Matthew Yglesias (February 09, 2008)

5, sir.

http://www.politicalinaction.com/2008/02/5-victories-for-barack-obama-tonight.html

Posted by Brian | February 9, 2008 11:30 PM

Next post: Matt flip-flops on his Clinton nomination prediction.

Video at 11.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 9, 2008 11:34 PM

Despite a speech tonight that is loaded with specifics(policy initiatives, dollar figures, time frames), why am I sure that Clintonistas will continue right on dismissing Obama for having nothing but empty rhetoric?

Posted by rob! | February 9, 2008 11:35 PM

Ambinder has become a Clinton shill. So what if he can't win the states "where a majority of Democrats reside"? If he were to lose CA, NY, NJ and MA by 4 votes but won every other state by 100% of the vote - would that be some sort of argument that he shouldn't be the nominee?

Posted by Nate | February 9, 2008 11:38 PM

Obama's problem in the big states is pretty simple: They're too big for him to get those voters to know him.

Another factor is that Clinton got her voters in those states to cast their votes early, thus preventing them from switching to Obama. This is also a reason why Obama does better in caucus states because voters can't commit early.

Posted by Mike | February 9, 2008 11:39 PM

I like reading the columnists here at the Atlantic, but I have to agree with Nate above. Ambinder has really just been parroting the Clinton spin for awhile now. Thanks for giving us good perspectives from both sides.

Posted by Craig | February 9, 2008 11:41 PM

shorter ambinder:

Screw the purple states, lets get a solid 55% in blue states in November.

Posted by ben | February 9, 2008 11:42 PM

Of states that voted for Kerry:

Clinton - California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York (all primaries)

Obama - Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota (caucus), Washington (caucus)

This is a Clinton advantage, certainly, especially given that two of the states Obama won were caucuses (it should be interesting to see how the meaningless beauty pageant primary in Washington goes next Tuesday, for comparison purposes).

But it's hardly a shut out. Winning those Beltway primaries ought to help, though, with ending some of this meme.

Posted by John | February 9, 2008 11:46 PM

It's not spin. Ambinder is just telling the truth: Obama can't win blue strongholds, so in the November election he'll lose NY, CA, etc.

Posted by plum | February 9, 2008 11:46 PM

I tend to think that when a reporter seems to be a shill it means that one spin machine is winning.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | February 9, 2008 11:48 PM

Marc's also wrong to imply that the Democratic rank-and-file wouldn't be enthused for Obama in November. Huge turnout everywhere aside, Kerry was predicted to have this exact same problem in 2004, yet he won the usual 90% of the Dem vote. Does anyone really think that Democrats at large liked Kerry more than they like Obama?

Posted by Craigo | February 9, 2008 11:49 PM

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. But seriously, won't Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania help to shore up Clinton's delegate count?

Posted by plum | February 9, 2008 11:49 PM

Matt - you gave him the kiss of life when you predicted HRC to win the nomination. I hope this means at least a deputy position for you somewhere in the administration (so long as it's not deputy prognosticator).

Posted by RPG | February 9, 2008 11:50 PM

Plum, assuming she wins Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, it'll help stem the tide (although close victories in those states won't help her much against the huge victories Obama seems to be winning).

I'm not sure that's guaranteed at this point, though.

Posted by John | February 9, 2008 11:51 PM

Do people really believe that in a general election, those people voting for Clinton in NY and CA will vote for a Republican nominee instead? That seems so ridiculous to me. Most Clinton supporters seem to think that Clinton is a better candidate but will support Obama in the general. Not winning the state against a Democratic opponent doesn't mean he won't win against a Republican. Just nonsense.

Posted by Craig | February 9, 2008 11:51 PM

I've been waiting to see some more data on California. I suspect - but don't know - that much of Clinton's margin was provided by early voters who cast their ballots by mail before Obama's surge in the week following South Carolina. Also, while the California primary was semi-open, apparently there are a lot of California independents who didn't know that. There have also been reports that a number of California ballots from independents were spoiled because the voter selected a candidate but did not check an additional box indicating which party's primary they were voting in.

What is most important about the totality of these Midwest and Western Obama victories, as I see it, is not whether the particular state in question is likely to go Republican or Democratic. It's that Obama is getting independents to vote for him all over the country. Given that the past two presidential elections were two of the closest in history, this is hugely important.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 9, 2008 11:51 PM

I think Obama's going to win because well, of the 2 month view of his trend. She's bumped up a little, he's bumped up a ton into (at least) a tie.

Why would this trend abate?

That said, I do think he needs to win 2 of the 3 really big ones to assert his legitimacy.

Posted by mike | February 9, 2008 11:53 PM

Matt

My experience here in CA dovetailed with the polls which said that Obama won Af-Am and White voters but lost Asian voters and Latino voters.

I do alot of GOTV, part of that is hundreds of voter contacts and interactions.

Obama had the ethusiastic support of Af-Am and White voters I encountered across demographic and income lines.

What struck me was how many voters would greet me enthusiastically and express support for Obama. White businessmen and white businesswomen were heavily Obama and made a point of saying so. That's not usually the case with Democratic candidates. Labor union members were pro-Obama here in Oakland by a large margin.

Can Obama run strong in CA and NY? I have no doubt of that. Will he need to do real outreach into CA's diverse communities? Yes.

The point is: those who got to know Obama supported him enthusiastically.

He has huge upside potential. I think that applies to big states as well and cities where machine politics is business as usual.

What was striking was the enthusiasm.

Posted by kid oakland | February 9, 2008 11:54 PM

Well, before Texas and Ohio even get to vote there are plenty of Obama-friendly states to shore up his count. Clinton would have to win those states by 20-point-plus landslides to catch Obama in pledged delegates, and landslides are something she's been singularly unable to accomplish outside of her home states.

Posted by Craigo | February 9, 2008 11:54 PM

I'm not sure that Ambinder is a Clinton shill, but I am sure that the half of his posts that are comprehensible to literate folks seem to be chock full of lazy political "analysis." So this is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.

Posted by RS | February 9, 2008 11:54 PM

Are there any Clinton voters that wouldn't vote for Obama in the general? Are there any Obama voters that wouldn't vote for Hillary? (Hint: the answer may not be the same for both questions).

Posted by ben | February 9, 2008 11:56 PM

Obama wins caucuses because (1) he organizes them well, and (2) lots of Hillary's voters--old, disabled, women, and Latinos--don't do night meetings.

Posted by John Petty | February 9, 2008 11:58 PM

Obama's expectations are now officially managed.

He expects to lose Maine, Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, Penn, Kentucky and Puerto Rico and still enter the convention with a 67 pledged delegate lead.

He looks to have gained 10 or 12 more delegates today than he expected.

Every time he beats these conservative estimates that still give him a very legitimate claim to the nomination in August, he has beat his own campaign's expectations.

Posted by Arnold Evans | February 10, 2008 12:00 AM

I think Obama's going to win because well, of the 2 month view of his trend. She's bumped up a little, he's bumped up a ton into (at least) a tie.

Why would this trend abate?

If Clinton's actually bumped up a little, isn't it obvious that it would abate once Obama captures the rest of the primary electorate? That's almost where we are now and it leaves us pretty close to 50-50. It's not like he's going to be at 70% by March and 110% by May.

Posted by RS | February 10, 2008 12:01 AM

I've been waiting to see some more data on California. I suspect - but don't know - that much of Clinton's margin was provided by early voters who cast their ballots by mail before Obama's surge in the week following South Carolina.

Hillary won because of the Hispanic and Asian vote that represented 40% of ballots. African-Americans were only 7%. Those demographics don't exist in any of the key remaining states (except maybe the Latino proportion in Texas). Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the Beltway states have significant urban African-American voting blocks that will carry Obama as long as he keeps the white vote close, as he did in, say, Missouri.

Posted by right | February 10, 2008 12:01 AM

I support Obama but would definitely vote for Hillary in a general. However, I know of a lot of people who are for Obama who will not vote for Hillary. The dynasty thing plus the scandals of the 90's has really turned a lot of people sour to both Clintons.

Posted by Craig | February 10, 2008 12:01 AM

It's also pretty clear that in the general election, it won't take too much for Latino and Asian-Americans to transfer their loyalty to Obama. If he's the nominee, he'll have the Clinton network fighting for him, not against him.

Posted by plum | February 10, 2008 12:02 AM

Are there any Clinton voters that wouldn't vote for Obama in the general? Are there any Obama voters that wouldn't vote for Hillary? (Hint: the answer may not be the same for both questions).

The answer to both questions is "yes." But these questions aren't of central importance. The answer to the question of "Will Obama lose heavily Democratic states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and California?" and the answer is pretty obviously "no."

And yes, it's weird that people are just ignoring his wins in very Democratic states like Delaware, Connecticut, and now Washington. Maryland is another overwhelmingly Democratic state, and it's pretty obvious he'll be winning there on Tuesday.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 12:02 AM

Petty John,

WA's caucus was at 1pm on a Saturday. Were the old, disabled white women too busy working to go?

The real difference between caucuses (caucusi?) and primaries is that caucuses reward enthusiam and activists. Obama has a huge enthusiam margin over Clinton.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 12:05 AM

In the next few days, Obama will win ME, DC, VA, and MD

Hillary will win MSNBC

Posted by lampwick | February 10, 2008 12:05 AM

Obama's expectations are now officially managed.

He expects to lose Maine, Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, Penn, Kentucky and Puerto Rico and still enter the convention with a 67 pledged delegate lead.

He looks to have gained 10 or 12 more delegates today than he expected.

Every time he beats these conservative estimates that still give him a very legitimate claim to the nomination in August, he has beat his own campaign's expectations.

Posted by Arnold Evans | February 10, 2008 12:06 AM

Let's keep everything in perspective here. Yes, Clinton won California, 52% to 42%.

This is also a state where the Clintons have a history here and are very well liked-- they've made frequent trips here over the years.

Clinton was leading by 20-30% for much of the year, and even in the weeks leading up to Super Tuesday.

Obama made a total of two trips to California since the primary season began. One visit was to meet with 5 women and talk about the economy and presumably meet with local papers. The second was for the CNN debate held in Los Angeles.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton parked herself in California for about two crucial days leading up to Super Tuesday. She held rallies in San Jose, and Bill Clinton was also planted in San Francisco.

California was solid Clinton territory, and Obama didn't pay as much attention to it as he perhaps could have in order to win it, which he could have. But he had a different strategy.

Despite Bill Clinton spending the majority of time in San Francisco alongside our popular Mayor Gavin Newsom, and it being a bastion of liberalism; Obama beat Clinton by about 20% here.

The bottom line is that the Clintons were very heavily focused on California, and Obama didn't even look in our direction, and still only lost by 10%. The criticism of Obama not being able to win California is moot. He didn't even try.

Posted by Natascha | February 10, 2008 12:07 AM

Is the criticism that Obama can't win big heavily Democratic states? Well, he won his home state of Illinois and Clinton won her home state of New York. So this amounts to saying Obama lost California.

She won New Jersey and Massachusetts too.

Posted by donna darko | February 10, 2008 12:08 AM

" Like Andrew, I'm struck by the complete and devastating nature of Obama's win in Washington"

Caucus.

Obama has devastated Clinton in almost all of the caucus states.

"Is the criticism that Obama can't win big heavily Democratic states?"

The criticism is that Obama can't win states without a substantially larger than average AA percentage, unless that state is holding a caucus.

The only real exceptions to the pattern so far are CT and UT.

-----

"when Obama's winning more states and winning more delegates"

But, of course, Clinton is winning slightly more votes.

It's worth noting that almost all of Obama's advantage in pledged delegates won comes from caucus states. If you were to look only at primary states, the delegate count would be about even.

Interestingly, this race is going to eventually come down to Obama's undemocratic advantage among caucus delegates vs Clinton's undemocratic advantage among superdelegates.

Posted by Petey | February 10, 2008 12:10 AM

Obama's expectations are now officially managed.

He expects to lose Maine, Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, Penn, Kentucky and Puerto Rico and still enter the convention with a 67 pledged delegate lead.

He looks to have gained 10 or 12 more delegates today than he expected. (According to Openleft)

Every time he beats these conservative estimates that still give him a very legitimate claim to the nomination in August, he has beat his own campaign's expectations.

Posted by Arnold Evans | February 10, 2008 12:10 AM

If Obama is the nominee, the Dems will lose California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. It's true! I read it somewhere.

On another note, does anyone feel that Obama "beating" Hillary to be very sexist (and especially by so much). Shouldn't our nominee be opposed to violence against women (Did you know that Hillary is a woman?)0

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 12:13 AM

Obama barely campaigned in California in the runup to Super Tuesday and even so he closed in on Hillary. To say that his performance in California, which was while he was campaigning back east is the final verdict on how he can do here is an incredible leap of logic --and innaccurate to boot.

Posted by david in norcal | February 10, 2008 12:13 AM

Yes Arnold, that's why they "accidentally" attached their spreadsheet to the email.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 10, 2008 12:14 AM

The only thing the Feb. 5 states like California and Massachusetts said about Obama is that he can't win in big Democratic states like Califoria and Massachusetts where he doesnt have much time to campaign. Hillary always starts with 20 point leads produced by near-universal name recognition. In big Democratic states she often also starts out with access to the machine left over from the Bill Clinton years. In states with where the Democratic machine is negligiable and the state is small enough for a couple of appearances to make a real difference, Obama crushes. When there is a big machine for Hillary and/or the state is too big for a few appearances to make a significant difference, Obama cuts the lead a lot but runs out of time to win. The real tests will come in Ohio and Pennsylvania. He will actually have time to campaign and make up name recognition deficits (though those are getting smaller anyway). Ohio and Pennsylvania will be much better tests of whether Obama can win big states when he has time to really campaign. If he does, he almost certainly wins the nomination. If not, Hillary probably does.

Posted by Tim From VA | February 10, 2008 12:14 AM

Obama must win either Ohio or Pennsylvania. Case closed.

It doesn't matter if he has a 50 pledged delegate lead at the convention, he won't be chosen as the nominee if he doesn't win one of the big primaries. And no, not because he'd lose California or New York in the generals (that'd be ridiculous), but because the primary system is part of proving that you're a viable candidate, and if he doesn't win at least one big prize other than Illinois, he's absolutely failed to prove viability. Thus, it all comes down to Ohio and Pennsylvania. Ohio will be rough because it's had a big clinton lead for a long time, but Pennsylvania will be a 7 week long bloodbath campaign and may in fact decide the convention.

I want Obama to win, so here's what i see: He has to keep Ohio close, and then win Pennsylvania. Doesn't have to win by a lot, just win. That'll prove to the superdelegates that he's got a real shot in November.

Posted by Simon Ganz | February 10, 2008 12:15 AM

Dan Kervick, you are my hero. I f you live in upstate NY we should meet for a beer.

Now, as for Plum, who said this:
It's not spin. Ambinder is just telling the truth: Obama can't win blue strongholds, so in the November election he'll lose NY, CA, etc.

Plum, I don't know you but I guess that if you are an natural born American citizen and over the age of 35, even after spouting off the most idiotic comment I have seen in some time, could win those states in a general election.

The stupid, it burns!!

Posted by swarty | February 10, 2008 12:16 AM

"Obama barely campaigned in California in the runup to Super Tuesday"

In reality, Obama substantially outspent Clinton in CA, of course.

Posted by Petey | February 10, 2008 12:17 AM

Still comes down to OH,TX,PA. If Hillary takes all three, she will be the nominee (regardless of the exact delegate count at that point). There simply isn't any way the Dems will nominate someone who lost NY,CA,NJ,MA,OH,TX and PA (not to mention FL and MI). So the real test is whether Obama's expected wins before those states boost his numbers in them. If not, all his victories before then won't matter.

Posted by tdraicer | February 10, 2008 12:18 AM

I think it is nonsense, really bad logic, to say that Obama can't "win" big Democratic states after an election in which Democrats are expressing a preference for one of two Democratic candidates.

The important election to win is the one in which Democrats are asked to choose between a Republican and a Democrat. That's what winning a blue state should mean, and the current Dem-Dem election results can't be generalized to that situation.

Posted by PTate in MN | February 10, 2008 12:18 AM

Petey,

The criticism is that Obama can't win states without a substantially larger than average AA percentage, unless that state is holding a caucus.

The only real exceptions to the pattern so far are CT and UT.

Or Illinois. But really, what's "substantially larger than average?" Delaware has 20% compared to 12% nationally -- larger than the average, but substantially? It's slightly larger than New Jersey's 13% and New York's 16%. Missouri is under the national average with only 11%, and Obama won that state, too. What about New Mexico, which has a 2% black population and which Clinton and Obama tied in? Do any of these count as exceptions beyond Connecticut and Utah? Will Virginia (19%) count as an exception, or is anything over the national percentage excluded? What if he wins Wisconsin?

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 12:21 AM

Obama must win either Ohio or Pennsylvania. Case closed.

No, he doesn't. He needs to win the most pledged delegates, which is well on his way to doing, whether or not he wins OH or PA. The rest will take care of itself.

Posted by J.B. | February 10, 2008 12:23 AM

What Simon Ganz said, with the exception that Ohio is a better target for Obama than Pennsylvania.

PA is the oldest state in the country. It's a demographic nightmare for Obama.

Posted by Petey | February 10, 2008 12:23 AM

Petey,

Lemme welcome you back.

In reality, Obama substantially outspent Clinton in CA, of course."

If you have to battle entrenched machine politics and massive name recognition in short amount of time with few opportunities to be there in person, spending money is about your only option. It also helps if you have money in the bank to spend (from over 300,000 devoted investor-volunteers).

The Clintons wanted a compressed primary schedule that favored the established candidate with name recognition. It's pretty amazing that Obama has been able to compete as much as he has.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 12:24 AM

The criticism is that Obama can't win states without a substantially larger than average AA percentage, unless that state is holding a caucus.

I forgot, caucuses and states where >20% of voters are African American don't count. Silly me!

The only real exceptions to the pattern so far are CT and UT.

I guess it depends on what you call "average AA percentage". Missouri and Delaware aren't exactly South Carolina, demographically speaking.

The only real failures for Obama so far have been NH and MA, but the CT win in Clinton's backyard seems to me to substantially offset the latter.

Posted by right | February 10, 2008 12:24 AM

The salient demographic reality of WA is that there are very few blacks there. Obama wins big where there are lots of blacks (e.g., Louisiana) or where there are very few blacks (e.g., Iowa). Hillary has the advantage where there are enough blacks to be more than an abstraction for liberal non-black voters, but not enough for block voting by blacks to be consequential.

Posted by Fred | February 10, 2008 12:27 AM

It wasn't Washington's voters that won those huge margins for Obama. It was the caucus.

It wasn't clear to me until tonight, when I attended a Washington caucus, why caucuses benefit Obama so dramatically.

It is really, really hard to participate in a caucus. I thought it was hard to caucus in Iowa, where I lived in 2004. But that was nothing compared to Washington, where half the population doesn't even know what a caucus is, let alone where or when. (To complicate things, Washington Democrats also have a mail-in presidential primary, but the state party disregards the results.)

By the time they've lived through a few election cycles, most adults have gotten the gist of voting: how it works, how to do it. With caucuses, it's as if every voter in the state is 18 again, trying to figure out what the heck an election is.

All this benefits people who have received detailed instructions from their campaign over the Internet. Therefore it benefits Obama and (didja notice?) Ron Paul.

Posted by Michael Andersen | February 10, 2008 12:28 AM

Also...

I wonder what it would take to get the Atlantic to replace Yglesias or Ambinder with Dan Kervick.

Posted by J.B. | February 10, 2008 12:29 AM

So, states "without a substantially larger than average AA percentage not holding a caucus," which have gone so far:

Clinton - Arizona, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York

Obama - Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, Utah

Posted by John | February 10, 2008 12:30 AM

I'm going to toss out a criticism of Hillary Clinton: she can only win primaries in states with a substantial population of blacks or Hispanics. The only counterexamples, really, are Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire, so these are the only victories for her that count.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 12:31 AM

It's completely wrong to extrapolate from winning states in the democratic primary to winning states in the general election--that works both ways. Obama can't beat Clinton in NY, sure, but he sure as hell can beat McCain. Conversely he can beat Clinton in Alabama, but he ain't going to beat McCain.

That said it is obviously a problem for Obama if he manages to loses NY, CA, MASS, NJ, OH, PA, TX, plus Florida and Michigan across the board. It's difficult to see how he gets the nomination in that scenario.

Petey: But, of course, Clinton is winning slightly more votes.

Where are you getting those numbers? I looked a little but I didn't find them. Is that including Michigan/Florida?

Posted by Korha | February 10, 2008 12:32 AM

Oh, I of course forgot Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee for Clinton. But I think the "upper south states with few black people" thing is a pretty sui generis case - the only remaining state with similar demographics is Kentucky.

Anyway, hardly a shut out here. If Obama wins Wisconsin, I trust Petey will stop saying this?

Posted by John | February 10, 2008 12:33 AM

It's interesting math that the Obama detractors are using to value the primaries:

White male independents aren't Democratic enough to count, but African Americans are too Democratic (maybe they should count for something like 3/5ths of a vote?). Open primaries are too inclusive, but caucuses are too restrictive. Rich and/or young white voters or voters that pay too much attention to the process don't seem to count either for some reason.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 12:33 AM

If Obama continues to gain momentum, leads in pledged delegates, and - most imporantly - continues to outpoll McCain while Clinton doesn't, its not going to matter if Clinton wins OH, TX, or PA. The DNC and the superdelegates aren't going to commit electoral seppuku just because Clinton won the big states.

Posted by Fausto Carmona | February 10, 2008 12:35 AM

Isn't this productive?

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 12:35 AM

The problem is that people are looking at the Feb. races and march 4th in a vacuum.

People assume Obama will roll through February but the Clinton team will crush him in TX & OH.

But what is forgotten is that the voters in TX & OH know how to read and watch the TV. Seeing win after win will say something to a portion of those voters who are not yet firmly committed to either candidate. People like a winner. I'm not saying that she can't win them both, but do not assume ANYTHING after this Tuesday. Hillary will probably squeak out a win in Maine, but after she has trashed the whole caucus process, it will be discounted, especially after tonight's thumping.

No candidate has pulled off a string of wins in a row. Obama is poised to do just that and it will be noticed by voters.

Posted by swarty | February 10, 2008 12:36 AM

"Or Illinois"

Special case, obviously.

"But really, what's "substantially larger than average?" Delaware has 20% compared to 12% nationally -- larger than the average, but substantially?"

In terms of primary arithmetic, yes. That means the Democratic primary electorate in DE would've been about 40% AA. Given that Obama won AA's by 8 to 1, it's obviously a good state for him demographically if he could prevent Clinton from rolling up huge supermajorities among whites, which he indeed managed to prevent.

"Do any of these count as exceptions beyond Connecticut and Utah?"

You correctly identify MO as a third exception.

"What if he wins Wisconsin?"

That would be a somewhat important win for him, for the very reasons we're talking about.

But OH, TX, and PA are really where he's gong to have to break through, if he's serious about winning this year.

Posted by Petey | February 10, 2008 12:39 AM

I see a lot of faulty assumptions being made in this thread.

Faulty Assumption Number 1: Obama must win "big, blue" states to be a viable candidate in the general election.

Poppycock. (I've always wanted to say that.) Come on people. This is a guy who has come out of nowhere to eclipse a woman with universal name recognition, a huge money advantage (to start), an incredible national network of establishment support and favors owed and the MOST POPULAR LIVING EX-PRESIDENT among Democrats all in her corner. You want to tell me that a guy who can overcome all those disadvantages has something left to prove about how good of a politician he is? Please.

States like California are going to vote Democratic in the general election. What does it matter if Obama lost that state in the primary but ended up winning more than enough other states to make up the difference? It just proves his wide ranging appeal.

Faulty Assumption Number 1: Caucus states are "undemocratic".

Superdelegates are undemocratic. I don't here Hillary supporters complaining about superdelegates since they're currently in favor of Hillary, but they're far more undemocratic than a caucus. They violate the time honored principle of "one person, one vote" in every way imaginable.

I live in one of those caucus states that Obama won. (Idaho) Frankly, it was a wipeout in the Qwest Arena in Boise where I voted even before the discussions and the like. In both of the Districts in my state that voted in the Arena that I was at, Obama won with over 80% of the vote even before the Edwards supporters and the uncommitted voters were offered a chance to switch over.

Want to know why Obama is winning states like mine? Because he's competing in them. Maybe that means that he ends up losing a state like California, but don't just write off people like me as victims of some sort of undemocratic process.

Faulty Assumption #3: A lot of Obama wins are coming in "red" states, so they don't matter.

It's thinking like that which guarantees those states will always remain red. It wasn't that long ago that Virginia was a very reliably red state. Now look at it. Governor and both senators are Democrats.

Red states don't turn blue overnight. Just like blue states don't turn red overnight. They get there gradually with each election. Frankly, for the life of me I can't understand why Democrats wouldn't want a man who can put a red state or two into play. Maybe he wins a couple and maybe he doesn't, but elections aren't won by playing defense. Even if Obama doesn't win all the red states in the general election that he is winning in the primary, he's going to force Republicans to spend time and resources defending those states in the general election.

If Republicans are defending their home turf that is usually considered reliably in their corner, it is less time and money they are spending in swing states or blue states.

Anyway, that's my rant. I'm done now.

Posted by Jim Crozier | February 10, 2008 12:39 AM

"Where are you getting those numbers? I looked a little but I didn't find them. Is that including Michigan/Florida?"

That's without Michigan and Florida. Clinton has received slightly more votes than Obama nationwide.

Posted by Petey | February 10, 2008 12:43 AM

According to CNN, Obama beats McCain by 8 points while Clinton stays within the margin of error. He also does better among white voters vs. McCain than Clinton.

Posted by Reality Man | February 10, 2008 12:44 AM

But OH, TX, and PA are really where he's gong to have to break through, if he's serious about winning this year.

Why can't he continue to overwhelmingly win the small states, and just narrowly lose the big states?

If you look at the campaign spreadsheet, as Arnold pointed out, it has him losing OH, TX, PA, RI, WV, KY, PR and still coming out on top +67 in pledged delegates at the end.

Seems to me Obama doesn't have to "break through" in OH/TX/PA...he just needs to keep it close.

Posted by Tractarian | February 10, 2008 12:45 AM

Age has somewhat dulled my memory - never a sharpened blade in the best of days - but I don't remember any complaints from the Clintons about the inherently undemocratic caucus system in Iowa, before she fell out of bed. And I believe that the Nevada complaints were all directed at setting caucuses up in casinos, since the union had endorsed Obama.

It would help if folks made at least a modest bow in the direction of intellectual consistency. That of course has never been an element of the Clinton campaign style.

Posted by zoot | February 10, 2008 12:45 AM

I don't know who is going to win Maine tomorrow. But I do know that it is a closed caucus, and so it will fail to provide any test of the winner's ability to attract Independent and/or Republican voters.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 10, 2008 12:46 AM

Do you mind linking your source on the popular vote Petey?

Posted by Jim Crozier | February 10, 2008 12:46 AM

Simon Ganz wrote:
It doesn't matter if he has a 50 pledged delegate lead at the convention, he won't be chosen as the nominee if he doesn't win one of the big primaries. And no, not because he'd lose California or New York in the generals (that'd be ridiculous), but because the primary system is part of proving that you're a viable candidate, and if he doesn't win at least one big prize other than Illinois, he's absolutely failed to prove viability.

And what if he loses those states, but wins solidly among independent voters there? The demographics of Democratic primary voters are not the same as the demographics of voters in the national election, and what you really want is the candidate who's most viable in the general election.

Posted by Jesse M. | February 10, 2008 12:47 AM

That's without Michigan and Florida. Clinton has received slightly more votes than Obama nationwide.

That was true on Feb. 5th, but is not true when including IA, NH, NV, and SC (last I saw. Do you have a link to a count otherwise?).

Anyway, it's certainly not true after today, obviously.

Posted by Dave | February 10, 2008 12:47 AM

Of states that voted for Kerry:

I'm reluctant to say this, but given the turnout numbers, is this an useful comparison? I'm not saying that Obama's win in Utah counts for shit in November, but that brings states on the 2004 red-blue fringe into the equation.

There are, however bizarre it sounds, enough 'independent' voters weighing up McCain and Obama, in those states to make them a factor. And even though many of those self-described indies (the 'anti-war, pro-choice for McCain' types) are toxic to politics junkies, they do vote.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 10, 2008 12:47 AM

If Clinton sweeps all the big states and the offical pledged delegate count remains close she can make a compelling argument to the superdelegates to support her as the true bearer of the democratic standard. Which they probably will do. Plus there's always that Michigan/Florida thing for her to fall back on.

I think Obama can win Ohio, though.

Posted by Korha | February 10, 2008 12:50 AM

"Faulty Assumption Number 1: Caucus states are "undemocratic"

Of course caucus delegates are undemocratically selected. Caucuses dramatically limit participation and skew that participation strongly towards all the demographics that Obama has big leads in.

As stated above, as long as primary delegates remain split evenly, which they will likely continue to be, this race is going to eventually come down to Obama's undemocratic advantage among caucus delegates vs Clinton's undemocratic advantage among superdelegates. Which advantage is bigger will be the deciding event.

(FWIW, I've got nothing against caucus delegates OR superdelegates. I think the nomination rules are pretty good as they stand.)

Posted by Petey | February 10, 2008 12:56 AM

Why does Obama have to win any particular state? This isn't the Republican primary--we award our delegates on a proportional basis.

When Obama wins, he wins big. When he loses, he doesn't lose as much. On the whole, he's picked up more delegates and more enthusiam than Hillary.

It also looks like he'd do better in the general election Hillary, but we're not supposed to talk about that.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 12:56 AM

If Clinton sweeps all the big states and the offical pledged delegate count remains close she can make a compelling argument to the superdelegates to support her as the true bearer of the democratic standard.

I think that if she actually attempted to do this, you'd have just as much of a backlash from Clinton-supporting small-state SDs ticked off at the presumption that their states don't matter. Same way that I expect that even the IA, NH, SC and NV superdelegates who support Clinton might end up voting not to seat MI and FL.

Posted by David | February 10, 2008 12:57 AM

Anything can happen, but Fausto Carmona makes a good point that polls against McCain will be a factor in August (three months from the election) at least as important as winning Ohio against Hillary.

At this very moment, Obama's lead over McCain is trending up, while McCain's lead over Hillary is trending up. (RealClearPolitics)

If Obama reaches the convention with a small pledged delegate lead and keeps his 5 to 10 point advantage against McCain (compared to Clinton) it may be hard for superdelegates to willingly take that hit.

Winning one of Texas, Penn, Ohio would be good but coming closer than he expects (wink wink), and keeping a lead in delegates and continuing his advantage against McCain has a good chance of doing it for him.

Posted by Arnold Evans | February 10, 2008 1:02 AM

"Why can't he continue to overwhelmingly win the small states, and just narrowly lose the big states? If you look at the campaign spreadsheet, as Arnold pointed out, it has him losing OH, TX, PA, RI, WV, KY, PR and still coming out on top +67 in pledged delegates at the end."

If your goal is to win the pledged delegate count, that's a great strategy. If your goal is to win the nomination, not so much.

Posted by Petey | February 10, 2008 1:02 AM

Now that Petey is backing Clinton I think we can call it, Obama is home free.

Posted by eric k | February 10, 2008 1:07 AM

"It's worth noting that almost all of Obama's advantage in pledged delegates won comes from caucus states. If you were to look only at primary states, the delegate count would be about even."

It is also worth noting that if we include only states that begin with the letter "C," then Clinton has a significant advantage in pledged delegates. Clearly, we should examine this trend.

The idea that Obama needs to win at least one of the "big primary" states (actually, you mean at least one more big primary states than the ones he has already one which don't count because there were black people) is simply a rather transparent effort to gerry-mander Obama's victories to make them less significant. It would be amusing if it wasn't so obvious.

Posted by PTS | February 10, 2008 1:08 AM

When Obama wins, he wins big. When he loses, he doesn't lose as much.

True. Averaging out his victory margin in all the states he's won gets us 27.72%. Clinton's average victory margin is 14.9%. If we look just at Obama's primary wins and not his caucus wins, it's still 18.2%.

If we average their actual percentage of the vote in all the states, it's 53.4% for Obama versus 40.9% for Clinton. Excluding the caucuses changes it to 49.74% vs. 46.3.4%.

Note: none of this counts New Mexico, Florida, or Michigan.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 1:08 AM

Come on, Petey. It's the delegates. There's nothing magical about winning a big state by 51%.

Also, about those big states. If Obama wins seven or eight of the contests Feb 9-12, a lot of Dem voters are going to heave a sigh of relief. No one wants a deadlock on our side. So it's not clear to me that voters in OH or PA are going to *want* to help HRC claw her way back out of the grave. The fact that they're demographically "supposed" to vote for her may stop being compelling.

Momentum is going to start mattering more than it has mattered in this race, because people are going to start wanting a resolution.

Posted by Ted | February 10, 2008 1:09 AM

"Age has somewhat dulled my memory - never a sharpened blade in the best of days - but I don't remember any complaints from the Clintons about the inherently undemocratic caucus system in Iowa, before she fell out of bed."

A dull blade, indeed.

Team Clinton spent much of 2007 complaining about the caucus process, even to extent of debating whether or not to skip Iowa.

Posted by Petey | February 10, 2008 1:11 AM

Well, we still don't know what "substantially larger than average" means, but let's say we define it as 17%, which is somewhat arbitrary, but is the most favorable threshold for the purposes of Petey's argument. Using the 2000 census, here are the States that had primaries but not "substantially larger than average" AA populations:

New Hampshire - C
Arizona - C
Arkansas - C
Connecticut - O
Illinois - O
Massachusetts - C
Missouri - O
New Jersey - C
New Mexico
New York - C
Oklahoma - C
Tennessee - C
Utah - O

So out of a sample size of 13 states, Clinton won 8, Obama won 4, and there is one TBD. Somehow 8 out of 13 defines a "rule", and 4 out of 13 is an "exception" to the rule.

And, of course, if we move the threshold down to, say, 15%, it becomes 5 out of 9 for Clinton and 3 out of 9 for Obama. An even more tenuous basis for defining this rule-exception.

And this is without even getting into the tenuous logic that suggests that we should be testing this theory only in the context of primary states rather than caucus states.

Posted by RS | February 10, 2008 1:13 AM

Petey,

You're a pretty smart guy and well-respected around these parts, but what the heck does "If your goal is to win the nomination, not so much." mean? Do you have some special insight into the hearts and minds of the 800 special delegates?

It's all fine and good to try to define the terms of victory for an opponent (ala Calvinball), but at some point you've got to stop moving the goalposts and redefining the meaning of "victory".

If Obama walks into convention with more pledged delegates (say 50-100 more) and a pretty good poll matchup versus McCain (relative to Clinton), he's going to walk out with the nomination. Any other result threatens to alienate a huge part of the base and the party establishment knows that.

Posted by ben | February 10, 2008 1:15 AM

Momentum is going to start mattering more than it has mattered in this race, because people are going to start wanting a resolution.

And that's especially true because the policy differences are relatively small. There's no crusade on our side like the crusade that's keeping Huck afloat.

So when average voters see that Obama
a) is ahead in the primary,
b) is more likely to beat McCain in the general and
c) that fighting for HRC is likely to produce a messy deadlock,

That will seal the deal for some of them. I think a small but significant number (say 3-8%) will slide toward Obama just out of a desire to have a clear resolution.

Posted by Ted | February 10, 2008 1:15 AM

WA is tailor-made for Obama--lots of young people, and lots of "hip" latte-liberals.

Posted by John Petty | February 10, 2008 1:16 AM

Ted at 109Am speaks he truth when he says: Momentum is going to start mattering more than it has mattered in this race, because people are going to start wanting a resolution.

Maine will stop the bleeding for Clinton (unless it doesn't) but Tuesday will bring a fresh gaping wound in the Clinton campaign.

The Shuster gambit is starting to look small. The Clinton campaign needs a game changing play but they risk making their base more fervent but smaller. Not a good combination.

Obama's speech tonight seemed like he knows that he can win this thing. He attacked her frontally on her strongest talking point: health care. He senses he can, for the first time in this race, take some momentum going forward. If Tuesday goes like tonight, there will be actual momentum behind his campaign going into March. If the campaign is smart, they will put the pedal to the metal on Wednesday morning.

Posted by swarty | February 10, 2008 1:20 AM

All those big Blue states where HRC won -- anyone with a "D" label will carry those states easily next November.

But Obama will make the Democratic party competitive in all those purple swing states. And he might even force the Republicans to play a little defense in the Red states.

Those are things Clinton can't dream of doing. And that's why Obama is a much stronger candidate for the general election.

Posted by Callimaco | February 10, 2008 1:20 AM

What is "inherently undemocratic" about a caucus?

Posted by RS | February 10, 2008 1:20 AM

Interestingly, this race is going to eventually come down to Obama's undemocratic advantage among caucus delegates vs Clinton's undemocratic advantage among superdelegates.

This is an interesting thought, Petey, but the conflation here is ridiculous.

Caucuses are open to every citizen registered as a Democrat. The only requirements are that you 1) are available when the caucus is held, 2) you care enough and are smart enough to find out where to go and when, and proactive enough and passionate enough to actually do it (instead of, say, staying home and watching American Idol, or whatever. Yeah, some people are working, I know, but it's still a pretty small slice of the electorate that is working during any given caucus, certainly not enough to make much of a dent in the shellacking Clinton is taking in the caucus states.)

Superdelegates on the other hand are open to nobody but DNC upper management, elected Congressmen and Governors, and former high office holders such as Walter Mondale. About half of superdelegates are completely unaccountable to voters; the rest are accountable only in the sense that they can be thrown out of office for voting against the popular will.
Add in the fact that the superdelegate process leaves open incredible opportunities for corruption -- e.g., vote for me at the convention and get that ambassadorship to Luxembourg you've been craving -- and it's very hard to understand why the Democratic party would include such an absurdly undemocratic mechanism.

The fact of the matter is that Obama is strong in those states that happen to be holding caucuses. For a variety of reasons, Clinton just doesn't go over well in the plains states and the more Caucasian-heavy states of the West. That's why citing popular vote totals is so misleading in a presidential primary; Obama's advantage in the caucus states actually is UNDERrepresented in the popular vote rather than overrepresented.

Superdelegates, on the other hand, have no connection to representation whatsoever.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 10, 2008 1:21 AM

WA is tailor-made for Obama--lots of young people, and lots of "hip" latte-liberals.

John,

That's a really good point, actually. It really does need to go on the list of wins that don't quite count for Obama:

• states with black people
• states without black people
• states with primaries that encourage independent voters
• states with caucuses that encourage party activists
• states with young people / college students
• states with liberals
• states without liberals

It's a lot easier to award our nominations when we figure out which states count and which don't. At the moment, the list appears to be New York, California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Posted by jbryan | February 10, 2008 1:23 AM

Q: What is "inherently undemocratic" about a caucus?

A: Hillary can't seem to win them, so they must be evil.

Posted by swarty | February 10, 2008 1:26 AM

Four Wins

Comments (257)