« White Candidate Can't Catch a Break | Main | Writer's Strike »

Fear of a Black Plurality

12 Feb 2008 10:25 am

Obama Alone

In addition to allocating delegates to the winner of the overall District vote, here in DC we also allocate some delegates on a ward-by-ward basis. In places like Ward 7 and Ward 8 east of the Anacostia River, Hillary Clinton is hopelessly doomed. But in diverse Ward 1 where I live, she ought to have a shot. We're not nearly as white as Ward 2 or Ward 3, but we are "the only ward where you’ll find no population group with a majority". In short, there are black people and white people plus a healthy dollop of Hispanics. Are City Council representative, Jim Graham, is of the caucasion persuasion, so it should be possible for a white politician to secure some support here. Indeed, Graham is a Clinton supporter.

What's more, while Precinct 22 (pictured above) where I vote was pretty heavily black during the 2004 cycle, when I voted there this morning it was about half and half. And yet, while Obama has a volunteer standing outside in the cold by a table full of campaign literature, urging passersby to vote for Obama, Clinton had nobody. Similarly, her campaign doesn't seem to have gotten any "HILLARY" signs into the hands of any of the residents of my neighborhood. Consequently, in what looks like a pretty decent turnout I imagine Obama's going to dominate:

IMG_0875 1

What seems to be going on here is that Clinton feels that she can't maintain the pretense that Maryland and Washington and Virginia and The Other Washington and Maine and Nebraska and the US Virgin Islands and Louisiana "don't count" if she bothers to campaign in these places. But thanks to the way Democrats allocate delegates, there's a substantial difference between "losing" a jurisdiction and getting blown out in that jurisdiction. My guess is that Clinton's lackluster campaigning is creating a situation where she's leaving delegates on the table.

Share This

Comments (64)

I must say, I like the white gloves. Obama is aggresively capturing the mime vote

Are City Council representative

Now you're doing this on purpose.

Turnout seemed low at my polling place in southwest VA (presumably Hillary country). There was no line when I got there at 10am.

Well, Hillary is supposed to be near broke(which is pretty sad when you think about it). It is also a tell into their screwed up thinking. Obama made a decision to campaign just about everywhere(especially since he has the money to do it). It is obvious that Clinton's campaign was all about a coronation. It's also obvious that the Clintons think their shit don't stink. I do wonder what Bill and Hillary said to each other when Obama first announced. I bet they were pretty damn dismissive(seems that way considering what is happening now).

What seems to be going on here is that Clinton feels that she can't maintain the pretense that [certain primaries] "don't count" if she bothers to campaign in these places.

If a state doesn't count because one candidate doesn't campaign there, that would mean Michigan and Florida don't count either. Yet Mark Penn told me they do. Is it possible that they are being inconsistent here?

I don't think it's that she doesn't want to contest them. I think she probably just doesn't have enough money or organizational smarts to mount a challenge. Her excuse ("well, I didn't bother with them, so how could I be expected to win?") seems like a narrative born of necessity, rather than an ideology that is actually driving the way she's organized the campaign.

Either way, though, it doesn't seem like a smart strategy.

Watching the election-eve coverage last night, I thought it was indelible how much the evident affect of the candidates and those rallying around them reflected what's really going on. Obama was ebullient, floating on a triumphant vibe visible in the faces and gestures of everyone around him in the camera's frame. Clinton looked strained, puffy, with a tight grin as she thanked her supporters, who all seemed to be vaguely apologetic with their body english that something more special wasn't happening than their simply showing up. Maybe I'm just projecting--but I think this thing is all but over. Clinton cannot survive in an airless room until March 4.

when I voted there this morning

Voted for who?

Come on Matt, don't be coy?

Exactly, she's going the quasi-Giuliani route and pinning her hopes to specific states rather than contesting in places where she *could* get some traction...if she had any kind of effective field organizing.

But as has been noted elsewhere, it seems she decided to rely on the dem establishment and her existing cred for pretty much the entire campaign.

I mean, come on, how hard can it be to organize
the retired, 60+ women who are supposedly her base? Don't they have the time to get out on the street corners and wave a sign for their girl? Perhaps no one asked them. If so, that's a big mistake--grandma might have made a difference in this race.

Does anyone really think that a guy standing outside a polling place actually influences a vote? I would certainly hope not. It's not like I would walk up to the place and thing, 'Well, I guess Hillary doesn't care enough to get my vote, so Obama it is.' That is just stupid. The candidates are campaigning everywhere, all the time. TV and the web make sure of that. Its the same as people claiming that Obama has no name recognition. Give me a break. He's the first black man with a shot at the presidency of the US. The only guy that hasn't heard about him lives in a bunker in his back yard and thinks nukes fell on his neighborhood in the 60's.

I just want to say how fascinating it's been watching the CW about which candidates were up and which were down vacillate to such extremes this campaign season. I won't be surprised at all if a month from now we're talking about Hillary's huge sweep of TX OH & PA and how it's all over. I've got a tuppence of hope that doesn't transpire, of course.

In district 25, where I voted this morning (Jim Graham's neighborhood) it was white and young and professional (and crowded), with four young women Hillary supporters with signs out front, but only a sole Obama sign stuck in a yard, and no Obama volunteers. I have to say, Ward 1 being a pretty 'wine & cheese' area, I was expecting to see Obama people out.

Matt Y is right. She--thanks to her genius campaign staff (yes, I'm talking about you, Penn)--has boxed herself in. In order to avoid the national perception that she's being routed, and to conserve money for TX and OH, she's pretending that all these primaries and caucuses don't matter. To take that line, she has to not mount effective campaigns in these states. But this could depress her turnout, thus reducing her delegate hauls and thus her campaign's striking power. It's a vicious cycle. We might be watching the slow unwinding of a campaign.

"...she probably just doesn't have enough money or organizational smarts to mount a challenge." If that's true, it's amazing! This is Hillary we're talking about here!

It's not like I would walk up to the place and thing, 'Well, I guess Hillary doesn't care enough to get my vote, so Obama it is.' That is just stupid.

I think you must lack first-hand experience with how stupid people, in fact, are.

Does anyone really think that a guy standing outside a polling place actually influences a vote?

Absolutely.

Lots of p[eople (self included) have been torn between the two candidates and a significant part of the case for Obama is that he mobilizes/energizes/excites people in a way that Clinton doesn't. Pollsite volunteers are evidence for that.

Besides, people aren't perfectly rational about this stuff. The whole point of voting is you feel or want to feel part of something bigger than your individuals elf. The volunteer confirms taht by voting, you are part of a movement.

I definitely know people in NYC who were swayed by the fact that enthusiastic Obama volunteers were everywhere, while Clinton volunteers were ... not.

My polling place (also Ward 1 - Precinct 35) was packed this morning at 9am-ish. I waited in line for about 30 minutes and, by the time I was leaving, the line to vote ran out into the street.

Random question: did anyone else's polling place ask them if they'd prefer paper ballot or touch screen? No one that I saw was choosing touch screen.

JB, I don't know - there is a lot of evidence to suggest that a significant portion of voters make up their minds once they are inside the voting booth. Who knows what kind of influence someone standing outside with a sign could have?

while Obama has a volunteer standing outside in the cold by a table full of campaign literature, urging passersby to vote for Obama, Clinton had nobody.

Is that legal? I thought there were restrictions around that sort of thing.

Voted for who? Come on Matt, don't be coy?

lemuel, read a few posts down; Matt told us who he voted for.

Clinton feels that she can't maintain the pretense that Maryland and Washington and Virginia and The Other Washington and Maine and Nebraska and the US Virgin Islands and Louisiana "don't count" if she bothers to campaign in these places.

Well how else will she be able to send out a post-defeat press release about how little effort she put into these states, and claim moral victories? It doesn't count if you really try.

It does seem like a pretty pathetic strategy. You almost have to hope that it comes mostly from a lack of funding because otherwise it would indicate pretty poor judgement on the part of a primary candidate who might represent the Dems in the general.

On the other hand, if the campaign is clean out of cash, isn't that a poor strategic spot to find yourself in? Shouldn't someone have thought of this ahead of time? Or was Clinton just counting on having it all wrapped up by now?

Finally, if Clinton doesn't get the nomination, can she keep soliciting donations to pay herself back on that $5M loan?

I also find it fascinating that the typical response to that level of enthusiasm is "well, it's all based on empty rhetoric and superficial appeal." As if those things aren't completely central to how politics gets done. No one goes down in history as a great politician for being a pedestrian communicator who fails to motivate or excite people. People like Obama always go on to be very successful, influential and powerful politicians, but people want to pretend such skills are somehow illegitimate when they're still on the way up.

How can Hillary fend off the Republicans and the islamofascists when she can't even manage her campaign finances past Super Tuesday?

What a bunch of racist obamabots. Yes, go vote for the manchurian candidate, you know, the one that Wm. Kristol, peggy Noonan et al are slavering over.

Actually, JB, while your reading may make sense in the abstract, the evidence doesn't seem to bear it out. Despite the saturation coverage, etc., exit polls consistently show: a) very high favorable ratings for both candidates (indicating at least a possible willingness to listen); and b) a decent chunk in each state who decide on their vote very late in the game. All of which would suggest that having that presence on the ground, on the day (as well as canvasers, lawn signs, etc etc) can't hurt.

I was struck by the news stories this morning, stating that Hillary had moved on to the next states, as she didn't anticipate any need to give a victory speech in the area today.

If I was thinking of voting for Hillary, and heard that she'd given up and moved on, I would be significantly less likely to bother. Which ends up costing delegates, even if victory is, in fact, not possible. What is her campaign thinking?

LOL @ Ruth Kaplan...you sound like you want to cry. B'bye Billary.

Is that legal? I thought there were restrictions around that sort of thing.

Generally there's a certain distance you have to be from the pollsite.

And yes, I see Matt voted for Obama.

Ruth! I absolutely love your posts here. In fact, I've been swaying toward Obama lately, but your inspiring, heartfelt, convincing posts are starting to get to me. I just may have to vote for Hillary! Down with Men! Down with Blacks! HILLARY FOREVER!!

Ruth, have you ever heard of the game where you buy a square in a field and wherever the cow poops, the person who bought that square wins?

Just because the cow pooped in Obama's square doesn't mean anything to me. You, on the other hand, seem to be full of it.

("Manchurian candidate." Seriously? That's how desperate Clinton's blog-trolls are now?)

Yes, go vote for the manchurian candidate, you know, the one that Wm. Kristol, peggy Noonan et al are slavering over.

wait. Obama's the Manchurian Candidate now? i thought McCain was the official Manchurian Candidate, this time 'round. can't you clowns even keep your slander straight ?

Dean strategy is what the plan should be. Hard to do it if funds are lacking.

Overall I'm not counting her out. She might make the firewall strategy work in Oh, Tx, and Pa. even if Guiliani couldn't do it in Florida.

I'd love to see a nail in that coffin, but New Hampshire scarred me for life.

>>Is that legal? I thought there were restrictions around that sort of thing.

Of course it's legal, as long as they stand a certain distance away and don't come inside the polling place.

Obama looks loose, relaxed, comfortable. She looks stiffer. I'm not sure how much body language affects perception (I've seen some pretty amazing estimates, though) but I do think it helps set the tone a lot.

I notice that the right-wing loons on radio are starting to slam him big time now, which suggests to me that they think she's had it. Having survived the Cardiac Cardinals of the 70's in St. Louis, I know it's never over 'til it's over, but there's been a shift, particularly since the weekend. All you Hillary supporters who object to her treatment by the media may be able to relax a bit -- they have him in their sights now.

Is that legal? I thought there were restrictions around that sort of thing.

There are - there is a certain distance from polling stations that campaign workers cannot pass.

For D.C., the DCMR (District of Columbia Municipal Regulation) section that covers this states:

708.4 No partisan or nonpartisan political activity, or any other activity which, in the judgment of the Precinct Captain, may directly or indirectly interfere with the orderly conduct of the election, shall be permitted in, on, or withina reasonable distance outside the building used as a polling or vote counting place.

708.5 The distance deemed "reasonable" shall be approximately fifty feet (50 ft.) from any door used to enter the building for voting.

708.6 The exact distance shall be determined by the Precinct Captain, depending on the physical features of the building and surrounding area.

708.7 Wherever possible, the limits shall be indicated by a chalk line, or by some other physical marker, at the polling place.

708.8 For the purposes of this section, the term "political activity" shall include without limitation, any activity intended to persuade a person to vote for or against any candidate or measure or to desist from voting.

My polling place - Ward 2, Precinct 14 - is mostly White, and there were no Clinton workers there, only Obama - but just a few, standing just beyond a sign affixed to an orange cone stating, "no political activity beyond this point" - just about 50 feet from the door to the church that is our polling station.

The big Clinton problem is lack of money. Sure the $10m they raised online funds the Senator's travel, purchases a few thousand points of TV ads, and let's them meet payroll for a month, but they can't really do more than that. Obama, on the other hand, basically has organization in place on the same scale as it was on January 3, with hundreds of organizers sprinkled around the nation, the candidate staging huge costly rallies, zero candidate time wasted sweet-talking a wealthy Ranger-type.

Just for some more data: Hillary had people at the Eastern Market Metro (where there is a polling station) and East Falls Church, where there is not.

Saw no presence from either candidate at the Adams Morgan polling place, but there were Obama and Clinton supporters holding signs near the Van Ness metro station over the weekend (a more visible Obama presence, however).

I really don't understand the Clinton strategy...
Is it to only focus on big, delegate-rich states and hope that your name recognition delivers you delegates in other states?
Why did she completely give up on the African American vote?
Did she not campaign in the smaller states because she ran out of money?

Do you realize that sentences like:

"Are City Council representative, Jim Graham, is of the caucasion persuasion..."

are very distracting, in what otherwise would be a very good blog post?

Why do you embrace the typos? Please, for your readers' sakes, give these posts a once-over! Or hire a proof reader. (I'm available.)

The only guy that hasn't heard about him lives in a bunker in his back yard and thinks nukes fell on his neighborhood in the 60's

Brendan Fraser?

I really don't want to hear about her money troubles. Do you realize she blew through $175 million before Super Tuesday? That is around the same amount John Kerry spent for the 2004 general election. Now, she can't contest any states, except for the last three big states. Even if she manages to win the nomination, how are we supposed to trust her campaign to manage its money for the general election?

The thing that worries me is this: if she does get the nomination, will her campaign look like this too? I suspect it will, with Mark Penn still on her staff. Dean's 50-state strategy won big in '06; focusing only on 'battleground' states could have Dems snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Clinton campaign's problem isn't cash - it's the candidate.

Mike Huckabee's never had much more then fumes to run but he's running a lot farther than anyone expected. He just flies coach and, thanks to his affability, is always getting free airtime.

My guess is that Clinton's lackluster campaigning is creating a situation where she's leaving delegates on the table.

I agree. The nice thing about the Democrat's proportional system is that it makes a difference whether you lose by 3% or by 30%. Every state is worth campaigning in, even if it's the opposition's home turf.

Yet the Clintons have been taking states off the table ever since South Carolina and now we've got a collection of them that Hillary literally says are not worth winning. (I guess she's not an advocate of Howard Dean's 50-state strategy).

Is this how she's going to campaign in the general election? Ceding large swaths of "red" America before even starting. This should be a blowout year for the Democratic nominee yet she seems to be dreaming of a 271 electoral vote squeaker.

Can anybody explain to me why the media has given the Clintons a pass on this? Why is it ok for them to ignore every contest in february, to not campaign in any contest for a month, and simply wait for a contest that seems to favor them? That is not a national campaign. Has Obama ever given up on a state (except maybe Arkansas)? And there are actually more delegates at stake today and last Saturday combined than are up for grabs on March 4.

It's not only a ridiculous strategy, its a failing strategy. With the way the Texas primacaucus is set up, it'll be almost impossible (barring some huge scandal) for Clinton to get significantly more delegates than Obama. So she'd have to beat him by AT LEAST 10% in Ohio, probably more like 20%, to even halve his pledged delegate lead (by March 4, he's likely to be ahead by over 100 pledged delegates). So yes, as the media notes, she's making March 4 her "firewall." But someone needs to cite the math and make it clear that even a strong showing on that Tuesday won't offset Obama's February sweep.

Jinchi,

Is this how she's going to campaign in the general election? Ceding large swaths of "red" America before even starting. This should be a blowout year for the Democratic nominee yet she seems to be dreaming of a 271 electoral vote squeaker.

Yes.

I don't think anyone who's a fan of the strategy of contesting every state and area should be okay with her dismissing red states as irrelevant since they won't be won in the GE. I don't think we'll win there, but I certainly want a candidate who's going to go there, try to win them, keep the Democrats there energized, present our ideals to independent voters, and at the very least help candidates for House, Senate, and local offices win. It's better than 50%+1.

In all fairness to the Clinton campaign, Wards 1-3 of the District of Columbia collectively resemble in many respects the kinds of places (San Francisco, Cambridge/Brookline/Newton) where Obama has beaten Hillary handily in other states.

Still, you'd think at least Virginia might be worth contesting more for Hillary.

Do you realize that sentences like:

"Are City Council representative, Jim Graham, is of the caucasion persuasion..."

are very distracting, in what otherwise would be a very good blog post?

Why do you embrace the typos? Please, for your readers' sakes, give these posts a once-over! Or hire a proof reader. (I'm available.)

There are so many homophone-typos, it makes me wonder if Matt uses speech recognition software to compose his posts.

I don't think we'll win there, but I certainly want a candidate who's going to go there, try to win them, keep the Democrats there energized, present our ideals to independent voters, and at the very least help candidates for House, Senate, and local offices win.

And shit, give a little love to the Democrats in those areas! I bet Hillary will still take checks from them, after all. Especially in an age where blogging and email has become vital, reaching out to all your supporters, regardless of geography, has some serious symbolism.

The Clinton campaign's problem isn't cash - it's the candidate.

Disagree. It's not the candidate, it's the campaign. She's boxed in by her own campaign. If Clinton loses, it may liberate her from Penn, Wolfson and the other dead weight. I think it's too late for her to do that while in the campaign.

Persia, let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton plans to run a "blue state" election campaign:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/11/clinton-dismisses-weekend-losses/

The red state dissing in that article pushed me over the edge. I lived in WY in the 80s and 90s. It's awful lonely being a dem in WY. Exactly who does she think was defending her around dinner tables and in offices across the country against all the 90s wingnut rants? Red state democrats like me. Now my vote doesn't count? My reaction to that isn't fit for print in a family blog.

I now live in VA. I laughed when I got an email from the Clinton campaign telling me she needed my vote. I look forward to hearing how much my Obama vote counted, or didn't, depending on the result.

I won't vote for McCain, but I may just sit home this election season if she gets the nod. Why bust my butt working for a presidential nominee who's decided that my vote doesn't count in November? I know you gotta go where the votes are, but our presidential candidate is also our party's standard-bearer. What political party standard bearer tells PARTY MEMBERS "YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT"? Democrats deserve better. America deserves better.

Obama '08!

My precinct (Ward 2, Precinct 21, Metropolitan Baptist Church near Logan Circle) was easy-in, easy-out at around 8:30 this morning...but I've never seen it crowded, and there were several times more people than the last several elections I've voted in there. The voters there while I was were split pretty evenly between black and white.

There were two Obama volunteers outside, distributing campaign literature and greeting voters. No sign of Hillary's campaign at all. And while this fact didn't change my vote, it made me feel better about my choice: over the past couple of weeks, my wife and I have received calls from Obama volunteers encouraging us to vote, but nothing from Hillary's campaign...between that fact and the lack of any presence at the polling site, I really don't have much confidence in Hillary's ability to organize a national campaign, despite massive amounts of money raised, and a political organization built up over two decades.

Presidential candidates have been ignoring the District for as long as District residents have been able to vote for president...but that don't make it right.

There are so many homophone-typos, it makes me wonder if Matt uses speech recognition software to compose his posts.

I've noticed typing a lot of homophone typos. If you think of composing the message as sort of "speaking in your head", makes sense. It may also be a function of button-mashing and the word-recognition software on the iphone.

Hillary is by far a better candidate than Obama. She has to run against the media, sexism, women who are jealous, false accusations of racism. I must say, after she secures the nomination, she will be more than ready to take on McCain.

How Democrats think a guy with no experience will be elected leader of the free world, just shows how out of touch a lot of Democrats are.

She has to run against the media, sexism, women who are jealous, false accusations of racism.

Why do Hillary's campaign and her supporters continue to think that framing this contest with Hillary as the victim is going to help her win the nomination? It's not working. She needs a new strategy. Stop blaming everyone else and get out and convince some people that you're the best candidate! It's what Obama's been doing, and it seems to be working well for him.

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch Virginia Politics blog:

"Democrats outnumbered Republicans today even in Chesterfield County, one of the GOP’s reliable party strongholds in Virginia.

“There are probably a lot of Republicans voting in the Democratic primary today,” joked Chesterfield Registrar Larry Haake."

Don't say you weren't warned about GOP dirty tricksters crashing the primary for Hillary.

Voting in my uber white neighborhood in Ward 3 at 7:05 AM, which should be a place where Hillary can compete, I saw no signs of her campaign. Obama folks were out in abundance and there was definitely a very cheerful atmosphere about the place. I think people were thrilled about the novel experience of 1) having a chance to vote for a candidate about whom they are genuinely enthusiastic; and 2) to participate in an election of consequence, a very rare treat for us here in DC.

MattY:
In addition to allocating delegates to the winner of the overall District vote, here in DC we also allocate some delegates on a ward-by-ward basis.

Really? My understanding is a little different. According to the Green Papers ( http://tinyurl.com/382oz4 ), the DC pledged delegates are alloted as follows:

10 district delegates are to be allocated proportionally to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the District's 2 municipal districts (each consisting of 4 of the city's 8 wards).
municipal district 1 (Wards 1, 2, 3, 4): 5
municipal district 2 (Wards 5, 6, 7, 8): 5

In addition, 5 delegates are to be allocated to presidential contenders based on the district wide primary vote.
3 at-large National Convention delegates
2 Pledged PLEOs.
So those first ten delegates aren't doled out "ward-by-ward"; they go "five-wards-by-five-wards," in just two batches.


MattY:
In addition to allocating delegates to the winner of the overall District vote, here in DC we also allocate some delegates on a ward-by-ward basis.

Really? My understanding is a little different. According to the Green Papers ( http://tinyurl.com/382oz4 ), the DC pledged delegates are alloted as follows:

10 district delegates are to be allocated proportionally to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the District's 2 municipal districts (each consisting of 4 of the city's 8 wards).
municipal district 1 (Wards 1, 2, 3, 4): 5
municipal district 2 (Wards 5, 6, 7, 8): 5

In addition, 5 delegates are to be allocated to presidential contenders based on the district wide primary vote.
3 at-large National Convention delegates
2 Pledged PLEOs.
So those first ten delegates aren't doled out "ward-by-ward"; they go "four-wards-by-four-wards," in just two batches.


Whoops--obviously my attempt to edit that first one didn't work. Anyway, it's "four wards," not "five."

How Democrats think a guy with no experience will be elected leader of the free world, just shows how out of touch a lot of Democrats are.

Is "guy with no experience" code for "affirmative action hire"? Obama has more legislative experience with largely more substantial results (campaign reform, videotaping suspect confessions, Illinois healthcare reform). You could also argue he has better executive chops due to his better vision (Iraq) and ability to surround himself with better people (his campaign).

Hillary is by far a better candidate than Obama. She has to run against the media, sexism, women who are jealous, false accusations of racism. I must say, after she secures the nomination, she will be more than ready to take on McCain.

Another pussy-boi heard from.

Leroy,

That's not so cool either.

First-time primary voters are welcome,indeed-if you turned 18 in the last election cycle.

The rest of you...I wonder.

Where the hell have you been?

Waiting to be "turned on"? Flattered and pandered to? Inspired?

And will you show up next year?

Will you read up on the DC schoolboard candidates, pick the ones that seem most informed about the problems of innercity Washington, and vote?

Are you Democrats?

Are you ok with Obama going up before, what, 20,000 screaming Idahoans, and saying "You can keep your guns!"

I live in an innercity, far far from Honolulu, and the prep school where Obama "struggled" with whatever he was struggling with...

What is so great about this guy?

I just don't get it.


Wobbly,

One of the most important aspects of leadership is inspiration. If your candidate doesn't inspire, whose fault is that?


Comments closed February 26, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.