Sebelius: We Count!

The governor of Kansas fired back against the Clinton campaign's habit of deriding entire states where they happen to lose elections:

Senator Clinton and her campaign surrogates keep deriding Senator Obama's wins in red states by saying that her victories in the 'big states' are the ones that matter," Governor Sebelius said. " The right Democrat, like Barack Obama, can carry red states, just like the 14 Democratic governors elected in states won by George Bush in 2004. We can't tell people their votes don't matter and then expect their support against John McCain in November. Senator Obama is reaching to Independents and Republicans because they desperately want to change our politics. I hope Senator Clinton will follow his lead and stop dismissing Democrats that don't live in New York or California.

Of course it's not just red states -- those of us in DC, Maryland, Connecticut, Maine, Washington, Minnesota, etc. don't like to be told we don't count either.

Comments

This is really getting tiresome.

All of Obama's wins count. The point is that Obama's wins in a particular state can not be extrapolated to the whole Democratic party, all of primaries and caucuses, all demographic groups within the party, and especially not to the general election.

That's the point.

Posted by Tim K | February 16, 2008 4:48 PM

While I agree with both you and Sebelius (I don't like being told that either!), let us hope that this is not a sign of vice presidential aspirations. Please. After that awful response to the State of Union....

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 4:49 PM

I would never have though there would come a day when the elite would decide that CT doesn't matter.

Posted by soullite | February 16, 2008 4:50 PM

Stop whining, Matt. You had your chance to count, but you all blew it. In fact, right before you voted, Sen. Clinton was talking about making sure DC would get full congressional representation. You thanked her by turning around and nullifying your presidential votes. There's gratitude.

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 4:50 PM

Here in Connecticut, being between NYC and Boston, we're used to be told we don't count. If somebody said we counted, I'm not sure how we'd take it.

Posted by Abby | February 16, 2008 4:57 PM

who said Sebelius counted?

fyi, she doesn't.

Posted by M | February 16, 2008 4:59 PM

Well, I'm from Colorado, and we never count. So this is nothing new to me.

Posted by fostert | February 16, 2008 5:02 PM

Howzabout a link, MY? Links count.

Posted by urbino | February 16, 2008 5:02 PM

A Democrat will not win in November without New Jersey, Pennsylvania and probably Ohio.

Kansas they don't need. Don't take it personally Kathleen.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 16, 2008 5:05 PM

Tim K, aren't Obama's many wins in many states susceptible of extrapolation? It's the wins taken cumulatively which tends to impress.

Posted by burning flock | February 16, 2008 5:05 PM

Tim K,

That may be your point, but it's not the point of the Clinton campaign. They have come up with an excuse for every lost state, including complaining about the caucus format. Where was that concern prior to the primary season? The reality is that they have been outmaneuvered and outorganized, but rather than acknowledge this they point to red states and undemocratic practices dominated by "activists" (I'm sure many average joe caucus-goers are scratching their heads at that one). The obvious flip side to their argument is that Hillary is winning states that any Dem will (NY, California) but is conceding multiple states from the start.

It's ridiculous to think Democrats can't win Colorado, Minnesota, Virginia, Missouri, etc. It's defeatist to give up on red states and hope for what didn't work in 2000 and 2004: win the big cosmopolitan states and a few more to clinch the electoral college. Obama is trying to redraw the electoral map, to energize a base in places where the opposition may be dispirited, and to force the Republican Party to spend resources in places they would rather not.

Beyond all that, it just seems silly to offend voters in 30-40 states.

Posted by Paddy | February 16, 2008 5:09 PM

Sure, Kansas counts. But what's this lame point about Obama "winning red states"? I heard Rachel Maddow say the same thing on MSNBC. Obama Democrats who voted in UT, ID and KS are not necessarily conservative or moderate voters. The simple refutation is that the people who make the red states red are either not allowed to vote in the primary/ caucus, or choose not to. The significant differences between states are demographic (black, white, hispanic, poor, rich) and institutional (primary/ caucus). Obama's wins are impressive because he's won in a variety of states (like VA: blowout win in a *primary* not dominated by African-Americans). Not because he's won in "red states".

So the joke about people not counting has become so hackneyed that one should point out that Hillary's basic logic is valid: a string of wins is not evidence of some general ability to win the whole thing, or evidence of more support overall, if you're only winning in your strongholds. So yes, some states count more than others as evidence of an unstoppable juggernaut. A general election where the Mountain West states got to vote first would not provide early indicators of how the whole country would go. The problem with HRC's spin is not the logic but the actual evidence: Obama *is* winning outside of his strongholds.

Posted by Colatina | February 16, 2008 5:13 PM

What in the fuck does it possibly matter who wins a democratic primary in New Jersey?

Are you really suggesting that it's going to go to McCain if Obama wins?

There are two possible explanations for making this statement.

1) You are really, really, uninformed and gullible and regurgitate everything that falls out of the Queen's court no matter how prima facie stupid it is.

2) You understand how stupid this is and hope someone else might be dumb enough not to think about this for five seconds and get away with bullshitting people.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 16, 2008 5:15 PM

A Democrat will not win in November without New Jersey, Pennsylvania and probably Ohio.

Replace "November" with "August" and I think you've nailed the Clinton campaign's thinking to a T. Unfortunately for them, here we are, with Kansas having mattered a great deal...

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 5:15 PM

"It's ridiculous to think Democrats can't win Colorado, Minnesota, Virginia, Missouri, etc."

It sure is. Colorado is a solid purple state now, and it's getting bluer by the minute. Obama can easily win it (even if we don't count), but can Hillary? I'm not so sure. Coloradans like to think of themselves as "fiercely moderate," but they can easily be polarized. Hillary is just the person to do that in Colorado.

Posted by fostert | February 16, 2008 5:18 PM

Hillary's basic logic is valid: a string of wins is not evidence of some general ability to win the whole thing, or evidence of more support overall

True, but then neither is a string of losses.

Posted by Marc | February 16, 2008 5:18 PM

Spin can't give you a ground organization, a coherent strategy, an appealing message, or a delegate lead.

Hillary talked up Wisconsin, ran attack ads there, scheduled rallies, opened field offices... and has just canceled a bunch of Hillary's appearances, thus both insulting voters and making "I didn't contest it!" spin laughable.

Farmers and black people might not count because they don't have much political power, but it looks like they have enough to pick the Democratic nominee. Funny, that.

Posted by Some dude | February 16, 2008 5:22 PM

The point is that Obama's wins in a particular state can not be extrapolated to the whole Democratic party, all of primaries and caucuses, all demographic groups within the party, and especially not to the general election.

Really, after a while, the failure of Obama-bots like Yglesias to grasp this basic reality makes you wonder who they bonked to get this job. They can't really be that dim, can they?

That may be your point, but it's not the point of the Clinton campaign.

Yes, it is. It is precisely the format of the caucus that makes it impossible to generalize the results.

The problem with HRC's spin is not the logic but the actual evidence: Obama *is* winning outside of his strongholds.

Not yet, he hasn't. He won the white vote in Virginia because it was an open primary. He lost white Democrats by 14 points--same in Maryland. Any talk about him "winning" the Hispanic vote in Virginia is absurd, as Hispanics didn't vote in big enough numbers to make the exit polls.

What in the fuck does it possibly matter who wins a democratic primary in New Jersey?

Because the results in New Jersey mercilessly spell out the demographics that he has shown no signs of winning yet.

Posted by Cal | February 16, 2008 5:26 PM

Isn't the point that any of the major Democrats, if nominated, could win the so-called (by Mark Penn) "major" states. I think Clinton, Obama, Biden, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, even Richardson would be fair bets to carry NY, Illinois, Mass, and CA. If you narrow the field to Obama or Clinton, it's safe to expand that to New Jersey and some of the other Gore 2000/Kerry 2004.

The point is who can win the swing states. Clinton would have had a compelling argument concerning Florida had that state not been screwed up due to a variety of factors. And she has a great opportunity to make that point about Ohio. Obama can make similar points about Missouri and Virginia.

The point really is that the national Democratic party, in the wake of 2000, decided to adopt more of a 50-state process. That process finally reaped some rewards in 2006. When Dean proposed this, however, it was not without controversy. The Clinton approach seems to be to go back to a coastal state + Ohio or a state from the interior West. Again, maybe good to win the White House, not so good to keep a working majority in Congress. Anyone paying attention during the 1990s has seen this movie.

Posted by John C | February 16, 2008 5:29 PM

Hear, hear, Paddy!

That is *exactly* the point.

And it's completely unbelievable to me that a candidate for President of the United States would actually try to excuse their losses because of the *format* of the process, when *clearly* they had the exact same opportunity within that format that their opponent did.

If Barack Obama can get his supporters out to polls and caucus sites, why can't Hillary Clinton?

Oh yeah, the latest excuse is "bad weather". I kid you not. Cite

She can't even run a good campaign, why should we trust her to run the country?

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 5:29 PM

Because the results in New Jersey mercilessly spell out the demographics that he has shown no signs of winning yet.

I never thought about it like that, Cal. Why do we even waste money having other contests? New Jersey is such a perfect microcosm or America there is little use for these other redundant contests. Obviously, this formula was seriously thought out and not backward projected in a rather pathetic attempt to bolster your shrinking candidate.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 16, 2008 5:33 PM

Obama has gotten 0% -- that's right, ZERO VOTES -- from people voting for Hillary in the primaries. If you crazy Obamabots think that Obama can win the general election without a substantial portion of the Democratic base -- voters he has shown ZERO sign of winning over so far -- you're in for a nasty surprise in November.

Hillary 2008!

Posted by Barbar | February 16, 2008 5:33 PM

John C, what's worse is that they trained a legion of loyal followers to believe that their strategy, which has worked only once, is the only way to win.

Posted by soullite | February 16, 2008 5:35 PM

What fucking retarded arguments some of you people make, which would be easily dismissed if they weren't coming from a major candidate and a former president. Caucuses count. Clintonistas sound like French generals whining that Germans didn't directly attack the Maginot Line.

Posted by Some dude | February 16, 2008 5:35 PM

Not yet, he hasn't. He won the white vote in Virginia because it was an open primary.

The general election is open to independents and Republicans too, fyi.

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 5:38 PM

A worrying element to this strategy is giving up pretty easily in states where you have a disadvantage. This itself does not bode well for a general election where Senator Clinton finds herself behind. One thing that definitely true about Senator Obama is that he knows how to overcome being behind in an election.

I think that Senator Clinton has the instincts to fight, but she has surrounded herself with people who would rather withdraw to the next
firewall state than try to contest in an unfavorable situation. It's odd, because the spin (we did not contest) does not protect her at all and her campaign must know that. The dynamic makes it too easy to give up and bodes poorly for future campaigns and for a future presidency.

Posted by windshouter | February 16, 2008 5:39 PM

Additionally, how in the fuck is a Democrat who routinely gets the votes of 10% of black Democrats supposed to be electable in the general? It's like Mark Penn has actually hollowed people's brains out and replaced them with his own love-juices!

Posted by Some dude | February 16, 2008 5:40 PM

"The problem with HRC's spin is not the logic but the actual evidence: Obama *is* winning outside of his strongholds.

"Not yet, he hasn't. He won the white vote in Virginia because it was an open primary."

Yes, that's the problem: Hillary people are giving Obama's "stronghold" such a wide definition that it includes easily enough states to give him a majority of votes for the nomination. If Hillary is willing to concede all caucus states, open primary states, black-dominated states and Illinois and Hawaii, then she is really in trouble. If somebody's popular among 60-70% of democratic voters, it quite simply doesn't matter if they "can't win" among the other 30-40%. But that's what the spin from the Hillary camp seems to deny.

Some of them are starting to realize this, which is why they've switched to calling the process unfair. How dare Obama's core base have the audacity to grow to a majority of Democratic primary and caucus voters?!

Posted by Colatina | February 16, 2008 5:40 PM

We "RED STATE" democrats do matter! We contribute at the local, state, and national level! We do GOTV drives, registration drives, and it is ridiculous for anyone in public office to say that WE don't matter!

I'm appalled at the behavior of the Clinton's for saying that all they need to win office is the Blue States, this is the MIND SET that needs to be changed in the Democratic Party and this is why Howard Dean proposed a 50 State Strategy!

Until the Democratic Party recognizes that they need to reach out to Red State Dems they will continue to lose elections!

Posted by Erin | February 16, 2008 5:42 PM

Not only is the general an open election, so are Ohio and Texas! Why is Clinton campaigning in these states that don't count and are inherently incapable of identifying a viable Democratic nominee???

Posted by Some dude | February 16, 2008 5:43 PM

We "RED STATE" democrats do matter! We contribute at the local, state, and national level! We do GOTV drives, registration drives, and it is ridiculous for anyone in public office to say that WE don't matter!

I'm appalled at the behavior of the Clinton's for saying that all they need to win office is the Blue States, this is the MIND SET that needs to be changed in the Democratic Party and this is why Howard Dean proposed a 50 State Strategy!

Until the Democratic Party recognizes that they need to reach out to Red State Dems they will continue to lose elections!

Posted by Erin | February 16, 2008 5:43 PM

We "RED STATE" democrats do matter! We contribute at the local, state, and national level! We do GOTV drives, registration drives, and it is ridiculous for anyone in public office to say that WE don't matter!

I'm appalled at the behavior of the Clinton's for saying that all they need to win office is the Blue States, this is the MIND SET that needs to be changed in the Democratic Party and this is why Howard Dean proposed a 50 State Strategy!

Until the Democratic Party recognizes that they need to reach out to Red State Dems they will continue to lose elections!

Posted by Erin | February 16, 2008 5:45 PM

Barbar: That is hilarious. Hillary has gotten 0% -- that's right, ZERO VOTES -- from people voting for Obama in the primaries too. So? Also, since when are blacks, upscale liberals, and students not part of the democratic base? Also, even if you only count boomer women and blue-collar men as the democratic base, Obama has certainly made inroads there. Did you think before you posted?

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 5:45 PM

David: methinks Barbar was making a joke. A good one, too.

Posted by urbino | February 16, 2008 5:48 PM

You had your chance to count, but you all blew it. In fact, right before you voted, Sen. Clinton was talking about making sure DC would get full congressional representation. You thanked her by turning around and nullifying your presidential votes.

If that wasn't high-grade snark, it illustrates to a T what's wrong about Senator Clinton's attitude. You don't vote for me? Then freeze in the dark, f*ckers, you don't deserve a vote at all.

Posted by sunsin | February 16, 2008 6:05 PM

Thanks Urbino. Should have spotted that.

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 6:06 PM

jbryan -- as for D.C., Clinton and Obama were both cosponsors of the most recent attempt to secure representation in the House for D.C. Their policies on D.C. are identical.

As for Sebelius, can we nix her as a VP candidate yet? Saying things like "we can't tell people their votes don't matter and then expect their support against John McCain in November" provides for an easy Clinton turnabout -- they'll just point at Florida and Michigan and say the same thing. With errors like that, and Sebelius' underwhelming performance responding to the SOTU, let's leave her in Kansas, where she's best positioned to bring that state over to the blue side.

Posted by the good reverend | February 16, 2008 6:07 PM

Some dude, I just want to say how much you rock.

Your arguments are not only cogent, but hilarious, to boot!

Have you ever visited the message boards at the Straight Dope? You would fit in so well there with us.

Yes we can!

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 6:15 PM

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I really do think Hillary has a valid argument about the caucus v. primary dynamic. Sniffing that her supporters must not be enthusiastic enough won't cut it -- I sort of buy her claim that a lot of her base is made up of people who cannot afford to commit to a caucus, either because of work or family obligations. Unfortunately, this reasonable claim is clouded because she's making other (transparently dumb) arguments about red states not counting or explaining away losses by saying the vote is "too black" or whatever. But really, the general election is more closely approximated by a primary than a caucus. A lot of a Obama supporters are saying, "well, she didn't complain about caucuses until she started losing them!" Well, that's true. And of course she has a personal interest in the outcome. But it doesn't negate the argument. It's not as if before the primary season started, the Obama campaign was making the argument that superdelegates should follow their constituents. It simply didn't come up.

Posted by Ryan | February 16, 2008 6:19 PM

Not to beat a dead horse here, but I really do think Hillary has a valid argument about the caucus v. primary dynamic. Sniffing that her supporters must not be enthusiastic enough won't cut it -- I sort of buy her claim that a lot of her base is made up of people who cannot afford to commit to a caucus, either because of work or family obligations.

No, I'm sorry, but that's a dumbass argument. The whole point in an election is to do the hard work that it takes to get people off their ass and to the voting booth. It doesn't mean squat if all the people who are rooting for you are doing so from the comfort of their couch!

Hillary Clinton had the exact same oppoortunity to reach out to the exact same voters that Barack Obama did. The simple fact is, she either didn't try, or wasn't as successful at it.

Period.

There is no 'there' there, as it were.

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 6:26 PM

The point is that Obama's wins in a particular state can not be extrapolated to the whole Democratic party, all of primaries and caucuses, all demographic groups within the party, and especially not to the general election.

Really, after a while, the failure of Obama-bots like Yglesias to grasp this basic reality makes you wonder who they bonked to get this job. They can't really be that dim, can they?

The failure of certain HRC supporters to grasp the concept of a "straw man" makes you wonder what essential nutrient they were denied when they were small children.

Posted by yod | February 16, 2008 6:26 PM

Jill, I don't think you know what a caucus is.

Posted by Ryan | February 16, 2008 6:28 PM

As for Sebelius, can we nix her as a VP candidate yet?

Yes, please. Obama said in Nevada that he would like a VP with a military and/or business background to compensate for his inexperience in those areas.

Meanwhile Obama seems to have picked up a few insights from Howard Dean: get your ground game together and run a national campaign. Shazam!

Mark Penn's spin that the primaries are no indication of who can best win the general election is but the latest entertainment from the hapless Clinton campaign.

I can't wait for March 5.

Posted by Lucy | February 16, 2008 6:32 PM

Can't extrapolate caucuses to the general, eh?

Colorado:
Obama 46
McCain 39

McCain 49
Clinton 35

Clinton's Latino support helps her out west in the general, eh?

Nevada:
Obama 50
McCain 38

McCain 49
Clinton 40

sigh.

Posted by John M. | February 16, 2008 6:37 PM

I'm a political consultant for a living. OF COURSE I know what a caucus is.

That doesn't negate the truth of the fact that Hillary Clinton was simply not as good at getting people OUT TO VOTE FOR HER as Barack Obama was.

And she had the same target audience as Barack Obama -- every registered voter in every single state. Those potential voters looked at both candidates and chose who they wanted to vote for, in whatever format that vote was being conducted.

The fact that she didn't perform well is nobody's fault but her own.

Stop making ridiculous excuses!

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 6:42 PM

Jill, let's say that the "format the vote was being conducted" was that you had to answer your land-line phone at 7:00am and cast your vote. Obviously, this would disenfranchise college students and young people who sleep til noon, but would be great for seniors who wouldn't have to leave their house and don't use cell phones. I have to imagine that you can see the flip-side, where Hillary is arguing that saying you need to show up somewhere *at a specific time* and stand for two hours and publicly declare your support for someone might not be easy for the nurse who can't leave the hospital at 3pm or the father watching his kids who could leave them in the car to cast a primary vote but can't get a sitter for a long caucus. I don't think it's a ridiculous excuse, I think it's a claim that may or may not have merit. I happen to think it does.

Posted by Ryan | February 16, 2008 6:52 PM

John M. - excellent numbers. Funny how they get in the way at times.

The problem with much of the Clinton approach is that there is usually little reason to believe that there is conviction behind it. Somebody feel free to correct me, but did Obama offer up excuses for his losses in CA or Mass?

The Clinton camp seems incapable of accepting blame at times. Which is sort of understandable given that once Al Gore decided to opt out, they were the favorite. Still, I find myself almost terrified of the idea of any of the Clinton campaign folks making their way into government. Stephanopolous seems like Dean Acheson compared to the really bad Ari Fleischer imitations that Mark Penn and even Howard Wolfson seem to be doing these days.

And when the media calls them on their spins (like when they fail to mention that they were leading in most of the states which Obama has won through early January in their post-loss spin(s) of "we knew it was going to be tough in Maryland/Virginia/Iowa/Colorado/Missouri and the list goes on and on), we get cries of bias. Heck, I actually see that MSNBC (aside from the ridiculous Shuster comments) treats Clinton harshly but maybe this is because Obama & Co. limits spin to the plausible and policy and doesn't try to spin every darn thing, including the unspinnable. Or put another way, maybe the media would be treating Clinton better if she accepted the losses with a little more class and honesty.

Posted by John C | February 16, 2008 6:56 PM

Ryan,

Even taking your little scenario into account, how does that affect Hillary's inability to court and secure the votes of the same people Barack Obama did?

If Hillary's complaint is that caucuses are unfair to seniors, and that's her only demographic, then it's a complaint I refuse to hear. Get your ass up and make some sense to the students and farmers and housewives and every single other person who voted for Barack.

Every vote Barack got was AVAILABLE to Hillary.

That she didn't EARN them is NOT THE FAULT OF THE CAUCUS SYSTEM.

Do you get it now?

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 7:02 PM

Ryan:

A nice test case for that theory was North Dakota. The ND caucus is held all day and all you had to do was stop by, fill out a card for you candidate, drop it in a sealed box, and go on your merry way. She lost ND 61% to 37%.

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 7:05 PM

Jill, my argument is that caucuses are less democratic in that they might disproportionately select for certain groups in a way that is not replicated in primaries *nor in the general election*. In this case, Barack was advantaged because the groups that may find it easiest to caucus match up with his demographic strengths. You do not concede this point, but instead argue that Hillary should have done a better job *appealing to the advantaged groups (ie, Barack's demographic base)*. It's a parallel line of argument that can't really be reconciled with mine. But I appreciate where you are coming from.

Posted by Ryan | February 16, 2008 7:11 PM

Obama offers up excuses all the time the primary one being that he didn't have enough time to campaign in x, y, z state and if the election has been a week later, he would have done better. Course the dates for the elections were known way in advance and if he didn't plan on spending more time in ca. Ma, ny, nj, etc. too bad.

I would also ask "political consultant' erin how many states help caucuses for the first time this year. I believe many did that wanted to move up their primary but could for financial or political reasons. So NO one could judge how those would go - and many of them were plagued by confusion and disorder (and had a much lower turnout than primaries in the same states in 2004 - so much for rallying your base).

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 7:12 PM

Barbar: very funny. Unfortunately, I have a queasy feeling that your satirical argument is eventually going to be coming, deadpan, out of the mouths of Clinton and her surrogates. These shameless crooks seem to be convinced that the Democratic electorate really is that dumb.

Today's highlight was Clinton adviser Harold Ickes explaining, in ABC's Political Radar, that while he had enthusiastically supported the plan to strip the delegates of Florida and Michigan, that had happened when he was a member of the DNC. Now that he's on the Clinton campaign, he says, he's in favor of counting the delegates. Literally, that's his "explanation" for his changed position.

The politicians have to talk about party unity and so forth -- it's in their self-interest -- but I'm not a slave of any one political party. I'm an American citizen, and thus a political free agent. I've knocked doors for Democratic nominees in every election since Dukakis.

If Clinton somehow becomes the nominee, I will knock doors for McCain. It isn't just a protest statement; it's clear to me that he would make a much better and more trustworthy president than Clinton. A Hillary Clinton presidency would be a death blow to American progressives. Even if it means another Republican administration, we have to do everything we can to stop it.

Posted by HGBT | February 16, 2008 7:13 PM

"those of us in DC, Maryland, Connecticut, Maine, Washington, Minnesota, etc. don't like to be told we don't count either."

How completely ridiculous. Don't like to be told we don't count either? Jeez, that's some weak, weak-ass shit.

Now, Mr. Yglesias isn't super smart, but he definitely isn't dumb, so it should be obvious that he KNOWS that is a completely stupid-ass argument. So, he must think that his readers, the audience for his weak-ass sophistry, IS dumb - dumb enough to think this thumb-sucking BS is a compelling argument. Of course, if called on it, he'd surely say he was just joking.

Similar to when Yglesias was supporting the invasion of Iraq because he "worried about the nexus of WMDs, Muslim extremist terrorists, and failed states", blah blah blah. A bush-league Straussian.

FYI, I don't really care who wins the Democratic nomination, and I'm planning on voting for Obama. But what weak-ass fan-boy whining that shit is.

Posted by luci | February 16, 2008 7:14 PM

If you are arguing that Hillary lost some caucus because her supporters are so old and sick that they could vote in a primary but couldn't hang out a few hours for a caucus I think you are just crazy to begin with. The state could be Florida and I still wouldn't believe it.

If I entertained the idea seriously I'd have to worry her constituancy might very well be dead by November and make her unelectable.

Posted by Ed Marshall | February 16, 2008 7:21 PM

Ed - I'll give you an example of what I am talking about: Nebraska. Nebraska democrats wanted to move up their primary to have more impact on the election, but the republicans (who control state government) wouldn't do it. So they organized a caucus.

They had no idea what the turnout would be (no surprise as they'd never hosted a caucus before). The result was disorganized madness in many areas of the state. The largest county, douglas, had only fifteen caucus sites. Sarpy county (suburbs of omaha) had only 0NE caucus site. Traffic was backed up for miles, people had to park blocks away, there weren't accessible handicapped stops and the sidewalks were covered in ice. Once someone made it inside, they found a process that was haphazard at best. To my knowledge, at one site an obama volunteer - trying to be helpful - started collecting preference slips. When someone in authority realzed this was happening, those slips had to be handed back to the voters, delaying the process by more than an hour.

This happened all over. The state party - to their credit - arranged for an absentee ballot process but it was not well-publicized and many people didn't know it was available. The counties were also allowed to schedule their caucuses for different times during the day, with the result that lincoln voted a full seven hours behind omaha.

Now the state party got what they wanted - some good press and about 7000 new registered dems (you could register at the caucus site).

But for all the hoopla, only about 10 percent of dems turnout. About a quarter that turned out in may of 2004 when kerry was running against no one.

No one is going to convince me that the caucus was desirable or democratic in nebraska. Not when it leads to substanially fewer voters.

Democrats used to believe that things that made it harder to vote were bad, but some of the obama supporters here seem to not believe that any more.

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 7:40 PM

Columbia:

I think primaries are better than caucuses. But it doesn't hold that because that is true (or at least you and I think it is) it must also be true that caucuses don't "count."

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 7:44 PM

The general election is open to independents and Republicans too, fyi

No, really? Get out. I learn something new each day, don't I?

And I suppose you think it's likely that an inexperienced black Democrat will carry the day among whites and independents over--who's the Republican candidate, again? Moderate John himself.

Yeah. I know that republicans and independents vote in the primary. That's pretty much my point, in fact. It is foolish indeed to think Obama will win the white vote. Democrats have operated at a deficit there for 11 of the last 12 presidential elections, or something close to that. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Obama will carry that vote in the general. Hope, sure. Base the entire hopes of the Democratic presidential campaign on a nominee who loses the white vote without Republicans and can't win the Hispanic vote? Not likely.

how does that affect Hillary's inability to court and secure the votes of the same people Barack Obama did?

Even if I agreed with you--and I don't, for the reasons others have spelled out--your argument is beggared. You are arguing strategy and legalisms. You're acting as if the delegate count matters in the slightest in the face of Obama's thus far crippling demographic deficiencies.

Even assuming Hillary ran a bad caucus campaign, so what? It's not about fairness. It's about being sure that the Dems put forth their best candidate. White liberals in Nebraska are not the most reliable indicators for that determination.

Get used to this basic fact: if Obama can't demonstrate in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania that he can win at least half the white vote and half the Hispanics--preferably white Democrats--then he will almost certainly not be the Democrat nominee.

He will have to resort to two arguments, and both are fatal.

First, he'll have to make the legalist, rules are rules argument: He won more pledged delegates. So even if it's clear that he didn't win the support of whites and Hispanics, lost the vast majority of the huge states, and won based on the vagaries of the primary system, oh well. That's the breaks. Don't worry, whites and Hispanics will come around. That sort of combination legal/dismissive argument will just kill him.

Second, he'll have to reject Florida and Michigan. Prominent blacks will come out in favor of letting them in--Julian Bond already has, and Jesse Jackson has been suspiciously silent thus far. (Yes, I know who his son is.) If even some black people support letting in the votes, the Dems will have cover.

So ignore everything until Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And if you really want your guy to prevail, check the white and Hispanic vote before you look at the outcome. That's all that will matter.

Posted by Cal | February 16, 2008 7:45 PM

Ryan, you simply aren't making the case that you're trying to make.

The contention that caucuses are inherently "undemocratic" because they don't afford equal opportunity to every individual in a constituency may have some merit to it (I don't necessarily subscribe to that thinking, but a reasonable argument could be made). But that still doesn't account for how Barack Obama was able to engender enough support to get people to show up and Hillary wasn't.

Maybe you aren't aware of this, but all the candidates have people on the ground whose sole purpose is to drive people to their caucus sites. People who don't have transportation or don't drive, etc., can be brought to the polls by the campaign workers and volunteers. And believe me, a LOT of people do this.

People showed up by the thousands to these caucuses. They could have stood in her corner of the room if they wanted her as President. In greater numbers, they didn't. She didn't win enough hearts and minds. Period.

Posted by Jill K | February 16, 2008 7:52 PM

"After that awful response to the State of Union...."

I remember hearing all the carping about Tim Kaine's SOTU response, and yet he helped Democrats win a VA Senate seat in 2007 and the state senate in 2007. Meanwhile, Jim Webb, who was pushed to godlike status after his SOTU response, has run as far to the right as possible on issues like FISA.

People like to say that Hillary is right about caucuses. The problem is that she doesn't just complain about caucuses. She also complains about primaries. She complains about everything she doesn't win. Her campaign's modus operandi seems to be complain, nitpick, whine, and rinse and repeat.

Now that she seems to be pulling out of Wisconsin early, are we going to hear about how that state doesn't count if she loses?

Posted by Carl | February 16, 2008 7:53 PM

David - what I am arguing is that a win in nebraska (with a diminished turnout and chaotic caucus) should not be seen as a sign of "strength". I can guarentee the results will not be duplicated in novemver.

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 7:53 PM

HRC's failure to organize in caucus states could be at best shortsighted and at worst arrogant. If the format is a caucus then you learn how to master the rules so that you win it. You don't whine about it. We also have the electoral college and that is even more anti-democratic but we have to deal with it. Regarding moving up the dates having an impact on the election results, what difference does it make? Especially when you have an African-American and woman running for president. I am happy with either candidate although I feel more comfortable with HRC getting the nomination, but the excuses that are made on Hrc's behalf are just mindboggling and insulting.

Posted by Micheline | February 16, 2008 7:58 PM

I meant that in a historic election like this, moving up the date would not have made a difference.

Here is another problem with some of the Clinton supporters. It seems like none of them ever heard of the Dean fifty state strategy in which you in all fifty states so you do not cede the any of them to the Republicans. We know that Nebraska may not go democratic but that's part of building a party. You got to make it happen.

Posted by Micheline | February 16, 2008 8:06 PM

Micheline - moving up the dates was not the problem. It was a contributing factor to the fact that a bunch of states that had never had caucuses decided to have caucuses, were unprepared to deal with the logistics and had a much lower turnout as a result. No one - not even the officials who organized these events - knew how they would play out. But it is reasonable to surmise that they placed significant hurdles in front of voters and in fact they did as can been seen by the lower turnout. Again a win in such circumstances is not an unalloyed "strength".

The entire primary process on our side - caucuses, MI and FL, weirdly proportioning delegates (how did clinton get more delegates in AL again? And obama more in NV?) has been a mess. No one even knows who's ahead in the popular vote.

I blame dean for a lot of this and expect the dnc will have to seriously consider revamping the entire process.

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 8:07 PM

And I suppose you think it's likely that an inexperienced black Democrat will carry the day among whites and independents over--who's the Republican candidate, again? Moderate John himself.

I think he'll run better amongst independents than Sen. Clinton, yes. So does all the evidence.

It is foolish indeed to think Obama will win the white vote. [...] There is absolutely no reason to believe that Obama will carry that vote in the general. Hope, sure. Base the entire hopes of the Democratic presidential campaign on a nominee who loses the white vote without Republicans...

Now who's slicing and dicing data, Cal?

The fact is, Obama's doing fine amongst white voters so far. Of twenty primary states*, Obama has won the white vote outright in four and lost by only a single point in two more. However, if we stop trying to spin this as a race war and look at the pretty obvious gender gap, the reason why becomes pretty obvious. Obama has won white men in ten primaries, tied amongst white men in one primary, and lost white men by a single point in two other primaries. That's a pretty strong showing in thirteen of the twenty states (considering he won 11 of the 20 primary states).

If someone can show me something -- anything -- to indicate that the gender gap is because white women hate the black man (and therefore will not vote for him in the general election) instead of the much more simple and sensible explanation that white women are excited by Hillary Clinton's candidacy... well, I'm all ears.

*: not counting New Hampshire and DC, for which CNN has no exit poll data

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 8:08 PM

Ryan-

Maybe it's a good argument that caucuses might disproportionately select for certain groups that may be more inclined to vote for Senator Obama. But that sure is a lot of maybes and mights. I think you could make a similar argument in the other direction - students may be more likely to be registered in at their permanent address in their home state, and you can't vote absentee in a caucus; for every (probably female) nurse who can't make it to caucus, there's at least one (probably male) firefighter, police officer or EMT that can't make it either; working class black folks are at least as likely as working class white folks to have inflexible work schedules; Senator Clinton draws a lot of her support from the over-65 demo, who are more likely to be free from work and child care responsibilities than Senator Obama's younger demographic etc. etc. etc.

None of these arguments take into account the differences in caucus rules in each state. Some caucuses do require a significant time commitment, at others voters can sign in and go, much like in a primary. Some caucuses were held on weekday nights, and some during weekend days.

We know that some states hold caucuses rather than primaries, and that Senator Obama tends to win in those states. It seems pretty silly to me to assume that one of those things caused the other, no matter how reasonable the explanation sounds. If there's data to show that certain groups are under-represented at caucuses, and that those under-represented groups would have voted for Senator Clinton, I'd like to see it. Without that data though, the argument doesn't stand up too well.

Posted by Emily | February 16, 2008 8:31 PM

I also wanted to add that it's a strange argument to make that "yes it was harder to vote but we made it harder for everyone". Course it was not equally harder for everyone - it was mildly harder for some and significantly harder for others (seniors, the disabled, people with small kids or weird work hours).

By the same logic, I could say that requiring IDs at voting sites is no big deal because everyone would have to show one. But as we all know, that particular requirement makes it harder for many minorities and low-income folks to vote.

Again, I fine it weird that democrats would be championing the results of a process that lead to fewer people voting.

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 8:32 PM

I also wanted to add that it's a strange argument to make that "yes it was harder to vote but we made it harder for everyone". Course it was not equally harder for everyone - it was mildly harder for some and significantly harder for others (seniors, the disabled, people with small kids or weird work hours).

By the same logic, I could say that requiring IDs at voting sites is no big deal because everyone would have to show one. But as we all know, that particular requirement makes it harder for many minorities and low-income folks to vote.

Again, I fine it weird that democrats would be championing the results of a process that lead to fewer people voting.

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 8:35 PM

Columbia:

Why is a caucus harder for seniors? My Great Uncle and Aunt had no problme voting in Nebraska's caucuses--they are retired after all and thus had plenty of time to participate.

Posted by David | February 16, 2008 8:37 PM

Again, I fine it weird that democrats would be championing the results of a process that lead to fewer people voting.

People are championing the results of the process because they're the results of the process.

No one is saying, "Yeah, let's get fewer people voting." But regardless, caucuses have been around a long while now and the time to discuss getting rid of them is NOT when we're right in the middle of an election where a substantial number of caucuses have been held.

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 8:40 PM

Reading this thread it is interesting to see the logic of the Clinton supporters. There is none. Obama can't win the general because he can't win Latinos? Do these Clinton supporters see how fallacious this is? If they follow this strange logic, then Hillary can't win the general because she can't win the African American vote. In fact his numbers with Latinos are better than hers with African Americans. He can't win the general because he didn't win Mass. and NJ, and Ca? Any Dem. who gets the nomination will win those states. What is really amusing is the importance that the Clinton people put on Texas because its a big state. No Dem will win in Texas in Nov. As far as I'm concerned Obama was smart to rack up the delegates in small red states to make up for a loss in a big red state like Texas. Hate to be snarky, but there is a reason that people with more than a high school diploma vote overwhelminly for Obama over Clinton. The Clintons are masters of playing to the hopelessly stupid. They gave us NAFTA yet the poor working class who have suffered the most from that horrible legislation vote for them. She blew heath care reform in 1993 and we lost the Congress, but people are going to hire her again. She's like the corporate raiders at places like CountryWide who run their companies into the ditch, get huge payouts and end up with big jobs in other corporations. Only in America folks! Unfortunately, we get the government we deserve.

Posted by sam922 | February 16, 2008 8:42 PM

Only the low information voters will be fooled by the ridiculous claims to electibility recently made by the Clinton campaign. Every political professional knows the "big" states Hillary won--CA, MA, NY--will be won by the DEM candidate in the general. None of these states has voted for the GOP candidate in the general since 1988. The Clinton campaign's claim to electoral advantage is just plain silly.

Sigh. This really is so very un-complicated. All one has to do is to start with the Gore states of 2000, and then ask yourself whether Obama or Clinton has a better chance of taking at least one of FL, MO, OH. Unless the DEM is running against a popular candidate on the GOP side, that's the terrain.

But let's be even handed here: Obama merely "winning" Washington, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Iowa, Maine, and Minnesota does NOT support his electability either. Again, just like Clinton taking CA, MA, and NY--these are ALL state either Clinton or Obama will take anyway in the general.

The key therefore is as follows: HOW did they win states, or do well, in various states?

The answer is in the demographics. And that's where Obama crushes Hillary on the argument for the general. His take of the electorate is much, much broader than hers.

The tipping point was Chesapeake Tuesday.

So the DEMS should nominate the candidate who is proving in the demographic data that they have a serious shot of taking two, the states of FL/MO/OH. Taking just one would certainly be good enough. But two is the standard one should apply.

Posted by Gregor | February 16, 2008 8:44 PM

The governor of Kansas is trying to make hay:
The Hillary campaign has a right to go after big states. Obama has a right to go after litle states. The states Hillary has won (nminus contested Florida and Michigan) represent 1026 delegates and Obama's represent 1005 delegates. If it were winner take all then it'd be nearly tied again.
Obama gets a lot of the states in caucuses and primaries that Bush got in general and Hillary takes a classic dem approach that nearly worked for Kerry and Gore in general, big states and picking off a few in the middle.
She is being a good obama soldier and trying to take a news cycle. No campaign can spend in ever state: not even with 100 million plus dollars.

Posted by Michael C. | February 16, 2008 8:58 PM

David - a couple of reasons. One it's a more taxing form of voting. You have to drive somewhere and stay there for a couple of hours. While campaigns may have arranged for the elderly or infirmed in iowa (where there was months of prep time), that did not happen in nebraska (and I'll warrant in many other caucus states). Two absentee ballots, which are likely to be requested by seniors were often not available or not publicized.

Again, I don't know the experience of your grandparents, but going to a crowded caucus site with inadequate parking and handicapped spaces and having to arrange transportation if you don't drive - that's a burden on low mobility voters ie the disabled and elderly. I know my grandma could not sit in a crowded gym for 3+ hours and that's if she could get a ride there.

Also, some are again forgetting that clinton had three huge primary wins in red states tennesse, arkansas and oklahoma. So she has certainly shown that she can win red states.

I don't think anyone thinks we can change the process now. But I think it is fundamentally flawed and not very democratic. Just the weird proportioning of the delegates should show that. (Again - clinton wins AL? Obama wins NV?)

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 9:15 PM

I think he'll run better amongst independents than Sen. Clinton, yes.

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the point. The point is that Obama needs a completely unrealistic amount of independents just to start where Clinton begins. He won't get the other votes.

You are trying to argue the wrong case. He doesn't have to win more than Clinton to make a good case. He has to win more than McCain, and that's just incredibly unlikely.

McCain will almost certainly win white men, and white swing voters. It's absurd to be certain that white voters will go for Obama in the general. Your demographic--who votes for Obama to begin with--certainly. But white working class voters? You may want to believe it. But the Dem leadership would be foolish to.

Of twenty primary states*, Obama has won the white vote outright in four and lost by only a single point in two more.

Ha, ha. Yes. Out of 20 races, he's lost the white vote in 2/3rds of the races. And the numbers look much worse once it comes down to white Democrats.

then ask yourself whether Obama or Clinton has a better chance of taking at least one of FL, MO, OH.

Obama has big problems in Florida. I don't know about Ohio, but he'll be spending a lot of time shoring up California.

And every time he reaches out to Hispanics, white voters will swing to McCain. Hillary won't have to make that reach.

Posted by Cal | February 16, 2008 9:27 PM

You have to drive somewhere and stay there for a couple of hours. While campaigns may have arranged for the elderly or infirmed in iowa (where there was months of prep time), that did not happen in nebraska (and I'll warrant in many other caucus states).

Are you sure it didn't happen at all in Nebraska, or didn't happen from the Clinton campaign in Nebraska? I'm in a small primary state (Delaware) where there weren't months of prep time, but the Obama campaign here had a strong operation set up to provide rides for people here. I'm willing to bet his campaign had that in a lot of the caucus states, too, and that's partly why he won. Again, it's a matter of setting up organization, something Clinton didn't make a lot of efforts at.

that's a burden on low mobility voters ie the disabled and elderly.

I've seen a lot of speculation, but still not a lot to indicate that there's actually a structural disadvantage occurring here for these demographics. Anecdotes and theories could be presented for any demographic group. In Nevada's caucus, though, 36% of the voters were over 60. They didn't seem impacted there.

Also, some are again forgetting that clinton had three huge primary wins in red states tennesse, arkansas and oklahoma. So she has certainly shown that she can win red states.

Yeah, and? Obama had big primary wins in blue states Maryland, D.C., Delaware, and Illinois, and a still respectable 4 point win in blue state Connecticut.

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 9:31 PM

Ha, ha. Yes. Out of 20 races, he's lost the white vote in 2/3rds of the races. And the numbers look much worse once it comes down to white Democrats.

He's won half of the primaries and won or tied the white vote in a third. Meanwhile in more than half of those primary states he's beaten (killed) or equaled Clinton in white men.

Again, you keep acting like this is some sort of racial civil war in the primary. It isn't. All the evidence says it isn't. The fact that you keep coming back to this over and over and over again makes me wonder if you're the one with racial issues here -- the primary electorate doesn't seem to be in most of the states, though, despite your noble attempts to make it so.

Posted by jbryan | February 16, 2008 9:36 PM

Looks like HGBT was right.

Cal talks about Obama's thus far crippling demographic deficiencies

Sorry, but you are simply a moron.

The Democrats typically win 90%+ of the black vote.
Hillary is nowhere close to that in the primary.
Therefore if she is the nominee those voters will vote for John McCain and the Democrats will be crushed in a landslide.

Is the logical fallacy clear for you now?

Let's try again.

The Democrats typically win a very large % of registered Democrats in the general election.
Hillary is winning less than half of registered Democrats in the primaries.
Therefore if she is the nominee those voters will vote for John McCain and the Democrats will be crushed in a landslide.

For fuck's sake, it takes real effort to be this stupid. I can't wait for primary season to be over.

Posted by Barbar | February 16, 2008 9:42 PM

Yes, I know driving didn't happen in nebraska. Even obama didn't have staff on the ground until a week before. And the dearth of caucus sites (one site for one of the largest counties!) added to the problem (ie traffic wait times, lack of parking, icy day). I think the greatly reduced turnout (one fourth of the voters from the uncontested 2004 primary) would be a significant piece of evidence that there were difficulties in voting. And nevada had much more organization (being one of the pre-super four) than states following it.

I bring up her red state wins to show that the idea that only obama can compete of the gop turf is flawed.

Posted by columbia | February 16, 2008 9:42 PM

Let me make a crazy argument: they would both probably win, and the one that is more "electable" (I support HRC, but I can easily make the argument for Obama), is likely more electable by the thinnest of margins. It's a tough call, Obama with his infusion of enthusiasm among voters usually not enthusiastic, or not Democratic, vs. HRC and the potential to get a lot more of the women vote than may be apparent now.

This is going to be a tough campaign. McCain has been building a postive, personal, national reputation for a decade (yes, through MSM malfeasance), which will make him very formidable.

Side note: If the nominee, I hope Obama doesn't take the bogus public financing "pledge" McCain is seeking.

Posted by Andruw | February 16, 2008 9:46 PM

I don't understand why it is so hard for people like Cal to grasp this simple point: if either Clinton or Obama cannot convert most of the people currently voting for the other candidate during the Democratic Party's nomination process, they are going to lose the general election in a landslide.

This of course is true in any close primary contest. But history says that at least for the people who are registered Democrats, the conversion rate will likely be very high, because partisanship is a very powerful force. Conversely, the conversion rate for independents and cross-over Republicans will likely be much lower. And that is one of the reasons why if you have two more or less evenly matched people in the primaries, but one is getting more registered party members and the other is getting more independents and cross-overs, the latter is likely to start out the general election in a much better position.

Posted by DTM | February 16, 2008 9:46 PM

top 3 reasons Kansas doesn't count:

3. yellow-brick road doesn't lead to NY (which counts)

2. Kansas city is actually in MO, which also doesn't count (too many brothers), but by extrapolation KS doesn't count either;

3. governor's name sounds like obscure composer that only brie-eating NPR set recognize --doesn't put food (other than brie) on the table, so it doesn't count

Posted by anonymous | February 16, 2008 9:53 PM

In Barbar, we finally have someone on these myriad internet threads who combines sarcasm and logic. What a relief.

Posted by Gregor | February 16, 2008 10:03 PM

For those following the dem primary season with 1/2 a brain and for those who are really looking past their noses, Clinton is not, I repeat, is NOT gaining momentum in her desired and oft thought of strong demographics. Kate Michelman President of N.O.W [National Organization for Women] i.e. a heavy hitting feminist leader has backed and continues to campgaign for Obama.

Clinton Superdelegates are {cough} David Lewis {cough} most recently, jumping from supporting Clinton to supporting Obama. Her splendid white middle class voters are watching her canceling appointments, dropping campaign managers, calling 'unfair' working inside deals, and very simp