Having taken a side-swipe at Dan Balz and the Washington Post coverage of the Potomac primaries the other day, I now give Balz a hand for laying out how Sen. Hillary Clinton’s failure to challenge Sen. Barack Obama’s strategy of grabbing cheap delegates in caucus states could be her undoing:
Here is a simple way to understand the consequences of that choice. Take two states that held Super Tuesday contests on Feb. 5: big New Jersey, with 107 pledged delegates at stake, and tiny Idaho, with 18 delegates up for grabs. Clinton won New Jersey’s primary and made headlines for doing so early on that night, while Obama won Idaho’s caucuses long after many of those watching had gone to bed. But because of the rules of proportionality, Clinton netted just 11 more delegates than Obama from her New Jersey victory, while he gained 12 more than her by winning Idaho.
Balz then notes that the similar states Obama exploited on Super-Duper Tuesday (as noted here that night) and the following weekend gave him an edge of 113 delegates — one which is difficult to erase in a generally proportional method of delegate allocation:
Clinton now faces a difficult mathematical challenge. She will need big margins in upcoming states to make up ground. A split of 52 percent to 48 percent in Ohio on March 4 would net her only about five more delegates than Obama would gain. A 60-40 victory in Ohio would give her about 30 more delegates than him. In Texas, a 55-45 split would give Clinton about 19 more than Obama, although Texas rules are so convoluted that those numbers may overstate the difference.
How convoluted are the rules in Texas? So convoluted that a third of the delegates will be chosen through a caucus, but with most delegates proportionally allocated by state senate districts, not by Congressional districts. A district-by-district analysis by an Obama supporter at dKos seems slanted in projecting that Obama actually gains 5 net delegates in the Lone Star state, but it tends to support Balz’s analysis that a 10-point Clinton win there does not significantly cut Obama’s delegate lead.
This dynamic should be increasing the level of angst among the superdelegates. Obama’s strategy of grabbing cheap delegates in caucus states could pay off. Clinton may regret not having challenged Obama across-the-board. But superdelegates may wonder whether they want to bet the election on the candidate whose nomination was secured by wins in Red states like Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, and North Dakota, instead of battleground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Perhaps Obamania will prevail in the battlegrounds also, saving superdelegates from having to wrestle with that dilemma.  At the moment, however, the polls and the underlying demographics in those states point to Clinton wins — and Democratic angst.
I don’t think I’d want to play Monopoly against Barack Obama.
He’d end up owning every property I bought.
He seems to have had someone calculating carefully.
Amazing how the Democrats set up such a wonderfully convulted system for assigning delegates. Must have been to someone’s advantage at one time. I wonder if this primary season will cause a rethinking of these systems so as to give a candidate a lead outright, or lead to standardizing selection methods across the various states?
(I note that Republicans haven’t been exactly happy either.)
Convoluted? No, it’s just fun. Every state with slightly different rules, some states getting more attention, every state mattering somewhat, so what’s not to love? I don’t even know how the delegates were appointed in my state even after I voted, but I don’t really care since whoever wins should have momentum, excitement, and all the rest. And if it’s Clinton, at least she’d have the numbers.
This superdelegate stuff is getting way overblown: both candidates are decent, and these delegates will decide who is more likely to win. Unless, of course, they do the boneheaded thing they did in 1984 and pick a Mondale over a Hart. But I don’t think that will happen since I think Edwards would like to be Attorney General, Hillary’s charm is wearing thin, and Obama looks like a winner.
And this angst won’t be much that will even require a single Alka-Seltzer. As long as Obama gets 40% or more in the big states, a switch from Hillary won’t be hard when the national polls are considered (I’m sure you’ll all be shocked to hear that Obama polls better than Clinton in head-to-head contests against McCain.)
“I don’t think I’d want to play Monopoly against Barack Obama. He’d end up owning every property I bought.”
Well, of course. That’s Barack’s definition of “change”: when your assets change from your hand to his.
Raising taxes is one of the few things that we are sure Barry O will do.
While it is an interesting discussion of the primaries, consider the impact of the primaries on the general election.
Assumption 1: Hillary wins because of super delegates.
Hillary loses the black vote, who are now unhappy with Bill’s racist remarks, Rendell’s racist remarks, et al. More important for the black vote, they have been told by the Democrats that America doesn’t like them, which is why they don’t get to play in Democratic politics. She also loses those enthusiastic youngsters who could contribute significantly to Obama in the general. And she loses the enthusiasm of the moonbat, anti-war vote. If she seats the Florida and Michigan delegates, she loses legitimacy.
Assumption 2: Obama wins because of the popular vote
He may see some losses with Hispanic voters. That part is unclear, but apparently Hispanics dislike blacks more than Pennsylvania bigots. Who woulda thunked that? He will lose Jewish support. And he will lose the vote of all of those Pennsylvania bigots who voted for Rendell. Pennsylvania goes red this election?
And I don’t care what the polls show right now about McCain vs. Hillary or McCain vs. Obama. This is one very weird election. It looks more and more like the Democrats have gotten McCain elected President.
Karl:
Thanks for making the imbroglio of Democratic primary voting as clear as it can be–even to me.
I have been wondering, though, is the Republican primary system as screwy? Are there Republican super delegates, etc.?
I have been wondering, though, is the Republican primary system as screwy? Are there Republican super delegates, etc.?
There are, although as a percentage of the whole delegate count they represent a much smaller part. I think the breakdown is something like 6% for the GOP and 28% for the Dems.
If I were a therapist, I would hang my shingle in the lobby of the Dem convention. There are going to be some distraught people when all of this plays out. The funny thing is that for the good of the party, one of them should step aside before it comes to that, but each believes that they have been annointed. They literally could rip the Dem party into shreds if they play this all the way to the end.
Cowboy,
E.G. is basically correct on GOP superdelegates — there are some, but not nearly as many as the Dems, who include all Congressional Dems in addition to party flacks (Rep. Dingell’s wife, for example). The Dems put them in place as a bulwark against the Jesse Jackson Left, which makes this year all the more poignant.
As for the delegate allocation rules, the GOP has been trending toward the most common Dem method — proportional representation by Cong. District. This is another reason why the GOP was able to have a multi-candidate field as long as it did. However, the GOP still has a number of winner-take-all contests. A number of the NEastern states are still WTA — I suspect that was engineered for Giuliani, but it ended up benefitting McCain.
jon,
You must be new here. We’re not at all shocked that Obama polls better than Clinton against McCain nationally at the moment. But in case you forgot the 2000 election, presidents are elected by 50 state elections. When you look at the state-by-state polls, you will get the point of this post.
“But superdelegates may wonder whether they want to bet the election on the candidate whose nomination was secured by wins in Red states like Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, and North Dakota, instead of battleground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.”
Maybe, but I doubt it. I think the Obama campaign has learned the lesson of the past two elections that a Democrat needs to win at least a couple of states in the heartland in order to win the election. Hence his efforts at appealing to these heretofore districts traditionally ignored by Democrats. He knows he’s winning the urban areas because those voters would rather vote for him than stay home as a protest or vote Republican. By appealing to places outside the traditional Democratic strongholds, he makes himself more electable in November and cuts Hillary’s support off at the same time. Despite my being conservative, many of my closest friends are strong liberals, and NONE of them want to see Hillary get the nomination. I think they are just as tired of the baggage and nonsense the Clintons bring to the scene. If Hillary can’t appeal to these type of traditional liberals, there’s no way she will draw voters across the board.
I don’t see that, JD. This whole “that’s gonna tear the party apart” thing just hasn’t been borne out in any big way I’ve seen. Sure, there are some innate biases against blacks and women, but the Democrats I’ve spoken to (and I include in this sample almost everyone I discuss politics with in person) have all said they’d vote for either one. I see a similar thing with the Republicans: there’s a lot of anti-McCain stuff out in the ether. Will the GOP be able to hold itself together when the anti-tax and Evangelical and pro-war factions have their say? Of fucking course they will. This election is going to be close in the Electoral College, a bit less close in the popular vote, and both parties will rally behind their candidates.
I think Jon is mostly right. The media will unite the Dems. They know how to do that no problem.
Karl, the post that you cited had one thing stand out in particular–how the Dem convention plays out. If the “Recreate 68” crowd and their sympathizers end up causing shenanigans in Denver, they could very well undermine the entire Dem campaign in a few days. The Denver police aren’t exactly shy about using tear gas when things get out of hand.
What are all of the new hopey changey voters going to do when the candidate of and from hope gets to the convention with the majority of the delegates and then the party bigwigs and political machine slots Hill/Bill? This will be even worse if it is done with the MI and FL “primaries”. I cannot help but think that the African American community will be depressed when the party that allegedly advances their issues cuts them off at the knees.
I agree with happyfeet, who kinda sorta agrees with Jon. The bomb the Dems always plant under their own grandstand never does manage to go off, no matter how many times we sit through this movie. Hillary and Obama will be star-crossed lovers in time for the convention, with possibly Bill reciting Spencer Tracy’s lines from Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?
…when the candidate of and from hope gets to the convention with the majority of the delegates and then the party bigwigs and political machine slots Hill/Bill…
In which case To Kill a Mockingbird would be more appropriate than Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.
I agree that Dems know they have to do better in rural areas, but disagree that this is what drives Obama’s campaign. I would have agreed if we were just talking about large purple states like Colorado, but we aren’t. We’re talking about states like Idaho and Kansas, which are far more Red than states like OH and PA. The Dems have learned you have to win some heartland states, but they are looking at purple states with significant delegate counts like OH, PA, and MO — all of which have Obama underperforming relative to Hillary against McCain.
Obama pursued the states (and parts of states) he did out of necessity. With less money at the outset, places like Idaho were cost-effective. And caucuses play more to his (and his aides) organizational skills. It worked, but might not have, but for camp Clinton being dumb enough to cede those races.
Ohnoes, Hillary. One, two, three, four, five, six, nine, or ten. Money can’t buy you back the love that you had then.
That’s what I think. Even NPR hates her guts these days. She really should have nailed the lightweight when she had a chance. Even if she wins now, she’s the one that could barely fend off a splatch of tastyhopeychangey fluffernutter. Not auspicious no matter how you look at it.
As for how the campaign ultimately affects Dem turnout, history would incline me to believe that — absent the Chicago ’68 scenario — the black vote declines only marginally if HRC is the nominee. Probably not enough to matter, as the large black populations tend to be in strongly Blue (or in the south, strongly Red) states, with the possible exception of the cities in battlegrounds like OH and PA. McCain as GOP nom suggests he might not lose the Hispanic vote by as much against HRC, though he could do better with the Hispanic vote as against Obama.
hf,
I’m now picturing HRC doing that Busby Berkeley dance routine. Ew. Thanks a lot.
Nothing about Barry O’s campaign suggests he is going to win any of the heartland states that has previously been Republican. All he has managed to do is show that he can get more votes than the other Dems in traditionally Republican states.
I listened to several pundits this morning on POTUS 08 on my XM radio. They all seemed to be predicting that Hillary was going to have to go “negative” on Obama now.
None, however, answered my question about this, what kind of dirt can she throw his way without looking like a big nasty racist?
I suppose she could (and probably should) refer to his lack of experience, but that just opens herself up to questions regarding her own lack of experience, doesn’t it?
“with the possible exception of the cities in battlegrounds like OH and PA.”
I believe that WI and MI probably fall in there too.
what kind of dirt can she throw his way without looking like a big nasty racist?
Obama’s choice of Church could be used to try to paint Obama as the racist. Also, she will probably look to which votes he missed or voted present on as a way to point to lack of leadership. I would think his youthful drug use would be out, because no one would miss the hypocrisy on that one, plus it’s already been tried and it didn’t work.
Rick,
I didn’t mention WI or MI because they went for Kerry in ’04 and the general environment does not give me much reason to think McCain will win them, but they are within the realm of possibility. Check my state polling link in the comment above, which has Mac about even with either Dem.
… in WI.
Karl – I know it is only anecdotal, but I have several co-workers and contrators that I routinely work with in WI, and to a person, regardless of party, think that with McCain as the candidate, WI is in play this time around, especially if Hill/Bill is the candidate.
Karl,
I’ve been mulling over the Catholic antipathy toward Obama. Rendell couched it in terms of race but I think it may have more to do with this type of action. B16 may turn out to be more active than even JP2 and Obama’s support of infanticide isn’t going to pass muster. Clinton’s “legal but rare” formulation may take a few really good whacks as well. That would affect WI more than MI but MI is such a shambles that I really don’t believe it will take much more to tip it.
Thank you for the effort you have put into these posts.
Lots of Wisconsinites believe that the state was vote frauded into the Gore and Kerry camps:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=324933
And that’s even if every eligible voter in the county voted. The likelihood is that they voted at slightly above the national average, if history is a guide. So that’s several hundred thousand fraudulent ballots cast in just that one county in WI, in a contest that was won by about 30k votes. That doesn’t count Dane County, where Madison is.
Kerry won WI by 11,384 votes out of 2,997,007 total votes cast to be annoyingly precise. In MI it was 165,437 out of 4,839,252 total. A 2% shift tips the MI and a strong breeze tips WI.
[…] A campaign with deep ties in Texas should have known about them before this month, when you could read all about them on the Internet. These are inconvenient truths, which may explain how they landed on page six, […]
[…] with a net gain  of between six and ten delegates on the night. Obama has been thriving on those cheap delegates throughout the campaign, yet the media continues to downplay it (even as Hillary complains that she […]
[…] there is the caucus bias that Obama has exploited with his “cheap delegate” strategy.   The DNC does not take lower caucus turnout (relative to primary turnout) into […]
It’s really an amazing myth that Obama doesn’t carry big states. Let’s take a look at the facts.
Of the ten big states, six have held primaries or caucuses that count — Florida and Michigan don’t count, and Pennsylvania and North Carolina are still to come. Clinton won New York, California, and Ohio. Obama won Illinois and Georgia. They both can claim to have won Texas: Clinton in the primary, Obama in the caucuses and delegate count. If current trends hold, and re-votes occur in Florida and Michigan, Clinton will probably take Pennsylvania and Florida, and Obama will take Michigan and North Carolina. So the final tally of winning and losing big states depends on how you count Texas. Either Clinton wins the big states 6-4, or 5-5, or maybe we should tally it 5-4-1. That’s not a sweep of big states, so can we stop referring to it that way, please.
The difference between the candidates really matters in November, and so far their paths to the White House look quite different. Obama is doing a LOT better west of the Mississippi than Clinton, especially in head-to-head polls with McCain. In a poll last week by SurveyUSA, Clinton only carries three states west of the Mississippi: California, Hawaii, and New Mexico. Obama, though, also picks up Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, North Dakota (!!), and two of Nebraska’s electoral votes. And here’s the real surprise to the west: Obama trails McCain by *only one point* in Texas, while Clinton is behind by 7%.
Clinton does better in some key states in the east, though. She carries Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Florida, while Obama doesn’t. Obama takes Michigan, Virginia, and New Hampshire, though, while Clinton doesn’t.
And note this: both candidates carry Ohio by ten points over McCain, although they both beat McCain nationally by just a few electoral votes.
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-obama-280-mccain-258/
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03/06/electoral-math-as-of-030608-clinton-276-mccain-262/