Metrics

Lots of variables tossed around recently as to how to consider who should be the Democratic nominee.  Pledged delegates, popular vote, electoral vote, who leads in general election match-up polling, who has more blue state and/or red state wins.  Peter Funt satirically wrote that Senator Clinton has won more "new" states whereas someone else noted that Senator Obama has won more square ones.

This can be easily simplified: the one who figures out how to win the most delegates is the winner. 

Doesn't matter how they win those delegates, from red states or from Supers or from states with three electoral votes or 55 electoral votes or by any other means.  Because while all of those metrics may be things that Supers weigh when making public declarations of support, the rules call for the nominee to be determined by delegates - not just pledged delegates, not just Superdelegates, but all delegates. That is something that isn't lost upon any of us.

A note about general election match-ups: they don't matter at this point.  It was a sigh of relief last night to see David Gergen on CNN talking about general election polling in June of 1992 when Bill Clinton was running third in general and it looked like Ross Perot was about to be America's first President and CEO.  John Kerry was leading Bush II, even Michael Dukakis had a 17-point lead over Bush Sr. at one point.  The point is that polls for any election don't mean much when nearly six months out.

Comments

[Jon]

Mr Super-

I'm new here so you may have already stated this, but have you announced when you plan to make your decision? Will it be by the end of June, as Howard Dean has asked? Or will it not be until the convention.

Thanks

[Anne]

Mr.Super, thanks for all your insights. I sincerely hope the supers come out now so we can tackle the real fight at hand -- to win against McCain. I hope the Democrats unite and move on from the primary fights as there is too much at stake.

[TheSteve]

Mr. Super,

Tell me the Supers are not still going to be holding out on this. Rumor is Hillary is bankrupt again and loaned her campaign another 6.4 million. Can the Supers seriously be considering letting her continue to throw so much money away on a scorched earth campaign, which seems to be all she has left at this point? She's a long shot now at winning the most delegates even if you throw in MI and FL as is.

[Eddie in ME]

So here's the ultimate question: did last night change the minds of supers as to when they'll come out? Common consensus seems to be that Hillary should stay in to blunt WV and KY and then drop out. Will enough supers be out for Obama to give him the nomination after Oregon?

[Alicia]

Well Mr. Super, how is this going to play out? Are you willing to share any of your insight with us? I'm sure the fact that Obama will be the nominee is as obvious to you as it is to the rest of us. Can you share your thoughts with us please?

[Christa]

Mr. Super,
I think you should vote for Hillary because she is the better candidate.

I live in Texas, where women are still considered a lesser being. I’ve overheard numerous conversations amongst men indicating they would not support her for the shear fact that she is a woman. These are educated professional men who work with and interact with strong women on a daily basis. Hearing these conversations overwhelms me because of the thought of how far we still have to go to be considered equal. Equal in a time when the playing field is finally and supposedly even.

I can’t help but wonder what a disadvantage Hillary’s woman status is creating for her overall. I’m not sure it can be measured by any poll because I don’t think people are willing to admit it. I think it is more of a disadvantage than even Hillary is willing to admit.

I know no one wants to hear the woman debate because it has been played out too many times before. I don’t feel it has been played out sufficiently in this race. If only we could somehow boil this down to a behind the curtain, violin audition. We would see that Hillary’s resume is substantially more suited for the job.

Show younger men and women that we are trying to get rid of old stereotypes and paving the way to an equal work environment, equal opportunities, equal pay and an equal human status.

Hillary is more qualified for the job. She has the experience for the job. She has the credentials to effectively run this country.

[Judy]

Prediction:

Superdelegates are going to jump on Obama's team in mass numbers within the week

DNC/Party elites will force Hillary to withdraw

Obama is nominee

Then, it is free game. White working class Americans will defect. Obama will be further vetted by Republicans. 1 or 2 Obama bombshells will come out. General election - who knows????

[Dave]

Lesson number one in politics. NEVER say it's over until it's over. Clinton still have an outside chance of winning. What if in the next week Obama has a campaign ender? Clinton could stay in without going negative. She can play the part of say a Huckabee and allow the Democratic Party to grow. If something were to happen you would still have a fall back position. Obama has not yet reached the magic number and may not for some reason.

I have thought this thing was over many times before. I will wait for the numbers to fall into place. Does that sound about right?

[suekzoo]

A key metric being under-reported is that 22% and 26% of Republican voters in IN & NC respectively did NOT vote for McCain. The Republicans are just not united behind their presumptive nominee, and the sooner the Democrats can unite and more forward behind Obama, the better their chances of attracting more crossovers.

[Alicia]

Judy,

You seem to have the belief that Hillary Clinton is more likely to win in the general election against John McCain. I respect your opinion, but if that is truly the case, then can you please explain why Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans in general would prefer to face Hillary Clinton, if Barack Obama has "1 or 2 more bombshells" that will be coming out? Senator Clinton is a tough and tenacious candidate and for that, she is to be commended. I firmly believe that she has vetted Barack Obama as much as possible; if the Clintons couldn't dig up any more "dirt" on him than they have, then why do you think John McCain and the Republicans will be able to?

Now is the time for us to come together, not as Democrats, but as Americans, for the good of our country and fight John McCain together.

[MM]

So whoever hits the magic number required by the DNC will become the nominee? Insightful.

The "metrics" aren't being thrown around to literally change the rules of nomination. They're being used to convince superdelegates to endorse one candidate or the other. I feel silly explaining this to a superdelegate, but I thought it was obvious.

[Christine Sticht]

In the unlikely event that Hillary can win the nomination, Republicans and Independents who might otherwise vote for the Democrat or just stay home because they are disenchanted with their party's candidate, will get out and vote against Hillary. There are a huge number of people who hate both Clinton and McCain. I'm from Arizona and I know many Republicans who will not vote for McCain (we know who he really is) or Clinton (mostly over 60 year old women, believe it or not!) but would vote for Obama.It's time for supers to pledge their votes. The longer this nasty, tenacious Clinton campaign continues, the better will be McCain's chances of winning in November.

[Dave]

This is the time to bring the party together. Hillary needs to stay in the race and with Bill turn our sites on John McCain. She needs to smooth the path for Obama and help heal the party. If she were to dropout right now without doing so we would have a broken and split party. We are going to need everyone in the end to pull together to win in November.

[Joe]

> I live in Texas, where women are still considered a lesser being. I’ve overheard numerous conversations amongst men indicating they would not support her for the shear fact that she is a woman.

Where I live, in Arizona, I was immediately accused of being sexist (by Hispanic male coworkers) for saying I liked Obama. I had not, at that time, ever said anything whatsoever to them about Hillary, good or bad.

For the record, I don't think that most people are racist for not supporting Obama. Most of the people who hate him seem to hate the fact that he's a Democrat, or the fact that he's beating their favorite candidate, Hillary. Anyhow, women have been a majority in most polls I've seen, and they tend to support Hillary on the whole, so it's not as if she's been disadvantaged much.

In any event, even if Mr. Super were to support her--indeed, if ALL the supers were to support her (an unlikely proposition)--she would need to win more delegates to be the nominee.

So, even if you get his support for Hillary, she's not going to be the nominee. The math has been against her for months now. If Obama can survive what he has survived, he's not going to fold up now.

For the record, my strong support of Obama first came due to his excellent technology policy. Yes, there are things in it I disagree with, but it's head and shoulders above the policy given by the other two, and I have read both of those as well, moreover technology is my field and I am more than qualified to judge them. McCain's, of course, is the worst. I'm not sure you can rightfully consider "do nothing" a policy, for that matter.

[Dan]

This thing is over. The only way Obama might be derailed is with a scandal of Spitzer-like proportions. Not gonna happen.

I'm more interested in Mr Super's criteria for how undeclared supers should (or will) decide: "the one who figures out how to win the most delegates is the winner". I guess I agree with that criteria, though it is worth noting that (as philosophers say) it is viciously circular. (How can undeclared supers know who the delegate leader is if they themselves are part of the equation? There's a recursive formula here somewhere...)

Following such logic, though, we have the following result:

1. Obama is (and will continue to be) the delegate leader (pledged + upledged).
2. Therefore, Obama is the winner.
3. Therefore, undeclared supers can (and should) endorse him now.

How's that?

[Truth]

Mr. Super, you know I am a Clinton supporter because I think (still) she is the better candidate based off issues and actions. However, if you knew me personally (insight to Clinton supporters, not me), on the night of South Carolina results I was heard saying "Obama is our next president". Of course, that was before he was severely weakened by himself. I still think Obama will win, but now I am saying "Obama is the Democrat's candidate", not "Obama is the next President".

He can easily win if he improves his game, which I think he can do by starting with cabinet announcements June 4th. Obama basically won it last night. Superdelegates coming out now would actually hurt him. Let the actual vote play out so he can prove the "metrics" himself. If superdelegates push him past the line now, I think you will be doing a great disservice to him.

May 31st, I would seat the Florida delegates based off the vote because it won’t give Clinton what she needs, but it will help Obama in the General. Florida had a certified vote. Do not seat Michigan because I think a revote today would favor Obama, so the delegates as is would not represent the will of Michigan. This was a blunder by Obama by not allowing a revote. Obama will win Michigan without seating them.

Christa, I support Clinton, but I think you are taking the wrong angle. Anybody that would educate themselves on the candidates’ issues and actions would find a much better reason to support Clinton. I cringe just as much hearing “vote for a woman” as much as I do with the 90-95% black vote for Obama. Both votes based on sex/gender have no place for the most important position in America.

Finally, superdelegates should be retired after this election. Go winner take all by state like the General and all will be fine.

[laurie]

Kentucky is now the key state for the nomination. Whichever candidate wins there will complete the path that connects the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific.

http://www.barackobama.com/resultscenter/index.php

[J S]

Dave -

"What if ... Obama has a campaign ender?"

Spurious argument. Sen. Clinton could have suspended her campaign after Wisconsin, and she still would have been the obvious choice if scandal made Sen. Obama unelectable. Even pledged delegates are not required to support their candidate on the first ballot for this express reason.

The one benefit of all this is increased registrations for the Democrats as state after state is contested to the bitter end. OTOH, millions of dollars spent against fellow Democrats, dozens of lost chances to slam McSame, thousands of embittered voters on each side are the less positive results of the Clinton campaign continuing on the last two months because they cannot accept the decision of the voters.

But apparently the Clintons are so big in the eyes of the party, no one can stop them until the last primary is done. I don't see many of the Supers getting a chapter in an updated edition of "Profiles in Courage".

On to a pyrrhic victory in West Virginia!

[Joe]

> What if in the next week Obama has a campaign ender?

He's had several. But Obama is a survivor, as he proved last night, and his supporters won't give up on him, no matter how often they put Rev. Wright on TV.

I note that Mr. Super has gotten a LOT busier lately. To me, that means only one thing: GAME OVER.

But don't get me wrong. He's not the nominee yet, and they have to figure out the best way and time. But it's no longer "if" he's the nominee, but when, where and how.

I still say they ought to find some way to blame Rush & co. for the divide. If they refocus their anger on Limbaugh instead of the Democrats, it'll change things.

And just so you know, no matter how partisan a Republican I was at one point, I have NEVER respected Rush Limbaugh or his opinion. I always thought he was loud, stupid and annoying. I don't think I'm alone in that.

[Truth]

Mr. Super: John Kerry was leading Bush II.

That represented how easy it was to beat W back then. Democrats came up with the worst possible candidate. Dean or Edwards would have beat W. Bush 3 is incredibly easy to beat, but Obama can't even do it now. Oddly enough, I think Mitt Romney would have been the best Republican candidate (Health Care and Economy). i couldn't stand the guy, but I gave up on Republicans around 5th grade.

Ron Paul would have been the first Republican to get my vote. I don't even see the reason for a slow draw down in Iraq. Do we realy think Iraq can work? I'm betting if we leave and Iran tries to take over Iraq, the world community will come together against them (as long as the USA is out). Al Qaeda in Iraq being a serious takeover threat; you have to be kidding me. When I burn my hand on a frying pan, I don't slowly pull it away. I say put that night vision to good use and sneak out at night.

[Truth]

For those of you saying Obama survived the scandals, you aren't thinking General Election terms. Most Obama supporters would have called anything he said a briliant speech. Those looking for a real explanation did not get a good one. Wright could not keep from sounding like a conspiracy nut for 20 minutes, let alone 20 yaars. Obama has been caught in quite a few lies, but extreme liberals and blacks wanted him badly enough to gloss it over. The fact is, Obama is now just another candidate and not a movement. It will become apparent in the General Election if he doesn't make some corrections soon.

As far as not voting for Obama, no excuse for those that hate what W has done to allow McCain to win by default. I can understand if Obama crumbles badly before November, but as of now he is still better than McCain. Obama should try to earn your vote though.

What is it that you like about Obama's technology stance? He doesn't even understand the basics of ethanol. Clinton ran circles around Obama concerning technology.

[Judy]

Alicia,

Study the facts about how many Republican votes Obama received. It is assumed Operation Chaos was just directed at Hillary. They both received about the same percentage.

It's on most of the poll information - do the research - let me know what you find

[Laura]

Observing the game of moving goalposts in this election has been enlightening. The rules of the nominating process have always been about amassing the most delegates. Obama has run a brilliant campaign focused on that goal.

Clinton has run a campaign based on winning a knockout blow on Super Tuesday, and after failing to do that, she has never recovered. Her campaign has declared over half the states in the nation to be insignificant. Clinton's campaign cherry picks states as "significant," namely those states she has won or is positioned to win. Her campaign declares that white voters are the most important voters, neglecting the fact that Bill Clinton didn't win a majority of the white vote in either of his elections... he won because of very strong support from African Americans, along with enough white, Latino, and Asian American votes to take him over the top.

Then there's the bizarre notion that some imagined small shift in "momentum" is meaningful after 90% or so of the elected delegates have already been chosen. Momentum mattered a lot right after Super Tuesday, when Clinton appeared to have taken the rest of the month of February off, while Obama ran up 11 straight landslide victories.

For reasons that amaze me, the mainstream media has been led around on a leash by this spin.

And then there's the "popular vote" spin, which cynically disenfranchises all of the caucus states, not just the four that reported no popular vote tallies.

If popular vote had been the key metric, ALL of the candidates would have run very different campaigns. They would have focused on running up the popular vote among their base, and to heck with Iowa and New Hampshire. Of course, all of the caucus states would have held primaries instead.

Sen. Obama has kept his eye on the prize of acquiring the most delegates. He has run a forward-looking campaign aimed at that metric, within the Party's rules of the process. The nomination was Clinton's to lose, and she blew it with a lousy campaign. Given she has botched a primary campaign when she started out with the bulk of the Party Establishment behind her, and some 30 points ahead in the polls, what does this say about her qualifications for the highest executive office in the world?

Mr. Super, how's that for a metric, running the best campaign within the established rules?

[Laura]

"Truth" wrote: "Study the facts about how many Republican votes Obama received. It is assumed Operation Chaos was just directed at Hillary. They both received about the same percentage."

Obama's support among Republicans is mostly if not almost entirely among crossover Obamacans who support his campaign.

Clinton's support among Republicans is to a large extent Operation Chaos voters who wish to drag out the Democratic nominating process, in order to weaken the Democratic nominee.

A key difference is, Obama's Republican supporters will vote Obama in the Fall if he is the nominee, while Clinton's Republican supporters will vote for McCain if she is the nominee.

[Truth]

Judy, you forget that when a Republican votes for Obama they are crossing over, but when Hillary gets a Republican vote they are practicing chaos or even better, she is a Republican in disguise. I think most of the destructive statements have come from the Obama side, starting with Bush/Cheney-lite and Senator from Punjab.

If there was a real case for voter fraud, their would have already been charges filed. I thought it was disgraceful for Axelrod to attribute Indiana to Operation Chaos. If Axelrod has any part in the Obama administration, I will not vote for him. If you want to trace the real slime, look no further than Axelrod.