Lewis Flips

Rep. John Lewis, one of several longtime African-American political leaders who'd offered Hillary Clinton early endorsements, is switching sides and joining the Obama camp. Don't miss Noam Scheiber's TNR article on second-thoughts among pro-Clinton African-Americans more generally.

This kind of thing is probably a leading indicator of what I expect will be a looming collapse in her superdelegate lead if she doesn't start making a quick recovery in the ranks of pledged delegates (something I think she may well do, I don't really understand the atmosphere of writing her off that seems to be in the air in DC this week).

Comments

Eh. It's impossible not to admire Lewis, but I'm not sure, really, what to make of this. He wants to ride what increasingly looks like the winning train. If HRC wins, one assumes he'll see a new spirit rising, the spirit of Clinton.

The superdelegate fights may have to happen now, but I'm not sure why we have to pay attention to it now.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 15, 2008 9:15 AM

A recovery in pledged delegates is going to be difficult for her. It would take rather large victories in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Texas for her to bring Obama's lead down to double digits, as I understand it. And then Obama will bounce right back up with Wyoming and Mississippi (and he's certainly going to pick up a bunch of delegates in Mississippi, at least).

Although, if Obama loses Wisconsin, which is certainly possible, that'll definitely change the atmosphere.

But Clinton's position is very weak.

Posted by John | February 15, 2008 9:17 AM

They love writing Hillary off. She's not my candidate but her supporters are dead on in talking about how much a lot of the media hate her-- watching Chris Matthews have his little breakdown on the night of the NH primaries will be burned in my mind forever.

Posted by Persia | February 15, 2008 9:18 AM

I think the press is buying the Obama spin that once he starts doing appearances in Ohio, he can eat into Clinton's margin there, and that if Ohio is a near draw, and Texas is too as polls show, then Obama will have a Florida-and-Michigan proof superdelegate lead, which will cause the floodgates to open. Having the two Dem candidates galavant around Pennsylvania for six weeks while McCain galvants around the country is ... less than ideal.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 15, 2008 9:19 AM

This is great news. African American superdelegates should realize this is a historic moment where we can elect the first African American President. It is their duty as African Americans to try to make that happen and it would be wrong for them to vote for Barack's opposing candidate because she would prevent that from happening.

I would especially like to congratulate Jesse Jackson Jr for threating African American lawmakers with African American primary challengers if they don't vote for Barack. As Jackson said, ""Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position" in the future, he added." Jackson is holding African American superdelegates' feet to the fire to make sure they vote the right way.

Posted by TLM | February 15, 2008 9:21 AM

"I don't really understand the atmosphere of writing her off that seems to be in the air in DC this week."

I don't understand it either. They're going to go all out to win pledged and unpledged delegates. And they're going to go on a fundraising push to get all the money they need to go against Obama. It's not over by any means.

That reminds me: I think I'll contribute to Obama again now.

Posted by blatherskite | February 15, 2008 9:24 AM

"It is their duty as African Americans to try to make that happen and it would be wrong for them to vote for Barack's opposing candidate because she would prevent that from happening."

I support Obama, but the idea that people are obligated to vote for him simply because he'd be the first black president is wrong-headed.
Do you think people who don't support Clinton are betraying women?

Posted by DNS | February 15, 2008 9:33 AM

I think she is being written off because of the facts. It is not like Obama won one primary by a few points. He has won every primary/caucus since SC, outside of Super Tuesday, by huge margins.

He has a triple digit lead in pledged delegates in a system where it is hard to get a differential (Clinton won NH but picked up less delegates). He raises much more money. Her campaign organization is falling apart. These are all age old signs of inevitability.

Every dime Clinton raises and spends against Obama is a dime not spent against McCain.

It happened with Rudy and now with Clinton. The idea that they did not contest states is ludicrous. Rudy spent more money and made more appearances in NH than any other repub. It was only when he lost overwhelmingly that they spun it as not counting. That Hillary has copied this is amazing. She campaigned in all these states, especially Maine and Virginia. She got trounced.

Posted by Patrick | February 15, 2008 9:36 AM

Who cares about the DC Conventional Wisdom? Let's see what happens in the actual elections.

Posted by Korha | February 15, 2008 9:37 AM

Huge tactical mistake on Lewis' part. Huge errors from the press (if they in fact support Obama). When Hillary is down she thrives. White and other women support her in larger numbers when they sense she is being ganged up on. Yet, here we go again. Lewis has already expressed support for Hillary; it seems opportunistic (at best) for him to flip. Now he will nudge white men who were on the fence to make a racial choice. It might not be a conscious thing but ... And Jesse makes it worse although what he is saying is true. Wisconsin is not a given! She is way up in Texas, Ohio & PA.

Posted by jay | February 15, 2008 9:37 AM

After reading the TPM discussion of the issue, I'm even less sure of what to make of Lewis's statement. AFAICT, he is still endorsing HRC. He's just saying that he's not going to be a party to giving her a win based entirely on superdelegates.

I don't really understand the atmosphere of writing her off that seems to be in the air in DC this week

Yeah, that's grating. I don't know what has changed since Super Tuesday, when people either thought that she was slightly more likely than Obama to win it all, or thought that they were equally likely to win it. And people had factored in Feb wins for Obama then.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 15, 2008 9:41 AM

"Clinton won NH but picked up less delegates"

Actually, they split New Hampshire evenly. You're thinking of Nevada.

Posted by phil | February 15, 2008 9:43 AM

jay: "White and other women support her in larger numbers when they sense she is being ganged up on. Yet, here we go again. Lewis has already expressed support for Hillary; it seems opportunistic (at best) for him to flip. Now he will nudge white men who were on the fence to make a racial choice.

Yeah, seriously. The electorate has a really messed up relationship with Hillary Clinton--they have no problem smacking her down when she's high but when she's down she just gets lifted right back up again. At the rate this is going she's going to win OH and TX, and then what? Four weeks of incredibly high-stakes political hardball in Pennsylvania. What a screwy situation.

Posted by Korha | February 15, 2008 9:44 AM

I too don't understand why some people are writing her off. They should know better. I still think that she can win big in Ohio. She still has institutional support. This is not to say that she has entirely been written off. If Clinton had racked up all those victories that we have been seeing with Obama, then the press and Democratic leaders would have told Obama to stand down.

Posted by MGJ | February 15, 2008 9:45 AM

Oh, nonsense, jay. No one's going to oppose a candidate because John Lewis supports him. Hooey.

You're right that WI is not a given. It's close. But the thing about the "atmosphere of writing her off" that Matt describes . . . is that it can quickly become self-fulfilling, if it's not confined to DC. There have been a lot of reversals and counter-reversals of fortune in this campaign, but the Potomac primaries were presented a little differently in the media, and it's possible that we're going to see a bandwagon effect among voters, and not just superdelegates. The polls will be worth watching over the next few days.

Posted by Ted | February 15, 2008 9:47 AM

TLM: If there's "white flight" away from Obama to Clinton, you'll be partly to blame with that little screed. I thought you were joking, but it doesn't look like you are.

Posted by Rich | February 15, 2008 9:49 AM

The conventional wisdom that Clinton can't catch Obama in pledged delegates is based on the fact that it is virtually impossible for Clinton to catch Obama in pledged delegates.

If she does catch Obama in pledged delegates she will certainly win the nomination, because that would mean that Obama's support has suffered an epic collapse even more dramatic than the Clinton's collapse over the past week. Clinton would need to win something like 57% of all delegates in a field that includes states like North Carolina, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Wyoming. If she is relying on the "big 3" (PA, TX, OH) she would need to win in the neighborhood of 66% of the delegates in those states to make up the margin.

The only issue at this point is how close Clinton needs to get in pledged delegates to be able to paper over the difference with her superdelegates.

Posted by Leo | February 15, 2008 9:50 AM

Jay,
I can't decide whether you're one of those Obamamaniacs who beat the don't-get-complacent-we-haven't-won-yet drum ad nauseum, or whether you're making fun of such characters, or if you really believe the nonsense that you're spouting.

John Lewis saying he will cast his super delegate vote for Obama will nudge white men into making a "racial choice," and will boost support for Clinton among women? Yeah, right. I suspect you can count the number of undecided voters who would be negatively influenced by Lewis' statement using only your stubby little fingers and toes.

Posted by Bragan | February 15, 2008 9:50 AM

Rich, TLM is trolling and has been for weeks. Don't feed the trolls.

Posted by Don't feed the trolls. | February 15, 2008 9:53 AM

I don't think you want to "write her off" until she's actually written off (unless she's one of the undead or something), but at the same time, let's not constantly move the goalposts.

I think at some point, someone said that if Obama fell behind by 100 or more pledged delegates on Super Tuesday, he was toast.

Well, Clinton is now behind by over 100 pledged delegates.

At some point Clinton had to win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania by significant (at least 20%) margins to have a chance to come back (not to win, to have a chance). She may still win Ohio, but Texas is looking shaky (Barack is moving up quickly in polls--he went from about 30 points down to 8 down most recently, AND projected to actually win more delegates even if he loses the popular vote).

Clinton had to keep her superdelegate lead to win. She still has a superdelegate lead, but it's going down--not just with uncommitted superdelegates going to Obama, but a couple of *her* delegates defecting to Obama, which is like a double loss for her.

So, if she's failed most of the "benchmarks" put in front of her, when can we declare her candidacy over? Just saying...

Posted by JMS | February 15, 2008 9:54 AM

Picking up on what MGJ said, (and I'm not sure if this means anything) but try a little thought experiment for a second: Imagine a world in which every single vote for Obama went for Clinton and vice-versa (except for Illinois and NY, that would just be weird, but you can switch the margins of victory). Obama won CA, MA, OK, etc heck even give him credit for MI and FL, but Hillary has a triple digit pledged delegate lead, all the voting momentum and is starting to pick off Supers. He'd be asked to withdraw, and written off as dead by the media, or at best in be in Huckabee-Slightly-Animated-Corpse-Land.

I don't think it's unfair to give credit to Obama for building up a lead, but it's obviously not over until TX and OH vote. If she wins by decent margins, she's right back in it, but right now the ONLY thing that is keeping her in the race is her early lead and name-recognition.

Posted by doofman | February 15, 2008 9:56 AM

MY, I agree with you - Clinton is not down or out yet. But the tide of people writing about her that way is based on the same conventional wisdom that the MSM has been using for elections from time immemorial.

Yes, Clinton enjoys a lead in PA, TX and OH, but her fundraising efforts have fallen far behind Obama's, giving him a substantial financial edge. The tide of national polling is showing continued momentum on Obama's part, and also that Obama is making significant inroads with Clinton's base demographics.

Add to that a 100+ delegate lead for Obama, and it means that Clinton needs to not only win those states, but that she needs to win those states decisively. Letting recent history be their judge, the MSM doesn't think she can do it, and (perhaps rightly) believe that she can only win by getting dirty - fighting to seat FL and MI, and trying to strong arm superdelegates.

Honestly, you're a smart guy - it's easy to see "why" they're writing this way. Whether they're right or wrong, well that's a different story, but the methodology has been the same all along.

Posted by Trigger | February 15, 2008 9:59 AM

SomeCallMeTim, what changed is that Obama didn't just beat her in states over the last week or so -- he trounced her. She's had crushing defeat after crushing defeat, even in states where demographically she really should have had a chance to win, like Washington, Maine, and Virginia. As a result, he's had a steady drum-beat of endorsements and good press, while her campaign has been struggling to reorganize.

Her position now is much, much weaker than it was directly after Super Tuesday, when it seemed that Obama would have a good, but not necessarily overwhelming, February. Everything's broken his way, and she is now seriously screwed. Everybody's talking about OH and TX, but I think she absolutely has to keep it close in Wisconsin and, if she can possibly manage it, in Hawaii. If she has 10 crushing defeats in a row, a couple of narrow victories in TX and OH aren't going to do it for her.

That being said, I sure hope Matt predicts her victory again. As somebody else noted, it seems to have been about the best thing that could have happened for Obama.

Posted by NoahB | February 15, 2008 10:01 AM

something I think she may well do, I don't really understand the atmosphere of writing her off that seems to be in the air in DC this week

Sweet - just what I wanted to see this morning.

Please keep this up, Matt. No wavering from your prediction, please.

You might want to up the intensity though of these "she's not done yet" moments, though.

Thanks.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 15, 2008 10:01 AM

When Hillary is down she thrives

I was *wondering* what the meme was going to be when she's down in delegates, down in superdelegates, down in head-to-head polls, and the "but those 22 states don't matter" talking point is exhausted. Down is good! Thanks for providing it!

Posted by Jen | February 15, 2008 10:01 AM

Having the two Dem candidates galavant around Pennsylvania for six weeks while McCain galvants around the country is ... less than ideal.

I don't think it's that bad. The election is in November, and it's giving both Obama and Clinton a chance to adjust spin in a way that could be helpful to them in the general (the way Obama is presenting real positions to respond to Hillary's criticism, for example).

Posted by Persia | February 15, 2008 10:02 AM

I think the other reason they're saying "Clinton is done" is because the Clinton campaign has admitted that they probably won't have a pledged delegate lead ever again, and they don't see how the party could possibly give the nomination to Clinton if she didn't lead among pledged delegates.

In fact, I think the likely scenario is that Obama will have a Florida-and-Michigan-proof pleged delegate lead (103 delegates), at which point it will be very obvious that he should be the nominee.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 15, 2008 10:07 AM

Lewis received a mountain of emails, letters and phone calls from Georgia voters questioning his pledge to Hillary. It's hard to imagine his district not reelecting him, but we made our voice heard and he knows we were dissatisfied. I suspect his sudden equivocation is a response to the blow back from Georgia voters.

Posted by bjd | February 15, 2008 10:07 AM

People -- common folk and pundits alike -- are writing off Hillary because:

1) They can see that Obama is riding a huge and growing wave and they see that other people see that too. Big Mo.

2) They want to not only turn the page they don't want another chapter to be written on the Bush-Clinton years. Enough.

Posted by Bragan | February 15, 2008 10:09 AM

I saw Lewis on the Newshour last month in a discussion about race and the election. He was there to represent Hillary's side of the story (they had a surrogate for Obama as well), and I was quite stunned by the vehemence with which he trashed Obama. Given Lewis's background and history to see him so blatantly bagging on Obama in favor of Hillary turned my stomach a bit. Obama's surrogate (I can't recall who it was) was far more reserved and thoughtful. Lewis came off as a typical sleazy campaign hit man.

In any case it's nice to have him switch over, but I imagine that this has more to do with Lewis's sense of self-preservation with Obama now pulling in 90% of black voters rather than any principled decision.

Posted by J.B. | February 15, 2008 10:13 AM

"she doesn't start making a quick recovery in the ranks of pledged delegates (something I think she may well do, I don't really understand the atmosphere of writing her off that seems to be in the air in DC this week)"

This requires more explanation, Matt. How do you see her making a quick recovery in pledge delegates? Are you predicting she'll win Wisconsin, Hawaii, Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island by 70-30 margins?

Posted by Ron | February 15, 2008 10:22 AM

Last night I read a really good article in the NY Times, how the Clinton campaign is opening up offices throughout Texas, Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico. This shows me that she cannot be easily be written off however difficult it may be for her to recoup. They learned their lesson that small states should not be dismissed, even when racking up big wins in big states.

Posted by MGJ | February 15, 2008 10:43 AM

John Lewis is the guy who was pounding on his seat with glee when Clinton made her famous "slumlord in inner-city Chicago" slam at one of the debates. He probably still has strong feelings for Clinton. But when your own district goes so overwhelmingly for Obama -- 80%+ -- it's simple political common sense for him to make the switch.

A lot of the 1960s black heroes such as Lewis don't seem to be very comfortable with the post-racial politics an Obama presidency seems to imply. An Obama presidency means the angry style in black politics might not be as viable any longer.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 15, 2008 10:47 AM

Ron - math, like spelling, does not seem to be among Matt's strong points. I think Matt has not actually taken a look at the math yet, but is rather expressing an impressionistic sense that if Clinton starts to win again - even if not by enough margins to get back ahead in pledged delegates - she will once again be the frontrunner.

Posted by John | February 15, 2008 10:54 AM

I think they're writing her off because it's going to be very difficult for her to make up the deficit in pledged delegates. It's not that she will never win another state, but that she'd have to win every state by 60-40 margins from here on out, which is highly unlikely.

Posted by Abby | February 15, 2008 11:43 AM

So, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the report that Lewis is backing obama "is not accurate":

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/02/15/lewis_0215.html

Posted by Carlos | February 15, 2008 11:56 AM

"watching Chris Matthews have his little breakdown on the night of the NH primaries will be burned in my mind forever.

Posted by Persia | February 15, 2008 9:18 AM"

Very true. Matthews and Russert have been her campaign's biggest assets (remember that SNL bit from 2000 where Ana Gasteyer as Clinton accused Darrell Hammond as Russert for talking to her like she was naughty at school?). She has little of a message beyond "older women may never live to see another woman run for president, so vote for me." When chauvinist little shits like Matthews and Russert act like the pigs they are, it creates a feeling of wanting to rally to her side, which I too felt for a while. It's like when Rick Lazio acted like an ass in the debate by coming over to her to try to force her to sign a pledge to not raise taxes in a way that looked like he was trying to physically intimidate her.

Posted by Reality Man | February 15, 2008 12:30 PM

Brenda Jones's comments have been brief and cryptic. What Zeleny said is that Lewis told him he was still endorsing Clinton, but that he would cast his superdelegate vote for Obama, based on the fact that his district overwhelmingly voted for Obama. The stuff that Jones has been saying doesn't very clearly contradict that.

Posted by John | February 15, 2008 1:23 PM

MY says "I don't really understand the atmosphere of writing her off that seems to be in the air in DC this week." The problem with this statement is that obviously superdelegates are in a position to actually influence the result. They are not a bunch of reporters who write about what happens, they actually make things happens. In 2 weeks, Hillary! will have lost most of her black superdelegates. She will, at best, be in a position win 60% of the Ohio delegates, but basically tie Obama in terms of Texas delegates, which will cause more SD's to walk or run to Obama.

Posted by Blue Moon | February 15, 2008 1:27 PM

Media Violating Journalism Ethics in Democratic Race

In the last 72 hours, two stories have emerged that highlight Obama's free ride in the press. Under closer scrutiny, they both shade the truth. First, the Senate records of Hillary and Obama are compared. He sponsored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427 in his first year. Hillary is only given credit for fluff legislation.

According to govtrack.us/congress/person, in Obama's first three years, he sponsored 129 bills and 1 was enacted. He co-sponsored 529 bills. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 never became law because it was defeated in the House. In Hillary's seven years, she sponsored 350 bills and two were enacted. She co-sponsored 1706 bills.

The second story about John Lewis's deflection as a superdelegate for HC was corrected Thursday night by Anne Kornblut of the WP. However, most media outlets from the NY Times to ABC still ran with the original version that Lewis was supporting Obama. The Atlantic Journal Constitution later reported that the remark was an observation. Lewis also stated that the NY Times story was inaccurate.

Whatever way the nomination process ends, journalists have violated their own ethics in covering this race. This is not a level playing field. If Obama is such a powerhouse, why are they sacrificing their professional integrity and tilting stories in his favor? Even the headlines give you a sense of the disparity. Are we selecting a Manchurian Candidate? The public's trust is sacred. When a Presidential campaign is skewed by the fourth estate, we are in trouble.

Posted by EWard | February 15, 2008 11:01 PM

Sat next to Lewis for an hour plus once in some quasi-political gymnasium event. Seemed to be a very modest and unassuming guy. Whether he knew that I knew who he was- it never came up. If it were his constituents getting on him for backing HRC, I could see him doing the right thing.

Posted by Trevor | February 15, 2008 11:21 PM

John Lewis is my Congressman in District 5, which is comprised of a large area of the city of Atlanta. I wrote to Congressman Lewis to not vote for the war in Iraq - he listened to his constituents and did not vote for the war and has been against the war from the beginning. I was disappointed to learn that he was supporting Hillary and not Barack. I must hope that he listened to his constituents (who mostly voted for Barack) and did the right thing - switch his support.

Posted by Stephanie | February 16, 2008 4:05 PM

I think the air of writing her off may have something to do win having lost the last nine consecutive contests (starting with Alaska), including losing DC by over FIFTY points.

One would be foolish to write off any Clinton before they have been mathematically eliminated-- but math or no, after a certain number of loses, you begin to look like a loser. Similar to why Giuliani's "wait until Florida" routine went over like a lead balloon.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | February 17, 2008 6:54 AM