr. Obama will still win North Carolina, probably Oregon, and maybe South Dakota and Montana as well. Ms. Clinton will win Kentucky, West Virginia, and probably Puerto Rico. Mr. Obama will win more pledged delegates and probably the majority of the popular vote. But even with these, we are now seeing the possibility that he might be seriously hobbled. Many polls and predictions will be made regarding viability, especially if Ms. Clinton comes into June with more perceived momentum than him.
At least 6 more weeks of debate are before us, maybe more. Enjoy the ride.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Fallout
By now, much has been said both pro and con regarding Mr. Obama and his connections to Rev. Wright. Many on the intellectual Left have praised Mr. Obama’s speech while many on the Right have criticized it as Mr. Obama has tried to refute the nastiness of Rev. Wright’s words while keeping connections with the man himself. Meanwhile, it is still unclear as to how badly this hurts Mr. Obama’s chances of securing the Democratic nomination and winning against Mr. McCain in November.
At the moment, there is a great deal of anger in the white, blue-collar community (and in some ethnic communities) over Mr. Obama’s refusal to fully denounce Rev. Wright. What some are starting to realize is that Mr. Obama can’t fully denounce Rev. Wright because it would conflict with his overall theological beliefs. Mr. Obama may not care for the vitriolic hatred through which Rev. Wright spreads his message (although a 19-year membership in this church does seem to even call this into question), but ultimately Mr. Obama is a believer in the Black Liberation Theology to which Rev. Wright ascribes and preaches. Ultimately, it is about struggle, the restitution of past wrongs and an interpretation of the Gospel that fits with this socially conscious method. Unfortunately, it is easily given over to victimhood, which can in turn lead to anger, as given in the person of Rev. Wright.
What will probably not go away in the minds of many Democratic and Independent voters is this transformation of Mr. Obama from a candidate who happens to be African-American, to the African-American candidate, potentially hitting all the necessary buttons and baggage that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton hit.
It may be that it is too late for this to affect the Democratic race. Ms. Clinton is most likely going to win Pennsylvania and by large margins. That the numbers have increased in the wake of the Rev. Wright controversy is lost in the fact that they were already pretty high to begin with. If Mr. Obama goes on to win North Carolina and Oregon as people thing he will, and if he makes Indiana close (maybe even winning it) then he will be the nominee. However, if North Carolina goes to the wire and Ms. Clinton is able to pull it out, only then will the Superdelegates start to reevaluate their position. Any retention of the status quo with Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama getting wins on their “turf” will only benefit Mr. Obama as the party elders will be too reluctant to overturn the perceived will of the people.
Then it would come down to the question of if Democratic anger over the policies of Bush can keep Mr. Obama afloat or whether his flaws ultimately sink him in the face of the Republican onslaught.
At the moment, there is a great deal of anger in the white, blue-collar community (and in some ethnic communities) over Mr. Obama’s refusal to fully denounce Rev. Wright. What some are starting to realize is that Mr. Obama can’t fully denounce Rev. Wright because it would conflict with his overall theological beliefs. Mr. Obama may not care for the vitriolic hatred through which Rev. Wright spreads his message (although a 19-year membership in this church does seem to even call this into question), but ultimately Mr. Obama is a believer in the Black Liberation Theology to which Rev. Wright ascribes and preaches. Ultimately, it is about struggle, the restitution of past wrongs and an interpretation of the Gospel that fits with this socially conscious method. Unfortunately, it is easily given over to victimhood, which can in turn lead to anger, as given in the person of Rev. Wright.
What will probably not go away in the minds of many Democratic and Independent voters is this transformation of Mr. Obama from a candidate who happens to be African-American, to the African-American candidate, potentially hitting all the necessary buttons and baggage that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton hit.
It may be that it is too late for this to affect the Democratic race. Ms. Clinton is most likely going to win Pennsylvania and by large margins. That the numbers have increased in the wake of the Rev. Wright controversy is lost in the fact that they were already pretty high to begin with. If Mr. Obama goes on to win North Carolina and Oregon as people thing he will, and if he makes Indiana close (maybe even winning it) then he will be the nominee. However, if North Carolina goes to the wire and Ms. Clinton is able to pull it out, only then will the Superdelegates start to reevaluate their position. Any retention of the status quo with Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama getting wins on their “turf” will only benefit Mr. Obama as the party elders will be too reluctant to overturn the perceived will of the people.
Then it would come down to the question of if Democratic anger over the policies of Bush can keep Mr. Obama afloat or whether his flaws ultimately sink him in the face of the Republican onslaught.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Democratic Calendar of Events
Mr. Obama won Mississippi as expected last night. He will gain at least 17 delegates to Ms. Clinton’s 11. There are 5 more delegates who will be allotted once all the votes are fully counted and documented in each congressional district. In absolute hard pledges, Mr. Obama leads 1274-1166 with 5 outstanding. Factoring in the estimated allotments in caucuses, Mr. Obama increases his lead to 1388.5-1240.5 with 32 outstanding and 26 still pledged to Mr. Edwards. Ms. Clinton still holds a lead of about 30 Superdelegates, leaving her roughly 110 total delegates behind.
Now we are in for the long slog where we wait for Pennsylvania. The media will probably spend most of this time going over the deliberations over what to do with the Florida and Michigan votes. At the moment, it seems that Florida’s plan to revote by mail is moving forward, despite dissent from the House Florida delegation and the large holes for lawsuits that could be opened up. There is no word yet if Michigan is going to follow the same parameters.
To give and idea of the upcoming calendar, here are the remaining important dates:
April 12 – Democrats Abroad will formally select their delegates. Mr. Obama is expected to receive 4.5 and Ms. Clinton 2.5 (There are 14 delegates with a half vote each).
April 22 – Pennsylvania Primary – 158 delegates
April 26 – Iowa District Conventions – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 10 delegates, Ms. Clinton 10, and Mr. Edwards 9. It is unknown if Mr. Edwards will keep his delegates or release them to the other candidates.
May 3 – Guam Caucus – 6 delegates (0.5 votes each for 3 votes)
May 6 – North Carolina and Indiana Primaries – 115 and 72 delegates
May 13 – West Virginia Primary – 28 delegates
May 17 – Colorado State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 19 delegates and Ms. Clinton 9. There are an additional 27 delegates that will be assigned to candidates at the convention.
May 18 – Nevada State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 13 delegates and Ms. Clinton 12.
May 20 – Kentucky and Oregon Primaries – 51 and 52 delegates
May 24 – Alaska State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 9 delegates and Ms. Clinton 4.
June 1 – Puerto Rico Primary – Puerto Rico has petitioned to move up one week to June 1 and switch from a caucus to a primary as part of the Florida and Michigan negotiations. Puerto Rico has 55 delegates.
June 3 – Montana and South Dakota Primaries – 16 and 15 delegates
June 7 – Texas State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 38 delegates and Ms. Clinton 29.
June 14 – Idaho and Iowa State Conventions – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 15 delegates and Ms. Clinton 3 from Idaho. Mr. Obama is expected to receive 6 delegates, Ms. Clinton 5, and Mr. Edwards 5 from Iowa. It is unknown if Mr. Edwards will keep his delegates or release them to the other candidates.
Any makeup primaries in Florida and Michigan will likely take place after June 3 but prior to July 1.
Now we are in for the long slog where we wait for Pennsylvania. The media will probably spend most of this time going over the deliberations over what to do with the Florida and Michigan votes. At the moment, it seems that Florida’s plan to revote by mail is moving forward, despite dissent from the House Florida delegation and the large holes for lawsuits that could be opened up. There is no word yet if Michigan is going to follow the same parameters.
To give and idea of the upcoming calendar, here are the remaining important dates:
April 12 – Democrats Abroad will formally select their delegates. Mr. Obama is expected to receive 4.5 and Ms. Clinton 2.5 (There are 14 delegates with a half vote each).
April 22 – Pennsylvania Primary – 158 delegates
April 26 – Iowa District Conventions – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 10 delegates, Ms. Clinton 10, and Mr. Edwards 9. It is unknown if Mr. Edwards will keep his delegates or release them to the other candidates.
May 3 – Guam Caucus – 6 delegates (0.5 votes each for 3 votes)
May 6 – North Carolina and Indiana Primaries – 115 and 72 delegates
May 13 – West Virginia Primary – 28 delegates
May 17 – Colorado State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 19 delegates and Ms. Clinton 9. There are an additional 27 delegates that will be assigned to candidates at the convention.
May 18 – Nevada State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 13 delegates and Ms. Clinton 12.
May 20 – Kentucky and Oregon Primaries – 51 and 52 delegates
May 24 – Alaska State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 9 delegates and Ms. Clinton 4.
June 1 – Puerto Rico Primary – Puerto Rico has petitioned to move up one week to June 1 and switch from a caucus to a primary as part of the Florida and Michigan negotiations. Puerto Rico has 55 delegates.
June 3 – Montana and South Dakota Primaries – 16 and 15 delegates
June 7 – Texas State Convention – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 38 delegates and Ms. Clinton 29.
June 14 – Idaho and Iowa State Conventions – Mr. Obama is expected to receive 15 delegates and Ms. Clinton 3 from Idaho. Mr. Obama is expected to receive 6 delegates, Ms. Clinton 5, and Mr. Edwards 5 from Iowa. It is unknown if Mr. Edwards will keep his delegates or release them to the other candidates.
Any makeup primaries in Florida and Michigan will likely take place after June 3 but prior to July 1.
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Likely Bitter Pill
Much ink and drama are going to be played out over the next few months, but the end result is probably going to be pretty predictable barring a major mistake by one candidate or the other. At the end of the day, neither Mr. Obama nor Ms. Clinton is going to have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination and it will become a beauty contest between the Superdelegates.
Ms. Clinton has been talking up how she wins big states while Mr. Obama talks about bringing in new voters and can make traditional red states competitive. Both of these are fallacies. In a primary, there are no red and blue states. There are only Democratic contests and your appeal is determined how well you organize and what constituencies you appeal to. Ms. Clinton wins big states because she appeals to the traditional blue collar, union Democrats who make up the majority of the voting blocs in those states. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is winning African-Americans, young voters, and liberal intellectuals. This gives him power in states where the traditional Democrats have been weeded out. The Democrats may win states like Ohio and West Virginia, but who takes those now will have no bearing on the final outcome against Mr. McCain.
The biggest worry for Democratic operatives when one looks at this analysis is what happens once the folks in the backroom pick one candidate over the other. If Ms. Clinton is selected, she’ll maintain her blocs and will pick up the intellectual liberals. However young voters may evaporate, as their motivation is lost. Likewise, African-American voters may be angry enough to either stay home or give Mr. McCain a look. If Mr. Obama is selected, he’ll maintain his voting blocs, but he may lose some of the working class Democrats. These are the “Reagan Democrats” who pay close attention to National Security and may be turned off by Mr. Obama’s aggressive spending plans that could result in higher taxes.
On top of all this is how the landscape looks once the primary season is over. Knowing that Mr. Obama will almost certainly finish in the lead with pledged delegates, many Democrats would probably prefer him to also finish with the popular vote lead and more states in his column (Mr. Obama currently leads 25 states + DC to 16 states for Ms. Clinton, so he will have won more contests at the end of the day). However, 57% Democratic voters have openly stated that if no one wins the nomination due to pledged delegates then the winner of the popular vote should be the nominee. This is the one avenue still open for Ms. Clinton as she trails Mr. Obama by about 600,000 votes not including Michigan and Florida. If these states get seated or she wins in somewhat similar numbers in the do-overs, Ms. Clinton could take the popular vote lead from Mr. Obama. Then the party elders are back where they started and will have to torque off one constituency or the other.
The choice might come down to which side is more willing to forgive the other or which side is the one that Democrats decide they can sacrifice for the common good. Neither choice is particularly appetizing.
Ms. Clinton has been talking up how she wins big states while Mr. Obama talks about bringing in new voters and can make traditional red states competitive. Both of these are fallacies. In a primary, there are no red and blue states. There are only Democratic contests and your appeal is determined how well you organize and what constituencies you appeal to. Ms. Clinton wins big states because she appeals to the traditional blue collar, union Democrats who make up the majority of the voting blocs in those states. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama is winning African-Americans, young voters, and liberal intellectuals. This gives him power in states where the traditional Democrats have been weeded out. The Democrats may win states like Ohio and West Virginia, but who takes those now will have no bearing on the final outcome against Mr. McCain.
The biggest worry for Democratic operatives when one looks at this analysis is what happens once the folks in the backroom pick one candidate over the other. If Ms. Clinton is selected, she’ll maintain her blocs and will pick up the intellectual liberals. However young voters may evaporate, as their motivation is lost. Likewise, African-American voters may be angry enough to either stay home or give Mr. McCain a look. If Mr. Obama is selected, he’ll maintain his voting blocs, but he may lose some of the working class Democrats. These are the “Reagan Democrats” who pay close attention to National Security and may be turned off by Mr. Obama’s aggressive spending plans that could result in higher taxes.
On top of all this is how the landscape looks once the primary season is over. Knowing that Mr. Obama will almost certainly finish in the lead with pledged delegates, many Democrats would probably prefer him to also finish with the popular vote lead and more states in his column (Mr. Obama currently leads 25 states + DC to 16 states for Ms. Clinton, so he will have won more contests at the end of the day). However, 57% Democratic voters have openly stated that if no one wins the nomination due to pledged delegates then the winner of the popular vote should be the nominee. This is the one avenue still open for Ms. Clinton as she trails Mr. Obama by about 600,000 votes not including Michigan and Florida. If these states get seated or she wins in somewhat similar numbers in the do-overs, Ms. Clinton could take the popular vote lead from Mr. Obama. Then the party elders are back where they started and will have to torque off one constituency or the other.
The choice might come down to which side is more willing to forgive the other or which side is the one that Democrats decide they can sacrifice for the common good. Neither choice is particularly appetizing.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
The Road to Denver Will Be Paved with Blood
Now things are interesting again. I had correctly speculated that Ms. Clinton would win Rhode Island and Ohio while Mr. Obama would win Vermont. I went back and forth on Texas (as did Texas itself) but the trend of the Monday polls suggested to me that she could squeak out a one or two-point win. I was actually thinking that the early votes would put her over the top, but apparently Mr. Obama won the early votes by nearly 150,000. Instead she vaulted up on her own, although her numbers were inflated a small bit by Republican crossover. Mr. Obama won crossover Republicans as well, but his numbers would have been higher among this segment if there hadn’t been an active push in some circles to keep Ms. Clinton in the race.
Anyway, where do we go from here? Well, as I postulated earlier, the combined wins in Ohio and Texas easily keep her in until Pennsylvania and probably through Puerto Rico in June. A statistic that keeps getting flashed by the Clinton people is that if you include the voter turnout in Michigan and Florida, she and Mr. Obama are now tied for popular votes, with several large states that may go to Ms. Clinton in the future. What’s more, both Florida and Michigan are talking openly of holding their primaries again in June or July. Ms. Clinton should naturally do well in both states (and her championing of them over the past three months will only have helped her standing there) and substituting substantial wins in those states for the pseudo-wins she has will only make her stronger.
Mr. Obama will trumpet his delegate lead, which will remain essentially unchanged (not including the Texas caucus, Ms. Clinton had a net pick up of 15 delegates). However, Mr. Obama now has to win over 75% of the Democratic electorate to get the 2025 delegates he needs to win prior to the convention. This is not going to happen. Since both candidates will not have the majority, the race will be decided by the Superdelegates and the idea of being “in the lead” comes down to momentum and appeal rather than hard math. Mr. Obama will pick up some momentum again assuming he wins Wyoming and Mississippi next week, but she could blunt that with a solid win in Pennsylvania.
Ironically, one thing happened last night that may prove a strong argument for Ms. Clinton. She has argued that Mr. Obama’s success in caucuses do not accurately reflect the electorate. We may get a microcosm of this argument in Texas. Ms. Clinton won the state primary by 3 points, but Mr. Obama may end up winning the Texas caucus by 7 points or better. Obviously, the two results are not harmonious and allows Ms. Clinton to state that if all the electorate were involved, she would have beaten Mr. Obama in important swing states like Iowa and Colorado. This may not necessarily be true, but she can make a good argument at least.
Ms. Clinton will probably ignore Wyoming, although she might send Bill down to try to pump up turnout a little in Mississippi so she doesn’t get completely blown out (highest African-American population in any state by percentage). But she will focus on Pennsylvania, especially to try and blunt a potential big victory for Mr. Obama in North Carolina in early May. If she wins Pennsylvania by any decent margin, she will have a good shot to take West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana, while also making a push for Oregon. Wins in these states will build a strong case for her to present to the Superdelegates that she is the one to beat.
Mr. Obama on the other hand is going to have to learn how to hit back in a proper manner. His style has been more deflection than counterpunch at the moment. The longer he allows Ms. Clinton to hang around and bleed him with paper cuts, the potentially weaker he gets. A win in Pennsylvania would be ideal, but the demographics of the state currently favor Ms. Clinton. He must stay close there and then pound her with a big win in North Carolina. If he could tie that win a win in Indiana, he would be in good shape to take Oregon and maybe even Kentucky (I don’t think he has a realistic shot at West Virginia).
I find it rather amusing that with the mad scramble of states to become the first in the nation and keep pushing up their primaries, it could the one-two punch of Kentucky and Oregon on May 20th that determine who has the momentum heading into the convention.
FYI, for those keeping track, Ms. Clinton now leads 6-4 in the 12 swing states of 2004 with Pennsylvania and Oregon remaining.
Anyway, where do we go from here? Well, as I postulated earlier, the combined wins in Ohio and Texas easily keep her in until Pennsylvania and probably through Puerto Rico in June. A statistic that keeps getting flashed by the Clinton people is that if you include the voter turnout in Michigan and Florida, she and Mr. Obama are now tied for popular votes, with several large states that may go to Ms. Clinton in the future. What’s more, both Florida and Michigan are talking openly of holding their primaries again in June or July. Ms. Clinton should naturally do well in both states (and her championing of them over the past three months will only have helped her standing there) and substituting substantial wins in those states for the pseudo-wins she has will only make her stronger.
Mr. Obama will trumpet his delegate lead, which will remain essentially unchanged (not including the Texas caucus, Ms. Clinton had a net pick up of 15 delegates). However, Mr. Obama now has to win over 75% of the Democratic electorate to get the 2025 delegates he needs to win prior to the convention. This is not going to happen. Since both candidates will not have the majority, the race will be decided by the Superdelegates and the idea of being “in the lead” comes down to momentum and appeal rather than hard math. Mr. Obama will pick up some momentum again assuming he wins Wyoming and Mississippi next week, but she could blunt that with a solid win in Pennsylvania.
Ironically, one thing happened last night that may prove a strong argument for Ms. Clinton. She has argued that Mr. Obama’s success in caucuses do not accurately reflect the electorate. We may get a microcosm of this argument in Texas. Ms. Clinton won the state primary by 3 points, but Mr. Obama may end up winning the Texas caucus by 7 points or better. Obviously, the two results are not harmonious and allows Ms. Clinton to state that if all the electorate were involved, she would have beaten Mr. Obama in important swing states like Iowa and Colorado. This may not necessarily be true, but she can make a good argument at least.
Ms. Clinton will probably ignore Wyoming, although she might send Bill down to try to pump up turnout a little in Mississippi so she doesn’t get completely blown out (highest African-American population in any state by percentage). But she will focus on Pennsylvania, especially to try and blunt a potential big victory for Mr. Obama in North Carolina in early May. If she wins Pennsylvania by any decent margin, she will have a good shot to take West Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana, while also making a push for Oregon. Wins in these states will build a strong case for her to present to the Superdelegates that she is the one to beat.
Mr. Obama on the other hand is going to have to learn how to hit back in a proper manner. His style has been more deflection than counterpunch at the moment. The longer he allows Ms. Clinton to hang around and bleed him with paper cuts, the potentially weaker he gets. A win in Pennsylvania would be ideal, but the demographics of the state currently favor Ms. Clinton. He must stay close there and then pound her with a big win in North Carolina. If he could tie that win a win in Indiana, he would be in good shape to take Oregon and maybe even Kentucky (I don’t think he has a realistic shot at West Virginia).
I find it rather amusing that with the mad scramble of states to become the first in the nation and keep pushing up their primaries, it could the one-two punch of Kentucky and Oregon on May 20th that determine who has the momentum heading into the convention.
FYI, for those keeping track, Ms. Clinton now leads 6-4 in the 12 swing states of 2004 with Pennsylvania and Oregon remaining.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Last Best Chance?
Is this really Mr. Obama’s third and last best chance to deliver a crushing blow to Ms. Clinton? It has been argued that Mr. Obama has had two previous chances to knock her out: New Hampshire and Super Tuesday. I don’t believe that Ms. Clinton would have withdrawn has she lost New Hampshire, but it might have set in motion the loss in the first four primaries that I discussed earlier, which might have forced her to consider withdrawing if the momentum made it look like she could lose New York. Of course, she came back and won New Hampshire.
Super Tuesday also probably wouldn’t have forced Ms. Clinton to withdraw but had Obama won California or New Jersey (even making them very close), he could have undercut her at her base and argued that he was well established in Democratic circles. That might have been enough to ensure a comfortable win in Ohio that would have clearly forced her to withdraw.
So now we’re on Mr. Obama’s supposed third opportunity to force Ms. Clinton out. Despite the Media and the Party talking about it, if Ms. Clinton wins Ohio, she will stick it out until at least Pennsylvania. It is really only a statement by Bill Clinton that has put this notion out there that she should withdraw if she loses both primaries. Obama might win Texas, but if the vote is close and she wins decent majorities in Hispanics and Women (which she is polling well in), she will argue that Texas is still a Red State and that she is the stronger person in the core constituencies of the Democratic Party. Ohio, being one of the strongest Purple States, probably matters more in terms of prestige than Texas does, despite Texas having more delegates.
If Ms. Clinton loses Ohio, she probably won’t be able to recover and will be hard pressed to make the argument that she represents the soul of the Democratic Party. A win in Ohio but not Texas will amplify the calls for her to withdraw, but I think there will be some creative spin and a wait-until-Pennsylvania attitude to decide things. If she wins both Texas and Ohio, she will probably stick it out until the Puerto Rico primaries.
Two things that have operated below the public radar are the simple fact that although Mr. Obama raised more money, Ms. Clinton did bring in $35 million. That is a lot of money and there is a large portion of the Democratic base behind her. Also, there are whispers that a large segment of the Jewish population is growing increasingly wary of Mr. Obama and his rather weak refutations of the anti-Semitic stances of some of his supporters.
If there is any significant defection of the Jewish population to Mr. McCain (Kerry won Jews 75-25), that could take certain states out of play and put other states in the maybe column. Certainly Florida would be lost to Mr. McCain and it would hurt Mr. Obama’s chances of swinging Ohio and Virginia into the Democratic column. It could also make things very uncomfortable for Mr. Obama in Connecticut and New Jersey (states that he should win by significant margins). It might even sap away the Democratic advantage in Pennsylvania and that would be disastrous for Mr. Obama.
Either way, there are too many loose strings at the moment. It does not seem that Mr. Obama will be quite able to deliver the killing blow to Ms. Clinton’s campaign, though he may deal a blow that she won’t get up from. Expect more spin and talks of seeing how Pennsylvania falls while Mr. Dean starts pulling his hair out.
Super Tuesday also probably wouldn’t have forced Ms. Clinton to withdraw but had Obama won California or New Jersey (even making them very close), he could have undercut her at her base and argued that he was well established in Democratic circles. That might have been enough to ensure a comfortable win in Ohio that would have clearly forced her to withdraw.
So now we’re on Mr. Obama’s supposed third opportunity to force Ms. Clinton out. Despite the Media and the Party talking about it, if Ms. Clinton wins Ohio, she will stick it out until at least Pennsylvania. It is really only a statement by Bill Clinton that has put this notion out there that she should withdraw if she loses both primaries. Obama might win Texas, but if the vote is close and she wins decent majorities in Hispanics and Women (which she is polling well in), she will argue that Texas is still a Red State and that she is the stronger person in the core constituencies of the Democratic Party. Ohio, being one of the strongest Purple States, probably matters more in terms of prestige than Texas does, despite Texas having more delegates.
If Ms. Clinton loses Ohio, she probably won’t be able to recover and will be hard pressed to make the argument that she represents the soul of the Democratic Party. A win in Ohio but not Texas will amplify the calls for her to withdraw, but I think there will be some creative spin and a wait-until-Pennsylvania attitude to decide things. If she wins both Texas and Ohio, she will probably stick it out until the Puerto Rico primaries.
Two things that have operated below the public radar are the simple fact that although Mr. Obama raised more money, Ms. Clinton did bring in $35 million. That is a lot of money and there is a large portion of the Democratic base behind her. Also, there are whispers that a large segment of the Jewish population is growing increasingly wary of Mr. Obama and his rather weak refutations of the anti-Semitic stances of some of his supporters.
If there is any significant defection of the Jewish population to Mr. McCain (Kerry won Jews 75-25), that could take certain states out of play and put other states in the maybe column. Certainly Florida would be lost to Mr. McCain and it would hurt Mr. Obama’s chances of swinging Ohio and Virginia into the Democratic column. It could also make things very uncomfortable for Mr. Obama in Connecticut and New Jersey (states that he should win by significant margins). It might even sap away the Democratic advantage in Pennsylvania and that would be disastrous for Mr. Obama.
Either way, there are too many loose strings at the moment. It does not seem that Mr. Obama will be quite able to deliver the killing blow to Ms. Clinton’s campaign, though he may deal a blow that she won’t get up from. Expect more spin and talks of seeing how Pennsylvania falls while Mr. Dean starts pulling his hair out.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Bill Cunningham is a Fool (But we already knew that)
There has been a small kafuffle over the remarks that Bill Cunningham made while warming up the crowd at a John McCain rally down in Music Hall. Those of us who live around Cincinnati are familiar with Mr. Cunningham’s style. Essentially, he is an elitist blowhard who will say just about anything to drive up his name recognition. Mrs. X thinks that his ultimate goal is to get his own talk show on Fox News. But at the moment he is stuck doing a local radio show that is broadcast nationally on occasion.
Anyway, Mr. Cunningham talked in a rather disparaging manner about Mr. Obama. That in and of itself is not surprising. However, Mr. Cunningham also referred to Mr. Obama as Barak Hussein Obama at least three times. Yes, Hussein is Mr. Obama’s legal middle name, but the use of this name in a repeated message was clearly intended as an attack. People only use middle names if they need to differentiate between people with similar names, they are being excessively formal, or they are trying to make a point about something. In this case, most people agree that Mr. Cunningham (despite his denials) was intending to call attention to Mr. Obama’s Muslim roots through his father. Mr. Cunningham and many people like him have attempted to use this in an attempt to portray Mr. Obama as an Islamic Trojan Horse that will sell the American People to the jihadists after he is sworn into office. Quite frankly, the jihadists are making inroads into this country well enough that they don’t need a Presidential Trojan Horse even if Mr. Obama was one (and I’m quite sure he is not).
Mr. McCain quickly refuted Mr. Cunningham’s intro, much to Mr. Cunningham’s chagrin. Whatever one thinks of Mr. McCain, this was the best course of action to take. Mr. Obama’s record indicates that he would be the most liberal candidate since George McGovern. However, he also has the speaking ability and charisma of John F. Kennedy. If Mr. McCain is able to keep the campaign relatively smear free and focus on the issues, he is likely to win. The general public is not going to accept nearly $300 billion in additional spending in addition to the growing social security debt without a method to pay for it. Mr. Obama’s proposed methods would bring in $170 billion at best and that is a very optimistic view of the situation.
However, if the campaign devolves into issues of character and an appeal to people’s emotions, Mr. Obama will win. Mr. Obama will try to make it about character. He’ll throw enough information about his proposed programs in there to keep away the claims that he doesn’t know what he is doing, but he’ll be able to sit there and promote vision and new direction against a curmudgeony old man and clean his clock.
There’ll be a little pain for Mr. McCain in the short run, but in the long run, it’s a better move to keep things clean. Let’s just see how long things can stay that way on both the Right and the Left.
Anyway, Mr. Cunningham talked in a rather disparaging manner about Mr. Obama. That in and of itself is not surprising. However, Mr. Cunningham also referred to Mr. Obama as Barak Hussein Obama at least three times. Yes, Hussein is Mr. Obama’s legal middle name, but the use of this name in a repeated message was clearly intended as an attack. People only use middle names if they need to differentiate between people with similar names, they are being excessively formal, or they are trying to make a point about something. In this case, most people agree that Mr. Cunningham (despite his denials) was intending to call attention to Mr. Obama’s Muslim roots through his father. Mr. Cunningham and many people like him have attempted to use this in an attempt to portray Mr. Obama as an Islamic Trojan Horse that will sell the American People to the jihadists after he is sworn into office. Quite frankly, the jihadists are making inroads into this country well enough that they don’t need a Presidential Trojan Horse even if Mr. Obama was one (and I’m quite sure he is not).
Mr. McCain quickly refuted Mr. Cunningham’s intro, much to Mr. Cunningham’s chagrin. Whatever one thinks of Mr. McCain, this was the best course of action to take. Mr. Obama’s record indicates that he would be the most liberal candidate since George McGovern. However, he also has the speaking ability and charisma of John F. Kennedy. If Mr. McCain is able to keep the campaign relatively smear free and focus on the issues, he is likely to win. The general public is not going to accept nearly $300 billion in additional spending in addition to the growing social security debt without a method to pay for it. Mr. Obama’s proposed methods would bring in $170 billion at best and that is a very optimistic view of the situation.
However, if the campaign devolves into issues of character and an appeal to people’s emotions, Mr. Obama will win. Mr. Obama will try to make it about character. He’ll throw enough information about his proposed programs in there to keep away the claims that he doesn’t know what he is doing, but he’ll be able to sit there and promote vision and new direction against a curmudgeony old man and clean his clock.
There’ll be a little pain for Mr. McCain in the short run, but in the long run, it’s a better move to keep things clean. Let’s just see how long things can stay that way on both the Right and the Left.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Woodstein They Are Not
There was a time in American politics where reporters employed by major newspapers knew how to research a story and present their argument in a direct manner with lots of facts to back things up. Most people forget that Woodward and Bernstein spent more than seven months researching their story before they could even crack a whisper of what happened at the Watergate Hotel. However, many reporters today do not have the patience of the famed 70’s duo. They want the notoriety and fame without having the patience or work ethic to actually achieve it properly. Some of that is due to fear that someone is going to scoop them on an important story (especially in the days of New Media), but most is due to a certain laziness fostered by a deep desire to truly believe the content of the story rather than risk finding it to be not true.
Having read the salient points of the NY Times article on John McCain and the New Republic’s article on why the story was held on to, provides a stark contrast to those media glory days of the mid-1970’s. Some quick background: a NY Times reporter received a hot tip in November regarding special influence that a telecommunications lobbyist may have had with Mr. McCain in the late 90’s and early part of his first Presidential campaign. This reporter got help from his editor in the form of three other reporters. They dug around and managed to get statements from two former McCain staffers who had not left on the best of terms. The Times reporters wrote up their piece and submitted it for publishing. The editor balked and told them to do more work, as it was too airy and speculative. Anger and resentment followed, as the reporters believed “they had nailed it.” They did contact the McCain campaign and submitted a set of written requests. Meanwhile, Mr. McCain and the lobbyist, Ms. Iseman, both retained council and vehemently denied (on the record) both the special treatment and the innuendo that they had engaged in an affair. Matt Drudge got a hold of the story (possibly from one of the Times reporters themselves, angry at the foot-dragging), allowing the McCain camp to act quickly, gathering records and evidence countering the Times’ claims. Whispers continued until the New Republic decided to run a story showing the backbiting and politics of the NY Times newsroom regarding the story. Faced with this embarrassment, the Times published the article.
In the three months that the NY Times has worked this story, they have not managed to show any concrete evidence that the story is true. Any record of Mr. McCain showing favorable treatment to the telecommunications companies represented by Ms. Iseman would have an obvious paper trail in the form of letters and recommendations filed by him to the chairman of the FCC. All letters known in the public archives show no such favorable treatment and the Times had not produced any other documents stating otherwise. Regarding the suggested affair, no staffers have come forward suggesting the two were engaging in such a manner, nor does the Times offer any evidence that the two were seen in any manner other than at public functions or in a business environment.
The bulk of the article is actually devoted to the Keating-5 scandal, which occurred nearly 20 years ago. In that event, five senators were found to have accepted campaign donations from Charles Keating, who was being investigated following the collapse of the Savings and Loan industry. All five senators were brought before the Senate Ethics committee. Although they were all cleared of anything illegal, the panel reprimanded four of them and censured Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA). Only two of the senators, John Glenn (D-OH) and John McCain (R-AZ) returned to the Senate when their terms came up. It was this incident that lit a fire under Mr. McCain’s butt regarding campaign finance reform.
Given that this incident has been a matter of history and public record for over 15 years, it seems odd that the NY Times would devote the majority of its article to this incident in an attempt to buttress the more recent allegations. Rather than providing background and clarity, it adds an additional odor to what is already giving off the air of a poorly researched hack job.
Now, there is always the possibility that the allegations are true. But the ineptitude and lack of devotion to research renders any point that they attempt to make moot as it is washed away in a bath of perceived partisan vitriol. Dan Rather, to his dying day, will probably swear that the allegations of Mr. Bush’s conduct while in the Texas Air National Guard were true even if the memos were proven to be false (fake but accurate). However, that does not change the fact that this appears to be driven by faith in the rightness of his convictions rather than any solid facts. Faith should be left to the confines of religion. Any foray into the world of politics only makes the speaker look foolish and untrustworthy.
Having read the salient points of the NY Times article on John McCain and the New Republic’s article on why the story was held on to, provides a stark contrast to those media glory days of the mid-1970’s. Some quick background: a NY Times reporter received a hot tip in November regarding special influence that a telecommunications lobbyist may have had with Mr. McCain in the late 90’s and early part of his first Presidential campaign. This reporter got help from his editor in the form of three other reporters. They dug around and managed to get statements from two former McCain staffers who had not left on the best of terms. The Times reporters wrote up their piece and submitted it for publishing. The editor balked and told them to do more work, as it was too airy and speculative. Anger and resentment followed, as the reporters believed “they had nailed it.” They did contact the McCain campaign and submitted a set of written requests. Meanwhile, Mr. McCain and the lobbyist, Ms. Iseman, both retained council and vehemently denied (on the record) both the special treatment and the innuendo that they had engaged in an affair. Matt Drudge got a hold of the story (possibly from one of the Times reporters themselves, angry at the foot-dragging), allowing the McCain camp to act quickly, gathering records and evidence countering the Times’ claims. Whispers continued until the New Republic decided to run a story showing the backbiting and politics of the NY Times newsroom regarding the story. Faced with this embarrassment, the Times published the article.
In the three months that the NY Times has worked this story, they have not managed to show any concrete evidence that the story is true. Any record of Mr. McCain showing favorable treatment to the telecommunications companies represented by Ms. Iseman would have an obvious paper trail in the form of letters and recommendations filed by him to the chairman of the FCC. All letters known in the public archives show no such favorable treatment and the Times had not produced any other documents stating otherwise. Regarding the suggested affair, no staffers have come forward suggesting the two were engaging in such a manner, nor does the Times offer any evidence that the two were seen in any manner other than at public functions or in a business environment.
The bulk of the article is actually devoted to the Keating-5 scandal, which occurred nearly 20 years ago. In that event, five senators were found to have accepted campaign donations from Charles Keating, who was being investigated following the collapse of the Savings and Loan industry. All five senators were brought before the Senate Ethics committee. Although they were all cleared of anything illegal, the panel reprimanded four of them and censured Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA). Only two of the senators, John Glenn (D-OH) and John McCain (R-AZ) returned to the Senate when their terms came up. It was this incident that lit a fire under Mr. McCain’s butt regarding campaign finance reform.
Given that this incident has been a matter of history and public record for over 15 years, it seems odd that the NY Times would devote the majority of its article to this incident in an attempt to buttress the more recent allegations. Rather than providing background and clarity, it adds an additional odor to what is already giving off the air of a poorly researched hack job.
Now, there is always the possibility that the allegations are true. But the ineptitude and lack of devotion to research renders any point that they attempt to make moot as it is washed away in a bath of perceived partisan vitriol. Dan Rather, to his dying day, will probably swear that the allegations of Mr. Bush’s conduct while in the Texas Air National Guard were true even if the memos were proven to be false (fake but accurate). However, that does not change the fact that this appears to be driven by faith in the rightness of his convictions rather than any solid facts. Faith should be left to the confines of religion. Any foray into the world of politics only makes the speaker look foolish and untrustworthy.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
I Don't Want To Go On The Cart
Ms. Clinton is not dead yet. However for the first time in the Democratic nominating process, one of the final two candidates has been able to deliver a blow that drew blood. Now, the question remains whether this blow weakens Ms. Clinton and allows Mr. Obama to deliver a killing stroke, or if it just makes her mad and allows her to deliver a counterblow to Mr. Obama.
The real problem for Ms. Clinton is the manner in which she lost Wisconsin. Had she lost by five points and maintained her core demographics intact, no one would have batted an eye and her lead in Ohio would have probably stayed about the same. However, losing as bad as she did and with noticeable dings into her core-voting block open her up to serious attacks in Ohio. What’s worse; even if Ms. Clinton does win Ohio, she probably won’t win by a substantial margin. To really crack back into the race, Ms. Clinton needs to win Texas and win Ohio and Pennsylvania by 10 points or better.
Even with these types of wins, it is unlikely that Ms. Clinton will catch Mr. Obama in the pledged delegate counts. He is currently leading her by 120 in the hard delegates and when you add the estimates from the caucus states that will meet later in the year, his lead increases to almost 160. One can easily see why Ms. Clinton wants Michigan and Florida added back in. If you give Mr. Obama all the “unpledged” delegates from Michigan and add the two states to the overall totals, Ms. Clinton gains a net 60 delegates, putting her back within striking distance of Mr. Obama.
If Ms. Clinton is not able to make up the margin in pledged delegates and Florida and Michigan are not added back, her only argument left is her appeal in the swing states. There were 12 states in the 2004 Presidential Election that were decided by 5 points or less. Those states and their Democratic Primary winners are as follows:
Wisconsin – Obama
Iowa – Obama
New Mexico – Clinton
New Hampshire – Clinton
Ohio – March 4
Pennsylvania – April 22
Nevada – Clinton
Michigan – Clinton
Minnesota – Obama
Oregon – May 20
Colorado – Obama
Florida – Clinton
Ms. Clinton has a 5-4 lead in states with three yet to be played out. What’s more, given Mr. McCain’s position on Ag subsidies, Ms. Clinton can argue that Iowa will fall easily into Democratic hands. Ms. Clinton’s popularity with Hispanics might help her argue that she could win Colorado in a straight up race against Mr. McCain (as opposed to a caucus). However, all these arguments come to naught if she doesn’t win Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Still, I wouldn’t send for the gravediggers just yet.
The real problem for Ms. Clinton is the manner in which she lost Wisconsin. Had she lost by five points and maintained her core demographics intact, no one would have batted an eye and her lead in Ohio would have probably stayed about the same. However, losing as bad as she did and with noticeable dings into her core-voting block open her up to serious attacks in Ohio. What’s worse; even if Ms. Clinton does win Ohio, she probably won’t win by a substantial margin. To really crack back into the race, Ms. Clinton needs to win Texas and win Ohio and Pennsylvania by 10 points or better.
Even with these types of wins, it is unlikely that Ms. Clinton will catch Mr. Obama in the pledged delegate counts. He is currently leading her by 120 in the hard delegates and when you add the estimates from the caucus states that will meet later in the year, his lead increases to almost 160. One can easily see why Ms. Clinton wants Michigan and Florida added back in. If you give Mr. Obama all the “unpledged” delegates from Michigan and add the two states to the overall totals, Ms. Clinton gains a net 60 delegates, putting her back within striking distance of Mr. Obama.
If Ms. Clinton is not able to make up the margin in pledged delegates and Florida and Michigan are not added back, her only argument left is her appeal in the swing states. There were 12 states in the 2004 Presidential Election that were decided by 5 points or less. Those states and their Democratic Primary winners are as follows:
Wisconsin – Obama
Iowa – Obama
New Mexico – Clinton
New Hampshire – Clinton
Ohio – March 4
Pennsylvania – April 22
Nevada – Clinton
Michigan – Clinton
Minnesota – Obama
Oregon – May 20
Colorado – Obama
Florida – Clinton
Ms. Clinton has a 5-4 lead in states with three yet to be played out. What’s more, given Mr. McCain’s position on Ag subsidies, Ms. Clinton can argue that Iowa will fall easily into Democratic hands. Ms. Clinton’s popularity with Hispanics might help her argue that she could win Colorado in a straight up race against Mr. McCain (as opposed to a caucus). However, all these arguments come to naught if she doesn’t win Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Still, I wouldn’t send for the gravediggers just yet.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The Clinton Endgame
As I mentioned yesterday, Mr. Obama is currently leading Ms. Clinton in hard pledged delegates by about 100. This lead is likely to grow as they will probably split Wisconsin but he will take a lead in Hawaii. Ms. Clinton has staked her political life on winning Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. In addition to the notoriety of winning such large states, the numbers allow her to close back the gap between her and Mr. Obama fairly quickly.
Ohio: 92 delegates are allocated proportionally through the various congressional districts. Even with Ms. Clinton’s large lead in the polls, it is likely that the two candidates will split these in some close fashion (50-42 would be the edge of a very good night for Ms. Clinton). However, Ohio also allocates an additional 49 delegates based on the overall primary vote statewide. If she maintains her lead (and winning or losing very closely in Wisconsin will help her maintain that lead), she could take the lion’s share of these delegates.
Texas: 126 delegates are allocated proportionally through the state senate districts. Ms. Clinton will probably dominate most of these with Mr. Obama only taking the heavily African-American districts around Dallas. On a really good night, Ms. Clinton could take as many as 80 delegates this way. An additional 67 delegates are assigned via state convention in early June, by which point, some backroom deals might be going on. If not, the delegate allocation will probably follow the statewide results.
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania operations just as Ohio with 103 delegates awarded through congressional districts and 55 delegates awarded statewide. Mr. Obama will clean up around Philadelphia, but Ms. Clinton is likely to win most of the rest of the state (with the exception of the enclave around State College). Again, if current polls hold, she could take a 20 to 30-delegate advantage in the state.
These may not sound like much but piled up, Ms. Clinton could close the gap between her and Mr. Obama quickly. Coupled with wins in Vermont and Rhode Island, Ms. Clinton could come out of March 4th tied in the pledged delegate count with only the Superdelegates providing a difference again. Then it comes down to the argument of who does better in the key battleground states. With wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Florida (plus close seconds in Missouri, Wisconsin, and New Mexico), Ms. Clinton will have a pretty good argument that she is the candidate who has the best chance to beat Mr. McCain where it actually counts. Winning the African-American vote by 90-10 margins in the South is impressive, but it doesn’t change the fact that nearly all of the Old Confederacy is going to be won by the Republicans.
Still, we have a long way to go. Perhaps the numbers in the large states will change once Mr. Obama starts devoting major resources to the big states. I’ve seen his commercial quite a few times, but nothing sways voters like up close and personal contact (one of the reasons I’ve advocated Ms. Clinton camping in Wisconsin all week).
Some have tried to compare Ms. Clinton’s strategy to Mr. Giuliani’s Florida strategy and declared her dead already. There is some truth to this, but there are a number of key differences. First, unlike Mr. Giuliani, Ms. Clinton already has several big wins under her belt. Second, it’s a two-person race, unlike Mr. Giuliani, who had to contend with four or five other candidates (including one who was a lot like him in Mr. McCain). Third, Ms. Clinton, unlike Mr. Giuliani, is not fading from the media spotlight. If anything, the media is starting to take a harder look and Mr. Obama and what his actual ideas are. She constantly gets put up in contrast to see how the two are different. Fourth, Ms. Clinton has a core constituency that is constant and viable across many states. Mr. Giuliani was heavily banking on Florida being South New York and didn’t appeal to many people outside this group.
So, I think it would behoove us all to not draw any conclusions as of just yet. Perhaps Mr. Obama will go on to win handily, but perhaps not. It is rather strange that the media is seeming very quick to proclaim this contest as almost done when their wet dream would be to go all the way to a brokered convention. Of course, this might be a function of employing nothing but talking heads rather than actual reporters and data analysts.
Ohio: 92 delegates are allocated proportionally through the various congressional districts. Even with Ms. Clinton’s large lead in the polls, it is likely that the two candidates will split these in some close fashion (50-42 would be the edge of a very good night for Ms. Clinton). However, Ohio also allocates an additional 49 delegates based on the overall primary vote statewide. If she maintains her lead (and winning or losing very closely in Wisconsin will help her maintain that lead), she could take the lion’s share of these delegates.
Texas: 126 delegates are allocated proportionally through the state senate districts. Ms. Clinton will probably dominate most of these with Mr. Obama only taking the heavily African-American districts around Dallas. On a really good night, Ms. Clinton could take as many as 80 delegates this way. An additional 67 delegates are assigned via state convention in early June, by which point, some backroom deals might be going on. If not, the delegate allocation will probably follow the statewide results.
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania operations just as Ohio with 103 delegates awarded through congressional districts and 55 delegates awarded statewide. Mr. Obama will clean up around Philadelphia, but Ms. Clinton is likely to win most of the rest of the state (with the exception of the enclave around State College). Again, if current polls hold, she could take a 20 to 30-delegate advantage in the state.
These may not sound like much but piled up, Ms. Clinton could close the gap between her and Mr. Obama quickly. Coupled with wins in Vermont and Rhode Island, Ms. Clinton could come out of March 4th tied in the pledged delegate count with only the Superdelegates providing a difference again. Then it comes down to the argument of who does better in the key battleground states. With wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Florida (plus close seconds in Missouri, Wisconsin, and New Mexico), Ms. Clinton will have a pretty good argument that she is the candidate who has the best chance to beat Mr. McCain where it actually counts. Winning the African-American vote by 90-10 margins in the South is impressive, but it doesn’t change the fact that nearly all of the Old Confederacy is going to be won by the Republicans.
Still, we have a long way to go. Perhaps the numbers in the large states will change once Mr. Obama starts devoting major resources to the big states. I’ve seen his commercial quite a few times, but nothing sways voters like up close and personal contact (one of the reasons I’ve advocated Ms. Clinton camping in Wisconsin all week).
Some have tried to compare Ms. Clinton’s strategy to Mr. Giuliani’s Florida strategy and declared her dead already. There is some truth to this, but there are a number of key differences. First, unlike Mr. Giuliani, Ms. Clinton already has several big wins under her belt. Second, it’s a two-person race, unlike Mr. Giuliani, who had to contend with four or five other candidates (including one who was a lot like him in Mr. McCain). Third, Ms. Clinton, unlike Mr. Giuliani, is not fading from the media spotlight. If anything, the media is starting to take a harder look and Mr. Obama and what his actual ideas are. She constantly gets put up in contrast to see how the two are different. Fourth, Ms. Clinton has a core constituency that is constant and viable across many states. Mr. Giuliani was heavily banking on Florida being South New York and didn’t appeal to many people outside this group.
So, I think it would behoove us all to not draw any conclusions as of just yet. Perhaps Mr. Obama will go on to win handily, but perhaps not. It is rather strange that the media is seeming very quick to proclaim this contest as almost done when their wet dream would be to go all the way to a brokered convention. Of course, this might be a function of employing nothing but talking heads rather than actual reporters and data analysts.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The End and the Beginning
If the Republican race was almost over a week and a half ago when Mr. Romney suspended his campaign, it is certainly over now. News reports indicate that Mr. Romney will officially endorse Mr. McCain and pledge his delegates to him. This will rocket Mr. McCain’s totals from around 825 to over 1100, leaving him less than 90 delegates away from victory.
On Saturday, Louisiana will meet in state convention and will probably pledge anywhere from 15 to 24 delegates to Mr. McCain based on a caucus held back in January. Meanwhile, Guam will allocate 6 delegates based on a caucus.
On Tuesday, Washington State and Wisconsin go to the polls to allocate 19 and 40 delegates respectively. Both of these states allocate delegates based on the winner of each congressional district and the state overall. Thus, by the end of the night on Tuesday, it is possible that Mr. McCain could have racked up an additional 89 delegates. Coupled with Mr. Romney’s gift, Mr. McCain might break through to 1,191 right there.
Now, Mr. Huckabee might take away some of these delegates leaving Mr. McCain just short. Then he would have to wait until the weekend of February 23-24 when the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico allocate their 26 pledged delegates. Either way, Mr. McCain should become the official nominee before the month of February is over, rendering Mr. Huckabee’s planned last stand in Texas and Mississippi moot.
Meanwhile, Ms. Clinton seems to have finally woken up and smelled the coffee. Unfortunately, she is still reacting slowly as she is only planning on spending the last three days before the primary in Wisconsin rather than the whole week, as I would have advised her to do. She may still lose Wisconsin, but if she forces the news networks to wait an hour or more before calling the state, she will have thwarted the notion that Mr. Obama is an unstoppable force.
Ms. Clinton has also dispatched her daughter to Hawaii along with the messages of Sen. Inouye (who has endorsed Ms. Clinton) to blunt the loss in that state. Mr. Obama grew up in Hawaii so there is little chance that she can win the state, but if she loses by less than 10-points it will keep the delegate count close.
Given this, I think that reports of Ms. Clinton’s political death have been greatly exaggerated. She still may not catch Mr. Obama in the pledged delegate count (1050-952 in hard numbers), but Mr. Obama needs momentum as well as a delegate lead to capture the majority of the Superdelegates. The road is still long and windy.
On Saturday, Louisiana will meet in state convention and will probably pledge anywhere from 15 to 24 delegates to Mr. McCain based on a caucus held back in January. Meanwhile, Guam will allocate 6 delegates based on a caucus.
On Tuesday, Washington State and Wisconsin go to the polls to allocate 19 and 40 delegates respectively. Both of these states allocate delegates based on the winner of each congressional district and the state overall. Thus, by the end of the night on Tuesday, it is possible that Mr. McCain could have racked up an additional 89 delegates. Coupled with Mr. Romney’s gift, Mr. McCain might break through to 1,191 right there.
Now, Mr. Huckabee might take away some of these delegates leaving Mr. McCain just short. Then he would have to wait until the weekend of February 23-24 when the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico allocate their 26 pledged delegates. Either way, Mr. McCain should become the official nominee before the month of February is over, rendering Mr. Huckabee’s planned last stand in Texas and Mississippi moot.
Meanwhile, Ms. Clinton seems to have finally woken up and smelled the coffee. Unfortunately, she is still reacting slowly as she is only planning on spending the last three days before the primary in Wisconsin rather than the whole week, as I would have advised her to do. She may still lose Wisconsin, but if she forces the news networks to wait an hour or more before calling the state, she will have thwarted the notion that Mr. Obama is an unstoppable force.
Ms. Clinton has also dispatched her daughter to Hawaii along with the messages of Sen. Inouye (who has endorsed Ms. Clinton) to blunt the loss in that state. Mr. Obama grew up in Hawaii so there is little chance that she can win the state, but if she loses by less than 10-points it will keep the delegate count close.
Given this, I think that reports of Ms. Clinton’s political death have been greatly exaggerated. She still may not catch Mr. Obama in the pledged delegate count (1050-952 in hard numbers), but Mr. Obama needs momentum as well as a delegate lead to capture the majority of the Superdelegates. The road is still long and windy.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Election Foolishness
For a breakdown of why it is foolish to officially declare a frontrunner in the Democratic race, I give you the following numbers:
Mr. Obama currently has 1043 firmly pledged delegates to Ms. Clinton’s 947 delegates. There are an additional 20 pledged delegates that haven’t been assigned because the votes are still being counted in four locations (MD, VA, NM and Dems Abroad). There are 156 delegates from states that have had caucuses but will not actually assign national delegates until the state conventions sometime in late spring and early summer. A majority of these (probably 60-40) will go to Mr. Obama. This leaves 1,074 delegates left to be assigned in the remaining contests from February 19 through June 7. Then of course you have the 796 Superdelegates, bringing the overall total to 4,048 delegates.
I give all these numbers because with the losses that Ms. Clinton has suffered in the past eight contests (potentially 10), there has been a slow chorus of cries for her to concede defeat to Mr. Obama. However, that would be premature at the moment. She is nowhere near mathematically eliminated and the structure of the Democratic primaries strongly suggests that she will finish within striking distance (1700-1550 possibly). This would confirm Democratic fears that things would need to be decided by the Superdelegates.
The thought processes of the Superdelegates are difficult to ascertain. Some have firmly committed themselves to one candidate or another and will probably not back down until defeat is inevitable. Others might go the way of their state or congressional district (essentially punting on a decision and following the electorate). Still others are sitting back and waiting to see how the situation will best benefit them. Mr. Gore appears to be one of these as he has refused to pick either side and is clearly trying to retain his role as elder statesman and minor deity.
Ms. Clinton might bow to perceived momentum if she loses Texas and Ohio, but I highly doubt it. Both Clintons are not known for giving up and there are too many political favors still out there for her to throw in the towel just because Mr. Obama has a flashy statistic that ultimately doesn’t mean anything. This is a scrum that will continue for a while, despite the hysterical shrieks from party insiders to end things quickly.
Meanwhile, Mr. McCain added over 100 delegates to his total leaving him a little over 350 delegates short of the outright majority. Mr. Huckabee has said he’ll stay in to offer a choice to Republicans and I expect him to now stay in until the March 10th Mississippi primary. However, after that, his money should be about exhausted and there won’t be another primary until the Virgin Islands contest on April 4th. What’s more, 376 delegates will be assigned over the next month. If Mr. McCain breaks 60-40 with Mr. Huckabee, he will take about 226 delegates, which will put him around 1,050 or only 150 short of the majority. Given the nature of the states and the delegate allocation style that the Republicans will be competing in, it is even possible that Mr. McCain could gather even higher totals and be within spitting distance of the nomination by this point.
Despite this, I believe that Mr. Huckabee has the right to stay in as long as he wants and if people want to give him money to continue in this quest, that is their business. No one should withdraw until they are comfortable with the decision to do so.
Mr. Obama currently has 1043 firmly pledged delegates to Ms. Clinton’s 947 delegates. There are an additional 20 pledged delegates that haven’t been assigned because the votes are still being counted in four locations (MD, VA, NM and Dems Abroad). There are 156 delegates from states that have had caucuses but will not actually assign national delegates until the state conventions sometime in late spring and early summer. A majority of these (probably 60-40) will go to Mr. Obama. This leaves 1,074 delegates left to be assigned in the remaining contests from February 19 through June 7. Then of course you have the 796 Superdelegates, bringing the overall total to 4,048 delegates.
I give all these numbers because with the losses that Ms. Clinton has suffered in the past eight contests (potentially 10), there has been a slow chorus of cries for her to concede defeat to Mr. Obama. However, that would be premature at the moment. She is nowhere near mathematically eliminated and the structure of the Democratic primaries strongly suggests that she will finish within striking distance (1700-1550 possibly). This would confirm Democratic fears that things would need to be decided by the Superdelegates.
The thought processes of the Superdelegates are difficult to ascertain. Some have firmly committed themselves to one candidate or another and will probably not back down until defeat is inevitable. Others might go the way of their state or congressional district (essentially punting on a decision and following the electorate). Still others are sitting back and waiting to see how the situation will best benefit them. Mr. Gore appears to be one of these as he has refused to pick either side and is clearly trying to retain his role as elder statesman and minor deity.
Ms. Clinton might bow to perceived momentum if she loses Texas and Ohio, but I highly doubt it. Both Clintons are not known for giving up and there are too many political favors still out there for her to throw in the towel just because Mr. Obama has a flashy statistic that ultimately doesn’t mean anything. This is a scrum that will continue for a while, despite the hysterical shrieks from party insiders to end things quickly.
Meanwhile, Mr. McCain added over 100 delegates to his total leaving him a little over 350 delegates short of the outright majority. Mr. Huckabee has said he’ll stay in to offer a choice to Republicans and I expect him to now stay in until the March 10th Mississippi primary. However, after that, his money should be about exhausted and there won’t be another primary until the Virgin Islands contest on April 4th. What’s more, 376 delegates will be assigned over the next month. If Mr. McCain breaks 60-40 with Mr. Huckabee, he will take about 226 delegates, which will put him around 1,050 or only 150 short of the majority. Given the nature of the states and the delegate allocation style that the Republicans will be competing in, it is even possible that Mr. McCain could gather even higher totals and be within spitting distance of the nomination by this point.
Despite this, I believe that Mr. Huckabee has the right to stay in as long as he wants and if people want to give him money to continue in this quest, that is their business. No one should withdraw until they are comfortable with the decision to do so.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Hard Delegate Math
To give an idea of how fluid things are, these are the delegate totals for the Democrats. Many of the caucuses have been won by Mr. Obama, but the national delegates won't be awarded until the state conventions. These are the hard numbers of committed delegates that each candidate has:
State Clinton Obama Edwards Uncommitted
IA June 14 - 45 delegates avail
NH 9 9 9
MI 0 0 0
NV April 20 - 25 delegates avail
SC 12 25 8
FL 0 0 0
AL 25 27 0
AK May 24 - 13 delegates avail
A Sam 2 1 0
AZ 31 25 0
AR 27 8 0
CA 207 163 0
CO May 17 - 55 delegates avail
CT 22 26 0
DE 6 9 0
Dem Abroad Feb 12 - 22 delegates avail
GA 27 57 0
ID June 14 - 18 delegates avail
IL 45 91 0
KS 9 23 0
MA 54 37 0
MN 24 48 0
MO 36 36 0
NJ 59 48 0
NM 13 12 0
NY 139 93 0
ND 5 8 0
OK 24 14 0
TN 34 21 0
UT 9 14 0
LA 15 23 0
NE 8 16 0
Vir Is 0 3 0
WA 24 53 0 1
ME 9 15 0
DC Feb 12 - 15 delegates avail
MD Feb 12 - 70 delegates avail
VA Feb 12 - 83 delegates avail
HI Feb 19 - 20 delegates avail
WI Feb 19 - 74 delegates avail
OH Mar 4 - 141 delegates avail
RI Mar 4 - 21 delegates avail
TX Mar 4 - 193 delegates avail
VT Mar 4 - 15 delegates avail
WY Mar 8 - 7 delegates avail
MS Mar 11 - 33 delegates avail
PA Apr 22 - 158 delegates avail
Guam May 3 - 3 delegates avail
IN May 6 - 72 delegates avail
NC May 6 - 155 delegates avail
WV May 13 - 28 delegates avail
KS May 17 - 11 delegates avail
KY May 20 - 51 delegates avail
OR May 20 - 52 delegates avail
WY May 24 - 5 delegates avail
MT Jun 3 - 16 delegates avail
SD Jun 3 - 15 delegates avail
PR Jun 7 - 55 delegates avail
A few places are on twice as they allocate delegates at two different events. A quick sum of the committed delegates shows Mr. Obama ahead 905 to 875 with Mr. Edwards retaining 17 delegates and 1 Uncommitted. Mr. Obama will gain more delegates as he won most of the caucuses that will meet in May and June to allocate delegates, but as I posted earlier, Ms. Clinton could snag more than she expects. She could also lose more delegates than she thought if she is percieved as weak or Mr. Obama makes better deals. Ms. Clinton does have the lead in pledged Superdelegates, but those don't mean much as they may change their mind once the convention rolls around.
Ultimately, no decisions should be made by either party until quite a few more of these contests have been decided. I would be very surprised if one candidate withdrew before June.
State Clinton Obama Edwards Uncommitted
IA June 14 - 45 delegates avail
NH 9 9 9
MI 0 0 0
NV April 20 - 25 delegates avail
SC 12 25 8
FL 0 0 0
AL 25 27 0
AK May 24 - 13 delegates avail
A Sam 2 1 0
AZ 31 25 0
AR 27 8 0
CA 207 163 0
CO May 17 - 55 delegates avail
CT 22 26 0
DE 6 9 0
Dem Abroad Feb 12 - 22 delegates avail
GA 27 57 0
ID June 14 - 18 delegates avail
IL 45 91 0
KS 9 23 0
MA 54 37 0
MN 24 48 0
MO 36 36 0
NJ 59 48 0
NM 13 12 0
NY 139 93 0
ND 5 8 0
OK 24 14 0
TN 34 21 0
UT 9 14 0
LA 15 23 0
NE 8 16 0
Vir Is 0 3 0
WA 24 53 0 1
ME 9 15 0
DC Feb 12 - 15 delegates avail
MD Feb 12 - 70 delegates avail
VA Feb 12 - 83 delegates avail
HI Feb 19 - 20 delegates avail
WI Feb 19 - 74 delegates avail
OH Mar 4 - 141 delegates avail
RI Mar 4 - 21 delegates avail
TX Mar 4 - 193 delegates avail
VT Mar 4 - 15 delegates avail
WY Mar 8 - 7 delegates avail
MS Mar 11 - 33 delegates avail
PA Apr 22 - 158 delegates avail
Guam May 3 - 3 delegates avail
IN May 6 - 72 delegates avail
NC May 6 - 155 delegates avail
WV May 13 - 28 delegates avail
KS May 17 - 11 delegates avail
KY May 20 - 51 delegates avail
OR May 20 - 52 delegates avail
WY May 24 - 5 delegates avail
MT Jun 3 - 16 delegates avail
SD Jun 3 - 15 delegates avail
PR Jun 7 - 55 delegates avail
A few places are on twice as they allocate delegates at two different events. A quick sum of the committed delegates shows Mr. Obama ahead 905 to 875 with Mr. Edwards retaining 17 delegates and 1 Uncommitted. Mr. Obama will gain more delegates as he won most of the caucuses that will meet in May and June to allocate delegates, but as I posted earlier, Ms. Clinton could snag more than she expects. She could also lose more delegates than she thought if she is percieved as weak or Mr. Obama makes better deals. Ms. Clinton does have the lead in pledged Superdelegates, but those don't mean much as they may change their mind once the convention rolls around.
Ultimately, no decisions should be made by either party until quite a few more of these contests have been decided. I would be very surprised if one candidate withdrew before June.
Clear as Mud
I never took statistics in college so I am not overwhelmingly familiar with the various nuances of patterns. However, one of the political blogs I read does a pretty good job sifting the data and has come up with a decent breakdown of Democratic voting patterns so far. The one major caveat in all this analysis is that it assumes that voting trends stay static. After today, Mr. Obama will likely have won eight contests in a row and perception can dictate reality. There is a possibility that many of the people who are in the Clinton camp, may start to vote for Mr. Obama simply because of the perceived wave of momentum and the belief that they need to pick a candidate now to counter Mr. McCain.
However, if the patterns do remain static, we should be able to apply this measure and see how things will break in the near future. As we noted, Mr. Obama will probably sweep the three Potomac primaries today, although Ms. Clinton could do better in Virginia than many are expecting her to.
One week later, Wisconsin and Hawaii will vote. Hawaii will probably go to Mr. Obama due to its being the state of his birth and its being a caucus state. Ms. Clinton has a shot at Wisconsin due to its heavy union and manufacturing base, but that might be offset by the influence of Chicago on the Milwaukee media market as well as the heavily liberal university areas in the center of the state. But with a week of time to play with, Ms. Clinton could make things close if she spends a lot of time in the state.
Texas is almost sure to go Ms. Clinton’s way although Mr. Obama will do very well in the Dallas region and will take a number of delegates due to this area. Ohio is the real question. Ms. Clinton should do well in the union areas of Cleveland, Toledo, and Youngstown while Mr. Obama will do well in Columbus and Cincinnati. The nominally Republican areas of southeast Ohio will probably favor Ms. Clinton due to the low income and largely white nature of the region. She also has the strong backing of Gov. Strickland, which might swing a few fence sitters. Still, Mr. Obama will do well enough in some congressional districts to win a few delegates. Ms. Clinton should also win Rhode Island although I think Vermont might trend towards Mr. Obama.
These should blunt Mr. Obama’s momentum if the models hold although he will pick up steam again with likely victories in Wyoming and Mississippi a few days later. Then there is a long layoff until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22. Mr. Obama should be ahead in overall delegate count, although the margin may not be that large if Ms. Clinton does as well as the models suggest she should. The long layoff should help Ms. Clinton really work the state and she should take it, although Mr. Obama is likely to do very well in the Philadelphia region.
After this come a string of lesser primaries, many of which will favor Mr. Obama. Going with my gut and the numbers suggested by the model, I would guess the breakdown of the remaining states and territories would be:
Indiana – Obama
North Carolina – Obama
West Virginia – Clinton
Kentucky – Clinton
Oregon – Obama
Montana – Obama
South Dakota – Obama
Puerto Rico – Clinton
All total, it is unlikely that either candidate will get the 2,025 delegates necessary to win. So it comes down to the Superdelegates.
Some Superdelegates have already pledged, but they have the right to change their minds. Some will probably take the safe way out and go with the way their district or state voted. However, that would still leave upwards of 300-400 Superdelegates unaccounted for.
We also still have the nastiness that could emerge from seating the Michigan and Florida delegations. Some accommodation could probably be made with Florida since all names were on the ballot and Ms. Clinton did not break the non-campaign pledge until the day of the primary so those results are probably close to the real numbers for the state. Michigan on the other hand, did not have Mr. Obama or Mr. Edwards on the ballot and trying to award those delegates based on the voting results would be drastically inaccurate. If it does come down to a floor fight, the two states might be allowed to sit after the first ballot is inconclusive, although who knows how things will actually go.
One other little wrinkle in the picture is that many of the caucus states do not directly elect delegates to the national convention. Instead, they elect delegates to the state convention who then elect delegate to the national convention. So, while Mr. Obama might have won the majority of delegates to a state convention, it is not inconceivable that Ms. Clinton and her delegates could convince some of those to change position and she would take more delegates to the national convention.
With all these variables going on, I strongly suspect that any rumors that Ms. Clinton will withdraw if she loses Texas and Ohio are strongly overblown. Mr. Obama might have the momentum at the moment, but Ms. Clinton will fight back. It may get ugly before it’s all done, but it will get done eventually.
However, if the patterns do remain static, we should be able to apply this measure and see how things will break in the near future. As we noted, Mr. Obama will probably sweep the three Potomac primaries today, although Ms. Clinton could do better in Virginia than many are expecting her to.
One week later, Wisconsin and Hawaii will vote. Hawaii will probably go to Mr. Obama due to its being the state of his birth and its being a caucus state. Ms. Clinton has a shot at Wisconsin due to its heavy union and manufacturing base, but that might be offset by the influence of Chicago on the Milwaukee media market as well as the heavily liberal university areas in the center of the state. But with a week of time to play with, Ms. Clinton could make things close if she spends a lot of time in the state.
Texas is almost sure to go Ms. Clinton’s way although Mr. Obama will do very well in the Dallas region and will take a number of delegates due to this area. Ohio is the real question. Ms. Clinton should do well in the union areas of Cleveland, Toledo, and Youngstown while Mr. Obama will do well in Columbus and Cincinnati. The nominally Republican areas of southeast Ohio will probably favor Ms. Clinton due to the low income and largely white nature of the region. She also has the strong backing of Gov. Strickland, which might swing a few fence sitters. Still, Mr. Obama will do well enough in some congressional districts to win a few delegates. Ms. Clinton should also win Rhode Island although I think Vermont might trend towards Mr. Obama.
These should blunt Mr. Obama’s momentum if the models hold although he will pick up steam again with likely victories in Wyoming and Mississippi a few days later. Then there is a long layoff until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22. Mr. Obama should be ahead in overall delegate count, although the margin may not be that large if Ms. Clinton does as well as the models suggest she should. The long layoff should help Ms. Clinton really work the state and she should take it, although Mr. Obama is likely to do very well in the Philadelphia region.
After this come a string of lesser primaries, many of which will favor Mr. Obama. Going with my gut and the numbers suggested by the model, I would guess the breakdown of the remaining states and territories would be:
Indiana – Obama
North Carolina – Obama
West Virginia – Clinton
Kentucky – Clinton
Oregon – Obama
Montana – Obama
South Dakota – Obama
Puerto Rico – Clinton
All total, it is unlikely that either candidate will get the 2,025 delegates necessary to win. So it comes down to the Superdelegates.
Some Superdelegates have already pledged, but they have the right to change their minds. Some will probably take the safe way out and go with the way their district or state voted. However, that would still leave upwards of 300-400 Superdelegates unaccounted for.
We also still have the nastiness that could emerge from seating the Michigan and Florida delegations. Some accommodation could probably be made with Florida since all names were on the ballot and Ms. Clinton did not break the non-campaign pledge until the day of the primary so those results are probably close to the real numbers for the state. Michigan on the other hand, did not have Mr. Obama or Mr. Edwards on the ballot and trying to award those delegates based on the voting results would be drastically inaccurate. If it does come down to a floor fight, the two states might be allowed to sit after the first ballot is inconclusive, although who knows how things will actually go.
One other little wrinkle in the picture is that many of the caucus states do not directly elect delegates to the national convention. Instead, they elect delegates to the state convention who then elect delegate to the national convention. So, while Mr. Obama might have won the majority of delegates to a state convention, it is not inconceivable that Ms. Clinton and her delegates could convince some of those to change position and she would take more delegates to the national convention.
With all these variables going on, I strongly suspect that any rumors that Ms. Clinton will withdraw if she loses Texas and Ohio are strongly overblown. Mr. Obama might have the momentum at the moment, but Ms. Clinton will fight back. It may get ugly before it’s all done, but it will get done eventually.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Swing States
Now that the Republican race is all but decided (I suspect that Mr. Huckabee will withdraw following losses in Washington, Kansas, DC and Maryland (and maybe Louisiana and Virginia) on Tuesday) most of the media attention will shift over to the Democrats, who won’t have anything decided until April or May at the earliest. Pundits are already looking at national polls to try and determine who best matches up with Mr. McCain as if to use those to break the outcome one way or the other.
However, the media’s love of national polls consistently overlooks the reality of our elections and why most of this type of talk is useless. We do not hold a national election for President. We hold 50 state elections for President. It only matters how each nominee does in the states and most of those states are already forgone conclusions. For example, despite Mr. Obama’s heavy draw of the African-American vote, there is little doubt that Mr. McCain will win most of the south. Perhaps he will be competitive in Georgia, but the numbers favor a Republican sweep unless there is a southern Democrat at the top of the ticket (and Ms. Clinton doesn’t count). Conversely, despite his appeals to independents and moderates, there is very little chance that Mr. McCain will take any states in New England or the mid-Atlantic outside of New Hampshire. He may have a chance in Pennsylvania if the African-American turnout in Philadelphia is depressed, but the Democrats should hold most of these states with a little effort.
Ultimately this election will probably turn on the same states as the last two:
Florida might be in play, but due to its high military population and Republican administration, Florida is trending strongly towards Mr. McCain at the moment.
Iowa will fall back to the Democrats due to Mr. McCain’s opposition to AG subsidies. This will more than offset the likely loss of New Hampshire to the Republicans, which is a more conservative state and likes Mr. McCain very much.
Colorado has been waving back and forth for a while. The Democrats have their convention in Denver and will be pushing hard to take this state.
Wisconsin will also be in play due to the narrow margins that have been showing up in the state in the past few years. Enough independents could be swayed to turn the state red for this election.
Connecticut would not normally be in play but it seems clear that Mr. Lieberman is endorsing Mr. McCain at the moment, although I don’t know what will happen when the general election comes. If he sticks by Mr. McCain’s side, it could put the state in play, although I still expect it to go blue.
The big one is probably Ohio. There is a Democratic government in power and the numbers have been narrow for a number of years. High turnout and Democratic mobility could turn the state blue with the proper amount of prompting. I would expect Mr. McCain to organize a deep grassroots base here early to try and overcome these natural Democratic advantages. I would also expect a prominent Ohio politician like Rob Portman to lead the team in the hopes of using that for his own purposes of challenging Mr. Strickland for the governor’s mansion in 2010.
Perhaps I’ll be wrong and more states will be in play for the election, but I’d be willing to bet that these will be the states that get the most discussion in terms of swing.
However, the media’s love of national polls consistently overlooks the reality of our elections and why most of this type of talk is useless. We do not hold a national election for President. We hold 50 state elections for President. It only matters how each nominee does in the states and most of those states are already forgone conclusions. For example, despite Mr. Obama’s heavy draw of the African-American vote, there is little doubt that Mr. McCain will win most of the south. Perhaps he will be competitive in Georgia, but the numbers favor a Republican sweep unless there is a southern Democrat at the top of the ticket (and Ms. Clinton doesn’t count). Conversely, despite his appeals to independents and moderates, there is very little chance that Mr. McCain will take any states in New England or the mid-Atlantic outside of New Hampshire. He may have a chance in Pennsylvania if the African-American turnout in Philadelphia is depressed, but the Democrats should hold most of these states with a little effort.
Ultimately this election will probably turn on the same states as the last two:
Florida might be in play, but due to its high military population and Republican administration, Florida is trending strongly towards Mr. McCain at the moment.
Iowa will fall back to the Democrats due to Mr. McCain’s opposition to AG subsidies. This will more than offset the likely loss of New Hampshire to the Republicans, which is a more conservative state and likes Mr. McCain very much.
Colorado has been waving back and forth for a while. The Democrats have their convention in Denver and will be pushing hard to take this state.
Wisconsin will also be in play due to the narrow margins that have been showing up in the state in the past few years. Enough independents could be swayed to turn the state red for this election.
Connecticut would not normally be in play but it seems clear that Mr. Lieberman is endorsing Mr. McCain at the moment, although I don’t know what will happen when the general election comes. If he sticks by Mr. McCain’s side, it could put the state in play, although I still expect it to go blue.
The big one is probably Ohio. There is a Democratic government in power and the numbers have been narrow for a number of years. High turnout and Democratic mobility could turn the state blue with the proper amount of prompting. I would expect Mr. McCain to organize a deep grassroots base here early to try and overcome these natural Democratic advantages. I would also expect a prominent Ohio politician like Rob Portman to lead the team in the hopes of using that for his own purposes of challenging Mr. Strickland for the governor’s mansion in 2010.
Perhaps I’ll be wrong and more states will be in play for the election, but I’d be willing to bet that these will be the states that get the most discussion in terms of swing.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
One Side Set
Well, the Republican race is effectively over. Mr. Romney has suspended his campaign. He has not released his delegates just yet. He probably won’t do that until after Mr. McCain has officially clinched. Mr. Romney will still get some votes out of protest, but I sincerely doubt that his voters will rally to Mr. Huckabee. More likely, many Republican primary voters will just stay home since the race is no longer in doubt. We can say this because despite his noble speech about staying in the race, Mr. Huckabee is almost completely mathematically eliminated based on his current delegate totals and the remaining delegates available. 2,380 Republican delegates are available so a candidate needs 1,191 to win. Mr. Huckabee currently has not quite 200 while Mr. McCain has over 700 and Mr. Romney has almost 300. This leaves about 1,200 delegates in the remaining states. Mr. Huckabee would need 5/6th of those delegates that would mean just about every Republican voter going to him. Not going to happen.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are in a sticky mess. Mr. Obama is ahead of Ms. Clinton in the pledged delegates while she is ahead in the Superdelegate count. The net result is that Ms. Clinton has about an 80-delegate lead out of a total of 4,048 delegates. Even though Mr. Obama has momentum and will likely win most of the states prior the March 4th primaries in Texas and Ohio, proportional delegate allocation will keep these two candidates neck and neck probably through all the primaries. That means that winner will have to be decided through the tiebreaker of either Superdelegates or even by reallocating the lost delegates from Michigan and Florida. Both of these would favor Ms. Clinton, although there are rumors that the Democratic Party may hold caucuses in Florida and Michigan to allocate the delegates properly. This would displease Ms. Clinton who won those states (although in an underhanded way in Michigan) and typically does not do as well as Mr. Obama in caucus style venues.
Either way, there is a very real possibility that neither candidate wins a majority based on the votes of the people. Then it suddenly becomes a game among the party elites and bosses. Who does each campaign owe the most favors to, who will make the better deals, etc. This favors Ms. Clinton due the sixteen years that the Clinton machine has been moving things in the party. This starts to give off the air of the smoky backroom that caused so much anger among the populace back in 1968.
The worst-case scenario is that Ms. Clinton emerges from the fray and Mr. Obama lets it be known that he did not agree to the deal. This would alienate African-Americans (already a little miffed at Ms. Clinton) and drive independents into Mr. McCain’s arms. It’s actually in Mr. Obama’s best interests not to have Ms. Clinton win as it sets him up as the betrayed man ready to lead the charge in 2012. A better scenario would be Mr. Obama emerging from the fray leading a united party, but I’m not sure the Clinton machine will relinquish power that easily. Plus, it might drive Latinos further towards Mr. McCain. Latinos are not block voters, but if enough of them are unhappy with Mr. Obama and mollified towards Mr. McCain’s immigration policy, it could keep the Democrats from taking back New Mexico or challenging Mr. McCain in Texas. Even worse would be a defection in mass to cause the numbers to waver in California, but this is an extreme scenario.
Also complicating things for the Democrats is that Mr. McCain can now sit back; gather up a lot of money while he makes nice with the conservatives. Then he can run lots of positive messages about his plans for the country and why we should vote for him. Meanwhile, the Democrats can’t run any positive messages because they don’t have a candidate and will be forced to only run negative ads against Mr. McCain through various 529s.
Now, make no mistake, the Democrats can win this election, but their road keeps becoming harder and harder to climb. If Mr. McCain can make peace with conservatives and bring the base out in reasonable numbers, he will retain most of the states Mr. Bush won and will only need to fight in places like Ohio, Iowa, and Florida. What’s more, with enough resources and fracture among the Democrats, Mr. McCain could even challenge Democratic weak points such as New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (possibly even Pennsylvania if he makes inroads with the African-American community). If the Democrats want the White House, they are going to need to make nice before the convention and hope that Mr. McCain is unable to mend his fences with the Right Wing. Otherwise, it might be a long and bitter four years.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are in a sticky mess. Mr. Obama is ahead of Ms. Clinton in the pledged delegates while she is ahead in the Superdelegate count. The net result is that Ms. Clinton has about an 80-delegate lead out of a total of 4,048 delegates. Even though Mr. Obama has momentum and will likely win most of the states prior the March 4th primaries in Texas and Ohio, proportional delegate allocation will keep these two candidates neck and neck probably through all the primaries. That means that winner will have to be decided through the tiebreaker of either Superdelegates or even by reallocating the lost delegates from Michigan and Florida. Both of these would favor Ms. Clinton, although there are rumors that the Democratic Party may hold caucuses in Florida and Michigan to allocate the delegates properly. This would displease Ms. Clinton who won those states (although in an underhanded way in Michigan) and typically does not do as well as Mr. Obama in caucus style venues.
Either way, there is a very real possibility that neither candidate wins a majority based on the votes of the people. Then it suddenly becomes a game among the party elites and bosses. Who does each campaign owe the most favors to, who will make the better deals, etc. This favors Ms. Clinton due the sixteen years that the Clinton machine has been moving things in the party. This starts to give off the air of the smoky backroom that caused so much anger among the populace back in 1968.
The worst-case scenario is that Ms. Clinton emerges from the fray and Mr. Obama lets it be known that he did not agree to the deal. This would alienate African-Americans (already a little miffed at Ms. Clinton) and drive independents into Mr. McCain’s arms. It’s actually in Mr. Obama’s best interests not to have Ms. Clinton win as it sets him up as the betrayed man ready to lead the charge in 2012. A better scenario would be Mr. Obama emerging from the fray leading a united party, but I’m not sure the Clinton machine will relinquish power that easily. Plus, it might drive Latinos further towards Mr. McCain. Latinos are not block voters, but if enough of them are unhappy with Mr. Obama and mollified towards Mr. McCain’s immigration policy, it could keep the Democrats from taking back New Mexico or challenging Mr. McCain in Texas. Even worse would be a defection in mass to cause the numbers to waver in California, but this is an extreme scenario.
Also complicating things for the Democrats is that Mr. McCain can now sit back; gather up a lot of money while he makes nice with the conservatives. Then he can run lots of positive messages about his plans for the country and why we should vote for him. Meanwhile, the Democrats can’t run any positive messages because they don’t have a candidate and will be forced to only run negative ads against Mr. McCain through various 529s.
Now, make no mistake, the Democrats can win this election, but their road keeps becoming harder and harder to climb. If Mr. McCain can make peace with conservatives and bring the base out in reasonable numbers, he will retain most of the states Mr. Bush won and will only need to fight in places like Ohio, Iowa, and Florida. What’s more, with enough resources and fracture among the Democrats, Mr. McCain could even challenge Democratic weak points such as New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (possibly even Pennsylvania if he makes inroads with the African-American community). If the Democrats want the White House, they are going to need to make nice before the convention and hope that Mr. McCain is unable to mend his fences with the Right Wing. Otherwise, it might be a long and bitter four years.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Giants Triumphant
I didn’t really have a dog in this fight, but I was rather happy to see the NY Giants defeat the NE Patriots in the Super Bowl. As much as Mrs. X and I dislike Eli Manning’s audacity and presumption (“Shut up, Eli”), I was more tired of the arrogance of the Patriots. Amazon even posted a listing a book for two hours earlier in the week called “19-0,” to say nothing of Tom Brady’s look of insult when Plexico Burress stated that the Patriots were only going to score 17 points.
It was an entertaining game at the end, but not so much at the beginning. One was left with the feeling that a breakout was possible, but a good defensive struggle does not capture the imagination that well. It got really good when both teams finally managed to stand up to tired defenses and run down the field to score touchdowns. So the fourth quarter made up for a lack luster first three. Although one did get a sense that things were coming apart for the Patriots when Belichick made the stupid call to go for it on a 4th and 13 when it was a makeable 49-yard field goal kick. At the time I remember thinking that the Patriots were starting to panic a little in their offensive frustration.
I have no real problem with Eli being named MVP if only for that great escape and throw (although the receiver deserved equal credit for the play). However, I think one could easily have made an argument that someone on the defensive line should have won it. But since you can’t split the MVP into 4 parts (or at least three between Strahan, Uminyoura, and Tuck), the writers fell back to the old quarterback standby, which is fine.
Now, on to the commercials. Mrs. X and I both think that the ads have jumped the shark as none of them showed any depth of imagination and some were just outright bad (Planters, Careerbuilder and Sales Genie: Pandas were particularly bad). Very few were worth mentioning, but I will say that I liked the balloon Coke ad best. Simple, good music and a mildly amusing concept. I didn’t see all of the Garmin commercial, but based on the descriptions, I think I would have liked it as “Napoleon is short” jokes are always amusing to me (but I like to make fun of the French). I also liked the NFL oboe player one. Budweiser didn't do very well as only the end joke of the Caveman ad was funny (I thought the Rocky ad was a bit tired and predictable). I missed one or two others, but reading the brief review of each ad on Time this morning, leads me to believe that I didn’t miss much. Maybe advertisers will clue in a little next year.
It was an entertaining game at the end, but not so much at the beginning. One was left with the feeling that a breakout was possible, but a good defensive struggle does not capture the imagination that well. It got really good when both teams finally managed to stand up to tired defenses and run down the field to score touchdowns. So the fourth quarter made up for a lack luster first three. Although one did get a sense that things were coming apart for the Patriots when Belichick made the stupid call to go for it on a 4th and 13 when it was a makeable 49-yard field goal kick. At the time I remember thinking that the Patriots were starting to panic a little in their offensive frustration.
I have no real problem with Eli being named MVP if only for that great escape and throw (although the receiver deserved equal credit for the play). However, I think one could easily have made an argument that someone on the defensive line should have won it. But since you can’t split the MVP into 4 parts (or at least three between Strahan, Uminyoura, and Tuck), the writers fell back to the old quarterback standby, which is fine.
Now, on to the commercials. Mrs. X and I both think that the ads have jumped the shark as none of them showed any depth of imagination and some were just outright bad (Planters, Careerbuilder and Sales Genie: Pandas were particularly bad). Very few were worth mentioning, but I will say that I liked the balloon Coke ad best. Simple, good music and a mildly amusing concept. I didn’t see all of the Garmin commercial, but based on the descriptions, I think I would have liked it as “Napoleon is short” jokes are always amusing to me (but I like to make fun of the French). I also liked the NFL oboe player one. Budweiser didn't do very well as only the end joke of the Caveman ad was funny (I thought the Rocky ad was a bit tired and predictable). I missed one or two others, but reading the brief review of each ad on Time this morning, leads me to believe that I didn’t miss much. Maybe advertisers will clue in a little next year.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Two Elephants, Two Donkeys
Well, it is all but over for the Republican primaries. Mr. McCain won Florida by 5 points and that seems like a significant margin to me. What’s more, Mr. Giuliani pulled out and is going to endorse McCain. Not all of Mr. Giuliani’s supporters will flock to Mr. McCain, but enough of them will that the lead will be padded a bit, especially in the northeast states of Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, which are all winner take all (total 183 delegates). Mr. McCain also has a sizable lead in California and will probably take a majority of those delegates (173) in addition to winner-take-all Arizona (53).
Mr. Romney will probably win Utah and Massachusetts, however Massachusetts is not a winner take all (Utah is) and he will have to split those 43 delegates with Mr. McCain. I’m not sure how the South will go. Mr. Huckabee is out of money and can’t move much beyond the Deep South, although he will probably try to make a push at Missouri (58 winner take all delegates) to keep himself viable. However, victory is not assured for him anywhere other than Arkansas (34 delegates).
Other Super Tuesday states and their standings are as follows:
Georgia – 72 delegates
Illinois – 70 delegates
Tennessee – 55 delegates
Alabama – 48 delegates
Colorado – 46 delegates
Minnesota – 41 delegates
Oklahoma – 41 delegates
West Virginia – 30 delegates
Alaska – 29 delegates
North Dakota – 26 delegates
Montana – 25 delegates (WTA)
Delaware – 18 delegates (WTA)
Maine has their primary on Friday (2/1) for 21 delegates. Taking an average 40% split of the loose delegates and most of the WTA delegates and Mr. McCain could walk away from Super Tuesday with anywhere from 500 to 600 delegates. Conversely, Mr. Romney is looking at a prize of only 300 to 350 delegates unless he can somehow dislodge Mr. McCain from the northeast. Thus, by next week, Mr. McCain will probably have a 2-1 advantage in the delegate count and have over half of the total needed to secure the nomination.
On the Democratic side, Mr. Edwards is dropping out. Its difficult to say whom this will help, but it does mean that the Democrats will probably select a nominee before the convention. So the media’s pipe dream will disappear, but it could still be a very vicious, nasty battle before things are all said and done.
Mr. Romney will probably win Utah and Massachusetts, however Massachusetts is not a winner take all (Utah is) and he will have to split those 43 delegates with Mr. McCain. I’m not sure how the South will go. Mr. Huckabee is out of money and can’t move much beyond the Deep South, although he will probably try to make a push at Missouri (58 winner take all delegates) to keep himself viable. However, victory is not assured for him anywhere other than Arkansas (34 delegates).
Other Super Tuesday states and their standings are as follows:
Georgia – 72 delegates
Illinois – 70 delegates
Tennessee – 55 delegates
Alabama – 48 delegates
Colorado – 46 delegates
Minnesota – 41 delegates
Oklahoma – 41 delegates
West Virginia – 30 delegates
Alaska – 29 delegates
North Dakota – 26 delegates
Montana – 25 delegates (WTA)
Delaware – 18 delegates (WTA)
Maine has their primary on Friday (2/1) for 21 delegates. Taking an average 40% split of the loose delegates and most of the WTA delegates and Mr. McCain could walk away from Super Tuesday with anywhere from 500 to 600 delegates. Conversely, Mr. Romney is looking at a prize of only 300 to 350 delegates unless he can somehow dislodge Mr. McCain from the northeast. Thus, by next week, Mr. McCain will probably have a 2-1 advantage in the delegate count and have over half of the total needed to secure the nomination.
On the Democratic side, Mr. Edwards is dropping out. Its difficult to say whom this will help, but it does mean that the Democrats will probably select a nominee before the convention. So the media’s pipe dream will disappear, but it could still be a very vicious, nasty battle before things are all said and done.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
One Side Crystalizing
Well things are going to get a little more interesting after today. Not on the Democratic side though. Ms. Clinton will probably win Florida by a reasonable margin due to her actually spending a little time in the state (despite it having no delegates). This will be her attempt to change the news story, trying to get the bad taste of her 28-point loss in South Carolina and loss of the Kennedy endorsement out of her mouth. I don’t think she will be that successful though.
On the Republican side, things could be very interesting. Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney are neck and neck and will probably finish within a few points of each other. This will be a devastating blow to Mr. Giuliani who may withdraw before Super Tuesday just to avoid the humiliation of possibly losing New York to Mr. McCain. If Mr. Romney is to win tonight, he will have to maintain a 3-5 point lead through the early returns and most of the night. The heavily Cuban-American counties around Miami are usually the last to report and Mr. McCain will probably win those decisively. So if Mr. McCain is leading or only down by 1-2 points, before those areas report, he will most likely win Florida.
If Mr. McCain wins Florida, he will probably all but lock the nomination. Even if he loses, he will probably get major delegate draws, if not outright state wins, from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Arizona, and California. These states alone could provide him with one-quarter of the delegates needed to win the nomination and a victory in Florida will probably make him even more viable in other states.
If Mr. Romney wins, he can compete harder in other states in addition to sitting on wins in Utah and Massachusetts. A Florida win will give the impression of momentum that Mr. Romney could use to rack up delegate totals similar to Mr. McCain and try to make it two-man fight heading into the later states of Texas and Ohio.
One significant problem for Mr. Romney though is the fact that when Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Huckabee drop out of the race, they will likely release their delegates in favor of Mr. McCain, with whom they have been cordial. Mr. Romney’s relationship with the rest of the field has been rather unpleasant, much of it originating with his early descent into mud slinging.
If Mr. McCain does win in Florida and then use that to essentially secure the nomination on Super Tuesday, speculation will immediately turn to whom he will pick as his running mate. My early money would be on Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida. Mr. McCain would draw the greatest strength in picking a Southern Governor. He is already known to be very friendly and respectful of Mr. Crist, even helping him at a rally to elect Mr. Crist as governor. Mr. Crist is also well liked in Florida and very popular with the African-American community. I personally can’t think of a better fit for Mr. McCain at the moment.
Returning to the Democratic side, it is quite clear that Super Tuesday will not decide anything for them. The nightmare scenario for them (and the dream for the media) is that Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama each draw roughly 40% of the delegates each and the remaining 20% are taken by Mr. Edwards. This trend would mean that with over half the states decided, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama will have not come anywhere close to securing the nomination and Mr. Edwards gets to sit back and make himself kingmaker. This will also allow him to bargain for a major position within the new administration. There is even a remote possibility that once the first ballot fails at the convention that Mr. Edwards is able to convince the delegates that he is the best candidate to defeat the Republican contender. But this would mean 5-6 months of Democratic infighting while the Republican candidate sits back and just makes himself look presidential.
On the Republican side, things could be very interesting. Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney are neck and neck and will probably finish within a few points of each other. This will be a devastating blow to Mr. Giuliani who may withdraw before Super Tuesday just to avoid the humiliation of possibly losing New York to Mr. McCain. If Mr. Romney is to win tonight, he will have to maintain a 3-5 point lead through the early returns and most of the night. The heavily Cuban-American counties around Miami are usually the last to report and Mr. McCain will probably win those decisively. So if Mr. McCain is leading or only down by 1-2 points, before those areas report, he will most likely win Florida.
If Mr. McCain wins Florida, he will probably all but lock the nomination. Even if he loses, he will probably get major delegate draws, if not outright state wins, from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Arizona, and California. These states alone could provide him with one-quarter of the delegates needed to win the nomination and a victory in Florida will probably make him even more viable in other states.
If Mr. Romney wins, he can compete harder in other states in addition to sitting on wins in Utah and Massachusetts. A Florida win will give the impression of momentum that Mr. Romney could use to rack up delegate totals similar to Mr. McCain and try to make it two-man fight heading into the later states of Texas and Ohio.
One significant problem for Mr. Romney though is the fact that when Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Huckabee drop out of the race, they will likely release their delegates in favor of Mr. McCain, with whom they have been cordial. Mr. Romney’s relationship with the rest of the field has been rather unpleasant, much of it originating with his early descent into mud slinging.
If Mr. McCain does win in Florida and then use that to essentially secure the nomination on Super Tuesday, speculation will immediately turn to whom he will pick as his running mate. My early money would be on Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida. Mr. McCain would draw the greatest strength in picking a Southern Governor. He is already known to be very friendly and respectful of Mr. Crist, even helping him at a rally to elect Mr. Crist as governor. Mr. Crist is also well liked in Florida and very popular with the African-American community. I personally can’t think of a better fit for Mr. McCain at the moment.
Returning to the Democratic side, it is quite clear that Super Tuesday will not decide anything for them. The nightmare scenario for them (and the dream for the media) is that Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama each draw roughly 40% of the delegates each and the remaining 20% are taken by Mr. Edwards. This trend would mean that with over half the states decided, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama will have not come anywhere close to securing the nomination and Mr. Edwards gets to sit back and make himself kingmaker. This will also allow him to bargain for a major position within the new administration. There is even a remote possibility that once the first ballot fails at the convention that Mr. Edwards is able to convince the delegates that he is the best candidate to defeat the Republican contender. But this would mean 5-6 months of Democratic infighting while the Republican candidate sits back and just makes himself look presidential.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Post Wolverine
So now Mitt Romney has won Michigan, a state he grew up in and on a day where many Independents stayed home due to snowy conditions. Mr. McCain won a solid second place and spun things that it’s hard to overcome a favorite son candidate. This may be true, but its also true that many people in Michigan didn’t like hearing that the auto manufacturer jobs aren’t coming back and need to be replaced by other jobs. People want to hear that the jobs they like and are used to, are coming back, which is what Mr. Romney seemed to be selling the people.
Things now take an interesting turn as we move into South Carolina. Mr. Romney flew from Michigan to Nevada so he is essentially ceding probably a fourth place finish at best in South Carolina. That leaves a race between Mr. McCain, Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Thompson. Mr. McCain has been polling in first place, with Mr. Huckabee second, and Mr. Thompson running third. However, there is a large undecided faction and Mr. Thompson has been working the state harder than the other two, who were distracted by Michigan. It is not out of the question that Mr. Thompson could surge ahead and win South Carolina. That would please Mr. Giuliani who needs McCain to take another defeat and clear things for him in Florida.
However, Mr. McCain does have a large network in South Carolina and Sen. Lindsey Graham working for him, so a McCain victory in South Carolina is possible. I’m betting that Mr. Huckabee’s distant third place showing in Michigan will hurt him in South Carolina, especially with Mr. Thompson’s highlights of his liberal record.
Given that, I lean towards two outcomes for the South Carolina race. A Thompson win throws the race into additional chaos, could give Mr. Giuliani the momentum going into Super Tuesday with a Florida win. If Mr. McCain wins, he could use that to eke out a win in Florida. That will practically destroy Mr. Giuliani and cripple Mr. Romney. Mr. McCain would then only have to deal with either Mr. Huckabee or Mr. Thompson, whichever one of them emerges from the south with the most wins.
On the Democratic side, Ms. Clinton won against undecided, but not quite by the margin that she should have (55-40). What’s more, exit polls suggest that she is losing the African-American vote by a startlingly large amount. This recent tiff with Mr. Obama on race has not been flattering to her. All the good she earned from the New Hampshire win will evaporate if she loses South Carolina and Nevada. Mr. Obama is averaging a 10-point lead in South Carolina at the moment and appears to be up by 2 in Nevada. Nevada will be the watched race on the donkey side come Saturday.
Things now take an interesting turn as we move into South Carolina. Mr. Romney flew from Michigan to Nevada so he is essentially ceding probably a fourth place finish at best in South Carolina. That leaves a race between Mr. McCain, Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Thompson. Mr. McCain has been polling in first place, with Mr. Huckabee second, and Mr. Thompson running third. However, there is a large undecided faction and Mr. Thompson has been working the state harder than the other two, who were distracted by Michigan. It is not out of the question that Mr. Thompson could surge ahead and win South Carolina. That would please Mr. Giuliani who needs McCain to take another defeat and clear things for him in Florida.
However, Mr. McCain does have a large network in South Carolina and Sen. Lindsey Graham working for him, so a McCain victory in South Carolina is possible. I’m betting that Mr. Huckabee’s distant third place showing in Michigan will hurt him in South Carolina, especially with Mr. Thompson’s highlights of his liberal record.
Given that, I lean towards two outcomes for the South Carolina race. A Thompson win throws the race into additional chaos, could give Mr. Giuliani the momentum going into Super Tuesday with a Florida win. If Mr. McCain wins, he could use that to eke out a win in Florida. That will practically destroy Mr. Giuliani and cripple Mr. Romney. Mr. McCain would then only have to deal with either Mr. Huckabee or Mr. Thompson, whichever one of them emerges from the south with the most wins.
On the Democratic side, Ms. Clinton won against undecided, but not quite by the margin that she should have (55-40). What’s more, exit polls suggest that she is losing the African-American vote by a startlingly large amount. This recent tiff with Mr. Obama on race has not been flattering to her. All the good she earned from the New Hampshire win will evaporate if she loses South Carolina and Nevada. Mr. Obama is averaging a 10-point lead in South Carolina at the moment and appears to be up by 2 in Nevada. Nevada will be the watched race on the donkey side come Saturday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
