Endgame

The sound of inevitability seems to be rising out here on the blogosphere, driven by the Politico's admission that the Hillary Clinton campaign's only path to victory is to bang their fist on the table and demand that Clinton be nominated President of the Ohio River Valley, because Barack Obama's preacher scared a bunch of people in Youngstown and Johnstown and Charleston and so forth. Some, including our own commenter "Shock Mouse", have wondered why the superdelegates haven't risen up to end the nomination. There are a number of reasons that hasn't happened yet; Congress depends on the high-dollar donor base, which is loyal to Clinton; many of the remaining supers come from Blue Dog districts or the Mountain West and might not want to going on record endorsing either candidate; and it would look really really bad if they endorsed Obama en masse and Clinton proceeded to win seven of the ten remaining primaries. Now is not a convenient moment for the supers to end the race.

What they really need is an excuse to end it. There are basically two possible excuses left. An Obama win in Pennsylvania would end the big state/Ohio River Valley argument and suggest that Clinton can't get her delegate deficit close enough to force a "tie". Or, he could go two-for-two on the May 6th primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, ending Clinton's domination of Lower Midwest and likely leave Obama with a larger delegate lead than he has today, with only 211 delegates remaining. If neither of those things happen, we're almost certainly going all the way to the June 3 elections.

Comments

[ikl]

This is why Obama not winning the Texas primary was a very, very bad thing. Not that it will prevent him from winning the nomination (4% is certainly close enough for those purposes), but that it deprived superdelegates of an opening to come out in large numbers for Obama and or make the case very explicitly that it is time to turn the party's attention to beating McCain.

If I were running Obama's campaign, I would invest very, very heavily in Indiana for this reason. Especially in terms of field staff and ad buys - Clinton can keep pace in visits to the state but probably not in terms of resource investment if Obama really puts a lot in there. The dangerous thing is that people often say that Indiana should be a good state for Obama, but I can't figure out any reason for this other than that it is next to IL. It is culturally more like Southern OH, southern IL or maybe even Kentucky than like Northern IL or Northern OH. The African-American population is much lower than in IL, MI or OH. Clinton is almost certain to win big in southern Indiana - the only way for Obama to win is to run up the score in Indianapolis and northwest Indiana (which might be influenced by the Chicago media market, though I'm not really sure how much) and keep things close in other parts of central and northern IN. If you look at results from IL, OH, and MI, this seems possible (Obama lost around 60-40 most places on the Ohio side of the border), but I'm not sure that I'd favor Obama. We'll see, I guess.

[ikl]

I know some of the polls have it really close, but looking at the demographics, I think that Clinton will have a very hard time winning in NC - African-Americans will be at least 30% of primary voters, I think and Obama will run better among whites in NC than in most southern states (it is more like Georgia and Virginia than it is like MS). Unless he collapses he should do fine among whites in Raleigh-Durham and to a lesser extent around Charlette. Western NC outside of Ashville could be problematic (like SW Virginia), but that doesn't account for enough of the primary vote to put Clinton over the top, I think.

[RebeccaS]

A few observations - the sound of inevitability in the blogosphere is overwhelmingly from the Obama partisan blogs, which is their right, but not reflective of the entire democratic party grassroots. It seems also to be most aggressively from the (young male DC/east coast dominated) "elite intelligentsia" of the self-identified liberal blogosphere. Mostly i've found that the more feminist or outside the mainstream the political blog I read the less stridently/obnoxiously insistent it is on the inevitability of Obama is. For full disclosure, I was a enthusiastic Edwards supporter and a somewhat less enthusiastic Clinton supporter but Obama grates on my nerves. Sorry East Coast Blogging Elites but you don't control everything thankfully (I know you don't live on the east coast Nick)!

As an aside why are we giving weight to the *Politico* as a sage source of political prognostication? While Obama may lead in delegates, the way he was awarded many of those delegates is hardly a fair reflection of who the majority of Democrats want as their nominee. There are so many wierd quirks of the delegate nomination process and even the qualification process for being able to vote in the primary for the Democratic nominee. The issue of FL and MI is a total fiasco in which the Obama campaign has shown zero leadership and outright obstructionism. But the kool kidz liberal bloggers know what the rules are. Everything that Clinton does or says is motivated by the basest possible political motives and everything that Obama says is somehow above all that! I have no problems with Obama acting in ways motivated by political calculation (ie taking his name off the ballot in MI) but its absurd to suggest that his actions re MI and FL have not been highly influenced by political calculation with very real potential negative consequences in the general election especially while being so incensed that Clinton won't give up her bid "for the sake of the party".

The fact is that neither candidate will get the magic number of delegates and that reflects a genuine split in the democratic party with certain demographics that are essential to the success of the Democratic candidate favoring Clinton.

And as much as race has been injected into the contest I feel like there has been just as much or more sexism which has been much much less examined or condemned.

[Ron]

Funny. I don't remember any arguments about the legitimacy of caucuses when Bill Clinton was running in '92 or Al Gore in '00 or Kerry in '04. These issues seem to only have come up because the one candidate is doing extremely poorly in caucus states this year. The caucuses do have their flaws, but the time to complain about them is after the election not in the middle of it.

The only reason to wait in my mind is to see how actual voters respond to the controversy over Jeremiah Wright. If there's no real impact in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana, then it will be time for the superdelegates to end this. Unless Clinton suddenly starts winning states 66-33 because of Wright, the final result of the primary process is not going to change significantly. Clinton will finish with a double digit pledged delegate deficit, fewer contests won, and less total votes (especially if you include estimated votes in caucuses). No additional information is going to be added by the remaining primaries other than more evidence of how craven and destructive her campaign is.

[weboy]

Ron, I think the reason the question of caucuses vs. primares comes up this year as opposed to others is that in past years, there was a pretty clear path for the putative nominee. This year, proportional representation and the staggering of the calendar, have produced an effect where the differences between the ways canidates are picked has brought into shrper relief. The question of "how representative the Iowa caucuses actually are" has simmered, in the background, for years. Now, when it can actually mean the difference between who we nominate, it's an issue that can't entirely be ignored. And, I suspect, were the situations reversed, Obama supporters would raise as many, if not more concerns over the caucus question. Myself, I think our bias, as Democrats should be in favor of the voting process that draws out the most voters and encourages them to participate; while caucuses this year have been very well attended, the turnout in caucus states has been far lower than primary states, the caucus processes have been overwhelmed in many places, and many questions have emerged. I think, when the dust has settled, reasonable people can, and should, calmly look over what happened this year, and at least discuss whether the processes for primary elections need some tweaking. Would you at least buy that?

Second, I think Rebecca's right about the biases of east cpast blogs and a certain set of the blogging class. The pro-Obama weight of the blogs does not necessarily reflect the country overall.

Finally, Ron, I think setting an absurd "if she doesn't win 2-1" bar isn't necessary; if Obama seems to be struggling in Pennsylvania, if he continues to poll badly in future primary states... the weight of the "she should get out now" argument simply can't carry the day; he does, actually, need to prove he can win working class voters, less educated voters, and lower income voters more lcearly than he has up to now to really undo any argument Clinton can make about the power of her appeal. I think he still can... but I don't think he can if the story is about Jeremiah Wright. I for one have said all along, if Obama would go into greater specific detail about his policies and plans on the campaign stump, he'd do better with these voters. And while I continue to back Clinton, I'll be happy with either; I'd be happier if Obama could make the case that he can appeal to a broader cross-section of the party. There's still time.

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

could make the case that he can appeal to a broader cross-section of the party

But, of course, Obama appears to appeal to a broader cross-section of the public, as evidenced by his stronger appeal among independents and disaffected Republicans, except in Mississippi.

[weboy]

Well... it's a thoery. It's not one, really, that can be firmly tested until the general, and, with your optimism, and the optimism of so many, the test may well come to pass. I remain, though, unconvinced that the 50-50 split doesn't pose problems for Obama (and, as well, for Clinton) - its perplexing, honestly, that he can't seem to improve his appeal (even prior to Wright, which probably did do significant damage among working class whites; I don't like it, either). And while I think Clinton's appeal to the "lefty elite" is also problematic, I have a harder time believing that college educated, well off Democrats would, in spite, prefer to see McCain elected by walking say, to the Greens (where, frankly, Cynthia McKinney will seem all the more problematic) or Ralph Nader (surely, 2000 is fresh in everyone's mind). It seems to me that the potential for McCain to appeal to working class white voters is greater than his appeal to the lefty University set. My only point, though, is... as you say, we've got a ways to go til the argument that Clinton should get out will have the necessary weight. We'll see what develops. Though I don't take a lot of joy in it, I think Clinton has, so far, succeeded in Pennsylvania where Obama has struggled. If he can't turn it around, it's hard for me to see how superdelegates have the ammunition they need to stop her if she wins there. And on we would go.

[Michael]

ikl-

Was it political motivation that led Obama to remove his name from the Michigan ballot last fall? Or was it political motivation that led Clinton to leave her name on? Recall that Edwards, Richardson, Biden also removed their names.

From the Wash Post, last October: "It's clear, this election they're having (in Michigan) is not going to count for anything," Clinton said. But now she wants it to count.

Sorry Obama grates on your nerves. I hope you'll let other considerations govern your voting choices.

[RebeccaS]

My point was that everything that the candidates are doing is motivated by political calculation. That is, in fact, the point of politics. One of the main things that bothers me about Obama and his supporters is the hypocrisy of pretending that he is not acting out of political calculation and that Clinton is acting in political ways that are damaging to the party because they say so. Ironically they are making the same inevitability argument they so mocked when Clinton made it. Where Obama's refusal to push for/support revotes in MI and FL really could have significant damage in the general election but there is very little scrutiny of this position. A revote has more potential to hurt Obama because it might show conclusively his weakness in these crucial swing states and remove the argument of illegitimacy if the delegates are seated. And yes if he is the nominee I will obviously vote for him - I am a committed partisan democrat. But it will make me nervous and i probably won't donate any money to him (not that he needs my money). It may be more important for actual legislative purposes to do everything possible to get to 60 seats in the senate anyways.

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

with certain demographics that are essential to the success of the Democratic candidate favoring Clinton.

I wrote about it this earlier. The anti-establishment coalition always starts from the liberal/educated/upper-middle-class part of the party and works its way down. It's to Obama's credit that he's managed to win as much of the working-class vote as he has, which is why he's doing better in places like Wisconsin and Missouri than Bill Bradley, Howard Dean, Gary Hart, etc. To say that Clinton's constituents are "essential to the success of the Democratic candidate" is to say that the insurgent candidate should never win. And I don't grant your premise; if African-Americans even voted 70-30 for the Democrats instead of 90-10, we would have lost Michigan, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, have no chance of winning Virginia, Florida, New Jersey might become competitive, etc. If the voters are split 50-50 then both candidates will have someone who is "essential".

[Nicholas Beaudrot]

And yes, you know that I agree with you that the number of Senate seats is more important than anything else.

[ikl]

This is the first time I've been confused with a Clinton supporter, I think!

[weboy]

Nick,as we discussed when you argued this earlier... every example you cite is of someone who lost. By your own examples, the "anti-establishment" candidates don't - and possibly can't win. In that sense, we, the Clinton supporters, may really have a point: Obama really does need to show that, opposite of the examples you cite, that he can actually broaden his appeal. More to the point, though, I suspect that's what's happened is actually somethng of a demographic shift, and we're getting to a point where the intellectual and liberally well off can decide the nominee without the working class votes. Whether that's a good thing... and even whether they've reached actual critical mass this time, is what we're waiting to see play out. But I have to say - and have, several times at my place - I'm concerned that no one's paying attention to the fact that working class voters in both parties (McCain wasn't winning them either - they went to Huckabee in larger numbers) are being ignored. That can't necessarily be a good sign, certainly, that they're seeing the front running candidate reflect their concerns.

[ikl3]

Weboy,

Lots and lots of working class voters support Obama. I suspect that he has a majority among working class men, in fact. You mean working class white voters, I think. That is fine. This is an important demographic and we should talk about it. However, you should probably be explicit if that is what you mean and not refer to monolithic "working class" voters as being a big weak point for Obama.