The National Picture

Here's Pollster.com's summary of the state of the race on the eve of super-duper-enormous Tuesday. There are kind of two ways you can look at this chart. One is that Clinton's had about the same level of support forever and now that it's a two person race the undecideds will break against the de facto incumbent and Obama wins. Another is that Clinton's maintaining a small lead and will probably secure a narrow victory tomorrow that takes the wind out of Obama's sails and leaves her victorious.

As is frequently the case in America's oddly arbitrary candidate selection process, an enormous amount hinges not on the objective results tomorrow but on the reporting of the results. The ambiguity between the results viewed as a race for delegates, as a race for states, and as a race for the semi-national Feb 5 popular vote only increases the extent to which basically made-up media narratives will be very important. Given that he usually gets good press, Obama probably has the edge in terms of winning a spin war in the event of an ambiguous outcome.

Comments

By temperament I'm inclined to agree; the political press is staffed by personality-driven sheep. But I think if it results in a narrow Obama loss, it will be seen that way instead. Super-duper-enormous-gigantic-monstrous-titanic Tuesday has been turned into even more of an event than it really is and has been, despite the delegate rules, turned into the win-or-lose day in media narrative. It's hard for me to see the media continuing its own lens (which is always its primary way of doing things) and also pitching it as a win for Obama. In general, he gets more favorable coverage than Clinton does, and so they'll say nice things (just another week, heck of a showing for a newcomer, recreated excitement for politics, etc.). But they'll still call it a loss because to do otherwise would be to step back from their own Armageddon Tuesday storyline. (If he wins, of course, he will have a serious claim against Petraeus' title of Redeemer of All Mankind. That would be fun.)

Posted by jhupp | February 4, 2008 5:55 PM

1)I do see in those charts Clinton gaining a little of Edward's support, there is a rise over the last few months and a tiny rise recently.

2) wherever Obama's support is coming, I see little evidence he is taking voters from Clinton in that chart.

3) Convergence is obvious. Obama may have passed her already. I think you are wrong. Obama's rise is not so much media-driven as by word-of-mouth and other venues, and even if Obama lose Tuesday 52-48, I would have to examine the remaining primaries to see if he can pass her in committed delegates.

4) Brokered convention.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 4, 2008 5:56 PM

Uhh, the point about Obama's rise not being MSM driven means to me that Obama will retain momentum even in the event of a loss on Super Tuesday, and whether he can pass Clinton would depend on how favourable the remaining states are to Obama, and whether the Superdelegates flip his way as his momentum continues over the summer.

It may not be over even after all the votes are counted.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 4, 2008 6:03 PM

Given that he usually gets good press, Obama probably has the edge in terms of winning a spin war in the event of an ambiguous outcome.

But you can also supplement that with the professional pundit class's desire for a race to 'go all the way to the convention in our lifetimes'.

The tightrope that Obama has to walk now, I think, is actually similar to the one that Bush contemplated in 2000. That is, if the momentum delivers results, he needs to put pressure on superdelegates to reflect the will of their states' voters, rather than their own preference.

I can't think of anything more likely to sink the Dems' chances in November than a convention process that delivers the nomination to Hillary against the trend of primary voting.

This means, as Petey has said elseblog, that Sen. Clinton needs to come away from Tuesday with a big enough lead to make it look as if the superdelegates don't matter. In that sense, the sense that Hillary's in front is slightly deceptive: if she doesn't deliver the critical blow to Obama tomorrow, she loses the contest.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 4, 2008 6:09 PM

I don't think it'll be over tomorrow, and the press won't try to act like it is. Consider Romney and the bull-horn conservatives like limbaugh will be pushing the "long haul, delegate count" story line after tomorrow. It shouldn't be that hard for that to apply to democrats as well.

Posted by mad6798j | February 4, 2008 6:27 PM

I think we're going to end up with a "Waiting for California" storyline. It makes for a great narrative. All the other primaries will be over before California's polls close - http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2008013101 It's a huge state, so the networks can keep up the "Who actually won tonight?" going until they eventually call California. Almost every state is done by 8:00 Eastern - New York being a huge exception at 9:00 and Arizona/Arkansas/Utah being smallar narratives. Assuming the results are done for all the other states in 30 minutes to half an hour, there will be at least an hour or two of all California all the time.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this- the winner of California will be the declared the winner tomorrow in the media narrative, unless the popular vote/delegate count has a 10-point difference.

Posted by Alex | February 4, 2008 6:30 PM

Yeah, I agree. CNN and MSNBC, at least, love Obama. I don't think a 100-delegate deficit would be spun as an unvarnished defeat. The Obama campaign could survive that.

Posted by Ted | February 4, 2008 6:32 PM

Obama could also lose California but do well in a bunch of mid-western and western states (MN, MO, ID, UT, CO).

If that happens, there's going to be a very plausible narrative about his superior electability, and the media will grasp it right away. It's the reason why Obama has been pursuing a small-state strategy, I think. It fits his brand identity as the one who can draw in red-staters.

If he can make that argument strongly, and then win MD, VA, etc in the following week . . . I think he wins the nomination sooner or later.

Posted by Ted | February 4, 2008 6:37 PM

As Kos said today, Atrios is deciding this on 4/22.

Posted by Andruw | February 4, 2008 6:48 PM

There's not enough evidence to be sure that Obama will do well tomorrow. I guess he probably won't.

Posted by otto | February 4, 2008 6:54 PM

Another point. The cable channels love these primary nights. They get to all sit together and play election, and their viewership goes up. I'm guessing they want a couple more of those.

Posted by mad6798j | February 4, 2008 7:03 PM

If Obama wins CA, he will be anointed as the nominee. If Obama loses CA, but it's close, and he does well elsewhere, he's still in it. If Hillary wins CA big, it's over.

Posted by Jimmy Jazz | February 4, 2008 7:07 PM

Tomorrow will be close, especially CA. Obama will do VERY well in mountain states.

As to campaign cash, Obama's January haul really started pouring in post-NH. Expect February's take to be as big - or bigger - than January. My 73-year-old mother in Texas - who was undecided until the last two weeks (but NEVER for HRC) is now passionately for Obama. Same thing with my sister who, one year ago, was pro-HRC.

Posted by GordonsGirl | February 4, 2008 7:24 PM

Over at DemStrategist, they point out that we may not know who won California until Wednesday. Not in time for morning news, even. http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/

So, as big as CA is in reality, it may not be a hook that the MSM can hang the story on. Unless the spread comes out clearer than I expect it to be.

I think this is another narrative advantage for Obama. It may take so long to know who really won, delegate-total-wise, that "exceeding expectations" is the only story the MSM *can* tell.

Or maybe I'm just spinning myself a hope-cocoon, as I tend to do before every big election . . .

Posted by Ted | February 4, 2008 7:40 PM

Superdelegates to Determine Nominee

Chris Bowers runs the math. Commenters try to refute him. Excluding Michigan & Florida, and unless you think someone will get up to the 70% level in upcoming states, voted delegates will not put either over the top before the convention.

Superdelegates will get behind whomever has the most regular delegates? Well, with Michigan & Florida still sorta in play, I doubt if final deals can be struck over the summer.

If Obama has the lead, will his base accept Clinton chosen by Superdelegates? Chris Bowers sees a disaster coming. No legitimate candidate.

Posted by bob mcmanus | February 4, 2008 8:19 PM

But Chris Bowers always sees disaster coming.

Posted by CG | February 4, 2008 8:51 PM

Speaking as an Obama partisan -- sure, I'd accept superdelegates. That's the way the game is played. But if they try to seat Michigan & Florida on the first ballot . . . let's not even go there, okay? Even thinking about it is bad for party unity.

Surely, no one is serious about the MI/FL thing. That has *got* to be a trial balloon/smokescreen of some kind.

Posted by Ted | February 4, 2008 9:06 PM

I've already seen the media saying that it's a race for the delegates and that tomorrow won't end anything. They do love a horserace but in this instance it's probably true. The remaining schedule favors Obama who clearly moves people by showing up in person.

Posted by Jay | February 4, 2008 9:13 PM

See

"The Real Meaning of 'Anchor Baby'"

at

Rudely Stamped

Michael Blaine
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com

Posted by Michael Blaine | February 4, 2008 9:23 PM

I was inclined to agree with jhupp and Alex, until I recalled that I've seen quite a few stories today saying that Super Tuesday is unlikely to settle the Democratic race, so it does like the big news outlets are laying the groundwork for not declaring a winner tomorrow. That said, I think that Kos is right and everyone's high expectations for Obama work against him. He somehow needs to do much better than expected for the results to give him a Super Mario mushroom-style power-up and I don't know if that can happen.

Posted by Sean | February 4, 2008 11:27 PM

an enormous amount hinges not on the objective results tomorrow but on the reporting of the results.

I've actually come to the conclusion that the public isn't listening to the pundit chatter at all anymore. We saw no surge after Iowa, Hillary didn't implode in New Hampshire, it turns out that Giuliani wasn't a serious contender after all, Romney's win in Michigan is forgotten, Florida meant nothing, then it meant everything, now it means nothing again.

It actually looks like people are voting for their own reasons and ignoring most of the nonsense.

Posted by Jinchi | February 4, 2008 11:48 PM

Conceptually, there are four possible outcomes on the Democratic side:

a) Clinton has a big night
b) Clinton narrowly ahead
c) Obama narrowly ahead
d) Obama has a big night

d) and c) result in an Obama nomination, the first sooner, the second later. With c), Clinton would fight to the next set of primaries, but likely be blown out thereafter.

a) is possible, and might act as a mirrot image of c). Obama would likely not concede, but would need something game changing to overcome Clinton's momentum.

On the basis of recent polls, b) is possibly the current conventional wisdom - Clinton leads on the votes cast, the delegate math is the delegate math, the pundits get to argue about whether early ballots favored Clinton and late deciding voters Obama. Both players vow to continue.

Believe it or not, b) may be the best outcome for Democrats. The continued energy in the primary campaign contrasts with the fretful dissipation of the Republican race. McCain is loved by a few, tolerated by many, and loathed by large numbers of Republicans - and the continued uncertainty over the Democrats' nominee means they still don't know yet who to train their fire on.

Posted by Andrew | February 5, 2008 12:46 AM

I'd go along with Andrew's interpretation, with two quibbles.

I do think that Obama has more 'outs' than Clinton, and I'd worry that b) has the potential to turn into a war of attrition, and raise the focus on superdelegates. The line between 'competitive and energising' and 'bloody fight' is easily crossed.

Essentially, I think that Hillary needs to win big in order to win cleanly, because if it goes on to the later rounds, she suffers most from 'winning ugly'. Obama has the underdog's advantage in this regard: I think he can nickel-and-dime delegates out of the later primaries in a way that that Clinton campaign can't. Some of this is down to the perceived imbalance of pledged superdelegates, some of it's the establishment/outsider thing.

A lot depends on the mo', though, and it's going to be interesting to see how the two candidates divvy up their time between now and Saturday. Louisiana's a long way from Washington State, but there's a lot of symbolism in going down to NOLA.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 5, 2008 4:27 AM

What's Gore doing in the chart? He was never a declared candidate so the decision to remove him from the questions was a bit arbitrary. But it does mean that the pollsters' question changed. The Gore preferences had to go somewhere; and it looks like they went to Obama. Fair enough, as he's the stronger candidate on climate change. Edwards voters should have gone for Hillary on policy grounds but it looks as if they've gone instead for Obama on character, and perhaps the sense that he's more likely to get his second-best policies through.

Posted by James Wimberley | February 5, 2008 8:37 AM