It Feels Like We've Been Here Before...

Meanwhile the LA Times reports that this exercise could all be an academic one, in that the diminishing returns of delegates available are not enough to change the standings in a race this close.  They could be right.  But then that whole question of momentum comes into play again, and whether you agree with the premise or not, momentum is something far too abstract to be measured by delegates alone.

The LA Times article also states:

"But as both Democrats fight on, and as about 250 out of the nearly 800 superdelegates remain uncommitted..."

As a reminder, I've stated that only about half of those 250 are actually persuadable.  You can split that pot of Supers into the "A" group and the "B" group.  And the "B" group ain't doing anything until the  "A" groups decides.  What does this mean?  This means we can only realistically look at a group of roughly 125 persuadable Supers up for grabs in this election.

I'll post more about that on Thursday.

Comments

[Nate]

I've read this blog a lot, and I'm really starting to doubt whether supers should be trusted with the decision.

Two blatantly wrong statements in your post:

1) Clinton won by 9%, which is hardly impressive by anyone's standards.

2) Gary Hart dropped out after winning California. Why? Because supers gave it to Mondale to stop the bleeding.

(The primary season of 1984 should be instructive as to how a prolonged and bitter primary can damage the nominee, for what it's worth).

[Mr Super]

By all accounts, it's being reported as a 10-point win you may be right in that it could actually be a 9-pointer. But I don't think that her current standing would be any different if it were down by 1 point.

And about 1984 - wasn't California the last primary that year? If we are to follow suit in 2008, that would mean making a decision on June 4th.

Does anyone really believe that a protracted nomination battle was what ultimately did Mondale in? I mean the guy won like two states. Maybe a smoother nomination road would have helped him win four?

[Trevor J]

The momentum argument is interesting to me. If you look at Pollster.com's tracking chart for Pennsylvania, the momentum of gaining support has consistently been on Obama's side. Clinton's support has been almost flat for all of 2008.

[Laura]

Geez. Ask them if they can spell disillusionment.

If there were no supers, this race would have been over long ago. Tell them to get off the pot already. We want our party back before we lose any more of our newly expanded voter base and organization we've worked so hard to build.

[Michael James]

I understand that the supers need to be careful about coming out too early, but I hope they are able to see through the spin from the Clinton campaign.

The other thing is that, for the sake of argument, let’s concede that Obama would have a tougher time against McCain than Clinton would. So what? Either of them will be able to win and Obama has done a better job of coming out ahead based on the rules that were set up prior to any campaigning. For example, if the “popular vote” actually mattered, don’t you think he might have spent more time and other resources in California instead of heading to Boise before super Tuesday?

Anyway, back to Hillary’s main argument at this point, i.e. that she believes she is more electable than Obama. She is not correct about that.

I am not stupid enough to believe that Rezko, Wright, Ayers, flag pin, bitter and other manufactured controversies will go away in the fall, but I look at it like this: After all this time, all anyone has been able to come up with against Obama is a bunch of guilt-by-association stuff that, when you really take the time to understand it, is weaker than the Bosnian sniper fire that Hillary faced when she went to Tuzla. With the cash advantage Obama will have and that roughly 2/3 of the country wants out of Iraq, Obama will be just fine once he can focus exclusively on McCain.

Rezko should be a non-issue at this point. Both Chicago newspapers sat down with Obama and grilled him on every question that they considered to still be in need of an answer and he came out of those meetings with a clean bill of health. Plus, McCain is one of the Keating Five if we want to go tit-for-tat.

Wright, the flag pin and Michelle's comments about being proud for the first time are all going to fit under the classic Republican attack meme of "GOP = patriots and Dems = lilly-livered cowards who hate America." Throw that in with "tax and spend liberals" and "God, guns and gays" and we already know the first few pages of the Republican message in the fall. We've seen this movie before and it doesn't matter who the Democrat is, some Republican attacks will always be the same. Having enough time to fight those messages will be very important and every day that goes by with the nomination still in doubt is another day lost.

Perhaps the most important point to make on the electability argument is that, any baggage Obama may have is certainly outweighed by the 35 years of baggage that Hillary Clinton has. The Republican Attack Machine (tm) will have a field day with all of the raw Clinton material they have to work with but, you know what? They almost don't even need to go back to Whitewater, Trooper-gate, FBI File-gate or any of the many Clinton scandals (Hello!!???!! Impeachment!!!) thanks to all of the gaffes, mistakes and pandering Hillary has done during the primary season. Bosnian sniper fire, peace in Northern Ireland and the “lobbyists are people too” comments ought to be good for several rounds of attack ads from “the maverick” and his minions.

You think they’ll have fun with the Rev. Wright stuff? The Kazakhstan uranium deal, foreign governments funneling cash to Bill and the complete lack of disclosure of who has funded the Clinton library are all examples of financial dealings that are both fair game and that Obama has not mentioned during this campaign. Oh, and despite the media blackout on the Peter F. Paul trial, do you think anyone will be forced to cover that little gem once Hillary and Bill’s testimony is discussed in open court right before the general election? Obama hasn’t mentioned it, even though it’s got more substance than Rezko and the Republicans are keeping their powder dry until the fall on it. Either Paul’s correct and there was fraud perpetrated by the Clintons or he’s incorrect and a liar and there is a lot of great video showing how cozy the Clintons were with convicted felon Peter F. Paul. McCain can’t lose on this issue either way.

Furthermore, Hillary will not be able to out-experience John McCain and, because she not only voted for the Iraq war like McCain did, but also stated that McCain had passed the CIC "threshold," she will not have a credibility advantage as Commander-in-Chief when compared to the POW candidate who actually served in the military. In fact, since she has flip-flopped on the Iraq war, get ready to see them dust off the Kerry ad, perhaps mixed in with the footage of her doing that shot of Crown Royal, and talk about how she was "for it before she was against it."

On the question of elitism, I would ask this: Who is more elitist? The people who have been under Secret Service protection for ~20 years, made $109 million over the last few years and live in a New York mansion? The son and grandson of Admirals who finished near the bottom of his Naval Academy class, then went on to marry an heiress and owns, what, 8 houses? Or the son of a single mother who married a working-class girl from the South Side of Chicago and who was still paying off his student loans until a few years ago?

That leaves economic issues, on which Hillary should be able to do well, but these are at serious risk of being offset by her credibility problems and whatever other distractions will come up due to Bill.

To the extent that Obama has issues with the blue-collar voters, I think it has more to do with the fact that influential members of those groups tend to have loyalty to the Clintons and the fact that those core constituencies are often part of the Democratic machinery in most areas – machinery that is overwhelmingly controlled by Clinton loyalists. If, for example, Obama had Ed Rendell on his side in PA, the mayors and other local pols would not have been so fearful of opposing Clinton and PA would have been a lot closer if not an outright win for Obama. The bottom line is that, once those traditional machines are set up to work for Obama instead of against him, we will have nothing to worry about. Yes, I know some polls say that X percent of Clinton voters will sit it out or vote for McCain, but that number will eventually be substantially less than it is now.

[John]

The patriotism issue is a big deal. Those of us old enough to remember 1988 know this. And it is eerily similar. A symbolically historic candidate is both winning and placing second in the primary (while a historic candidate, Jackson, placed 2nd in the primary). Many pundits and Dukakis supporters called for Jackson to get out before Dukakis reached a majority of delegates, which riled up his supporters (why is the leader telling us to leave when he hasn't won it yet?). Hillary Clinton--ironically enough--has morphed into the Jesse Jackson position near the end of the primary campaign. If a bunch of (mostly) male superdelegates push Clinton out of the race, while she exceeds expectations set for her in the last 3 primaries, that will be bad. It has to be played out, and then the party (unlike 88) needs to force the top two vote getting candidates onto a ticket together (Obama-Clinton, assuming he maintains his likely pledged delegate and popular vote lead). Dems will win with the joint ticket as it is a very Democratic year, and each candidate has created a core group of supporters. Clinton's 25%+ will come on board if she is VP once she is on the ticket. Probably about half of them won't if she isn't, and that group is middle-class women--soccer moms--the swing voters in most competitive states.

[Nate]

Hart "blew out" Mondale in California, which served just to embarrass him before he became the nominee. (I can hear Pat Buchanan, "Why can't Mondale seal the deal? Why can't he win the left-coast liberals who will form a vital coalition in the general?")

It had long been apparent that Hart had no chance to overcome him in pledged delegates, but the supers waited until after the last primary to seal it up for him. Allowing Mondale to suffer this defeat perpetuated the idea that he was a loser--and this above all is treacherous. The media will take any opportunity to pounce on a characterization of someone as a "loser" and get maximum mileage out of it.

I think a limping nominee is somewhat hamstrung for the general, and I think Mondale would have had a better chance had the supers declared earlier. But I also think putting Gary Hart on the ticket would have done much to solve that problem.

[P.Duncan]

It is a 9 point win even at 10 she still can't win the nomination unless the superdelegates are prepared to tear the party apart. And have no doubt that if they were to overturn the will of the people there would be riots and violence across this country. Along with this the democratic party would cease to function and would not recover for years if at all. The growth they have had so far would slip away and the voters that remain would, except for the die hard political types, would simply become bitter, disillusioned, apathetic and stay home in November. They are supposed protect the democratic party. but so far they have refused to step up and do their job. If they don't do it soon it will be too late.

[P.Duncan]

It is a 9 point win even at 10 she still can't win the nomination unless the superdelegates are prepared to tear the party apart. And have no doubt that if they were to overturn the will of the people there would be riots and violence across this country. Along with this the democratic party would cease to function and would not recover for years if at all. The growth they have had so far would slip away and the voters that remain would, except for the die hard political types, would simply become bitter, disillusioned, apathetic and stay home in November. They are supposed protect the democratic party. but so far they have refused to step up and do their job. If they don't do it soon it will be too late.

[Michael James]

What Kos said:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/23/13332/4094/52/501331

...looking at the exit poll numbers, it's clear that Obama has actually been making serious gains the past six weeks.

(snip)

What was a 10.5% win in demographically friendly Ohio has become an 8.6% win in similar Pennsylvania, except the state was even less black and with a much smaller youth voter population (Pennsylvania's seniors accounted for 32 percent of the electorate, compared to 23 percent in Ohio).

(snip)

On top of that, Obama has had to run against Hillary Clinton, against former President of the United States Bill Clinton, and against John McCain and the entire GOP apparatus, which has trained its guns on Obama hoping to give Clinton a boost.

Yet he continues to gain among most of Clinton's best demographics, is still raising more money, leads comfortably in delegates, leads comfortably in the popular vote, leads in states won, leads in the national polls, and does better in the head-to-head matchups against McCain.

So why should the supers spark an intra-party civil war by overturning the will of the electorate again?

[strawmanmunny]

Give it two more weeks. If Obama wins NC and is close in Indiana, then the supers can decide this thing and put him over the top.

Best case scenario is that Obama can win BOTH NC and Indiana and then the pressure on Clinton to relent should be immense.

I think the supers should decide after a Obama win and I think that if he can win NC, that can happen. But, he can make it airtight by winning both NC and Indiana.

[Darrin]

I really hope that our eventual nominee does not come from a by product of Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough Republican talking points.

Amongst all the "only Hillary can win Ohio & Pennsylvania" bluster, surely it will not be lost on the Superdelegates the fact that OH & PA won't mean a hill of beans to Clinton if she doesn't also win MN, WI, MI, WA, and OR.

[John]

I don't think the supers can even put him over the top after NC and Indiana, at least if what Mr. Super is reporting is correct.

Mr. Super said there are basically 125 supers who could be persuaded to one side or the other. Let's charitably assume Obama wins Guam, North Carolina, and Indiana by 60% each. That puts him at 1828 in the delegates according to the Forbes delegate calculator (link pasted below). Then, let's also assume for the sake of argument all 125 persuadable supers go for Obama (perhaps a big assumption), while the rest for political (and perhaps wise) reasons don't take a position.

This puts Obama at 1953 total delegates, even if a large bulk of supers come to him AND he wins the next 3 contests handily. Still not at 2024, and Clinton is still close behind--though too behind to likely catch up. The supers can't break the near-tie until after more voting occurs (unfortunately if you are an Obama fan, and fortunately if you are a Clinton fan).

In sum, the math looks better for Obama than Clinton. The math also--even with serious superdelegate intervention--makes it exceedingly difficult for any candidate to get to 2024 until more contests have played out.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/27/obama-clinton-election-oped-cx_jb_0227delegates.html

[Bilbo]

John, Obama only needs 40% of the remaining supers to lock this thing up.

[John]

Bilbo,

40% of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates is equal to about 125 people. Given that there are about 125. 125 supers + where Obama stands now is not enough to get him to 2024. He has to first get more delegates in NC, IN (even w/ a loss there), Guam, etc. So the supers--if they are good politicians--won't move until they can actually be decisive. They are not yet technically decisive, even if we have a pretty good idea of how the remaining states will vote.

[Dan_in_upstate_NY]

Mr Super,

A few questions about your original post:

1. Do the two campaigns know who's in Group A and who's in Group B?

2. Do the Group A folks know who the Group B folks are, and vice versa?

3. Are the Group B folks mostly DNC members? Or elected congressmen/senators/governors? Or mixed?

I find it somewhat disturbing, by the way, that Group B even exists. After all, the whole point of the superdelegates is to exercise independent judgment, not just "follow the pack". How is this not an instance of blatant cowardice? (And pardon the question if you yourself are a member of Group B!)

[G Davis]

To the discussion of a joint ticket...that might hold water under normal circumstances, but the wild card there is not the candidates but Bill.

He has not behaved in what I would call a Presidential manner this campaign with all his outbursts and so on. He is also an ex-Prez which makes him a completely different animal than any other spouse ever involved. His foundation associations further muddy the water.

How in the world does having him involved with an Obama administration help Obama at all?

I can see the reverse scenario much more easily but I see no way that Bill and his behavior, both past and present, would do anything but undercut an Obama administration.

Also, the idea that the party will be split if the Clintons don't get on the ticket is also true in the reverse. The supers are faced with alienating either older women or 90% of the African American constituency.

Seems to me neither side is a good scenario, but which constituency is less likely to vote for McCain? I would venture that women would be less likely to bolt simply based on the Supreme Court issue since I am a woman... ;0

Bill is the biggest problem in all this. He has NOT been vetted these last 8 years and the right will have a hay day going after him again.

Especially since to get he and Hillary on the ticket, the supers would have to overturn the pledged delegate count.