True Optimism, Or A “Psych-Out”?
Either Obama’s advisors are WILDLY optimistic (and they’ve had a damn good run, no doubt), or they’re just messin’ with Hillary’s head now:
As we wrote last night, Obama has begun to make his own inevitablity case, and David Plouffe made it explicit on a conference call this morning, telling reporters that it’s now “next to impossible” for Clinton to surpass what he says is a 136-person lead among pledged delegates.
“The only way she could do it is by winning most of the rest of the contests by 25 to 30 points,” he said. “Even the most creative math really does not get her, ever, back to even in terms of pledged delegates.”
“This is not about votes — it’s about delegates,” Plouffe said.
The other half of this case, of course, is that superdelegates will and/or should follow the pledged delegates.
Really? Because when I look at the RealClearPolitics delegate count, I see Obama 1,272, Clinton 1,231. Leave out the superdelegates, and it’s a bigger margin: 1,116 to 989. Surely 130 delegates is not insurmountable!
Look, I’m slowly moving into the “Obama is the unequivocal frontrunner” camp after some foot-dragging, but I think his campaign is celebrating a bit too soon. I understand how good they must be feeling, but nothing makes a campaign more ‘evitable’ than crowing about how ‘unevitable’ it has become…
I’m not sure I agree with you 100 percent on your police work there, Lou. The Obama camp isn’t counting superdelegates at this point, so 136 is the relevant number (as they see it – if RCP has it lower, then work with that number). In order to make up that gap, with the way Democratic delegates are apportioned, Hillary is going to have to start absolutely blowing Obama out in the rest of the states. I mean, you’ve seen what the contest has been like so far: Obama has lost a few narrow contests and trounced Hillary in most of the rest, and he still only has a 130-delegate lead! It’s very hard to build a substantial majority on the Democratic side.
Now, the superdelegates are another matter. Obama and his team are counting on them to follow the democratic (small-d) results from the primaries and caucuses. I, unlike apparently everyone else in the world, consider that reasonable: I find it hard to believe that the superdelegates are going to be willing to just overturn a democratic outcome and risk the kind of repercussions that would set off in the party.
When political campaigns talk to the media, it’s all about shaping Expectations.
Obama’s had a really nice run, and should knock up two more wins come Tuesday. In order to end the primary on March 4th, he needs to keep building strength in Texas and Ohio, and deny Hillary her “firewall”. His biggest advantage at the moment is that for an entire (short) month, he will have all the wins, and will begin to appear inevitable. He and his campaign are working hard to strengthen that appearance because it makes it more likely to be true — the classic self-fulfilling prophecy of political campaign.
Even better than the campaign spin was Obama’s victory speech after the Potomac primaries — he barely mentioned Hillary. It was all looking forward to the national campaign against McCain. He never said Hillary was done, he just assumed it. Brilliant.
(Also… the math is pretty much true — Hillary hasn’t blown Obama away by large margins anywhere but Arkansas and Oklahoma, and Obama’s pulled out large double-digit victories all over the place. And she can’t beat him without either putting up such large double-digit numbers in some of the remaining large states or else winning a stronger majority in the superdelegates than she has been so far. It’s not over — but it’s looking grim for the Clintons.)
Polls in Ohio still show a big lead for Clinton. If she wins Texas and Ohio, by any margin, she is right back in it. She may be behind but she might make it by a combine of
superdelegates and Florida/Michigan.
I do not think that the Dems can, in the end, not seat Michigan and Florida.
Obama is making an error to talk like this. He should still paint himself as the underdog. Overdogs are not doing so well this year.
Questions: how are the Superdelegates allocated? Are they apportioned by State to follow the results in that State? If so, doesn’t that mean that assigning them to the candidate that won that State is respecting the will of the people (small-d)? Also, who has the lead in the popular vote? Hillary, correct?
I believe the supers are allowed to vote as they please, though it’s frowned upon if they don’t vote how the people who elected them wanted.
My dad said he saw being interviewed who stated that it didn’t matter if his state, congressional district, county, or city voted for Obama; he would be voting for Hillary.
Superdelegates vote for whomever they please. They are under no obligations to the popular vote of their state.
As for popular vote, Obama’s lead is so large that he is still in the lead if you count both Florida (where he didn’t campaign) and Michigan (where his name wasn’t even on the ballot and, hence, he got 0 votes). That will get closer if Hillary wins in Texas and Ohio, but first she has to actually win them.
Link to the above claim:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/obama_leads_in_the_total_popul.php
It’s certainly true there’s a danger in appearing too overconfident — but the Obama camp is trying (I’d guess) to convince big contributors that Hillary’s done for — and so, not a good “investment”. He’s ahead in fundraising right now, and she desperately needs to make up that difference to keep her leads in Ohio and Texas. There’s plenty of time for him to turn those numbers around with some ad buys, but Texas is a particularly expensive TV market (I think I read there are four different broadcast regions to cover…) — so all Obama needs to do is keep Clinton’s fundraising levels down.
Bob-
If she only wins by 1%, they’ll just split the delegates and she won’t make up any real ground in the delegate count. She has to win them big. And she hasn’t won any states big(except Arkansas and Oklahoma). Add in the fact that Texas allots a third of its delegates by Caucus — a medium which favors Obama — and it doesn’t look good for Hillary, despite the polls.
Clint
Well, “by any margin” I guess I meant more than 1% but less than a blow out.
I take your point but she does not have to catch Obama, she just has to keep it close enough to provide cover to the superdelegates. She then has an argument (assuming it plays out) that she won all the big states [California, NY, Ohio, Pennslyvania, Florida, Texas, Michigan, New Jersey] except for Illinois and that Obama won alot of undemocratic caucuses. In other words, provide enough smoke that the superdelegates, if so inclined, can vote for her without too much pain.
I am not saying this is a sure fireway to win but it provides a path.
Now, will the nomination be worth it if she keeps a sizable % of Obama people home? That is a different question.
If the Super Delegates are free agents then it seems to me they shouldn’t be counted at this stage (polled maybe, but not counted).
I agree that they should not be counted. I think NBC is the lone agency that does not count them, though.