The Wrap Up

The Obama campaign points out that their man won a majority of the states in play, which is certainly true. On the other hand, it's hard to argue that Utah, Idaho, and North Dakota are a better prize than New York and California. The bottom-line, however, is that if you factor out the more exuberant Zogby-fueled dreams of the weekend, Obama did quite well relative to his baseline of a week ago. The February 5 landscape favored Clinton, and Obama managed to not lose any of "his" states while poaching Connecticut and narrowly grabbing contested Missouri. Clinton won, but most indications are that she won't have won nearly enough delegates to put this thing out of reach.

Now the landscape gets much more favorable for Obama. On Saturday, it's Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington. Then on Sunday it's Maine. Then Tuesday offers Maryland, DC, and Virginia. Then February 19 offers Wisconsin and Hawaii. That's a lot of states, but not a ton of delegates. On March 4 comes the big showdown in Texas and Ohio. The question is whether Obama can build up enough momentum between now and March 4 to put Clinton away, or whether Clinton can draw enough blood in the intermediate states to shut him down on the March 4 firewall.

Who wins that is anyone's guess at this point. One thing I can predict is that you'll see a lot of handwringing about how this fight is dooming the Democratic Party. It's all, as best I can tell, total nonsense. Disagreeing about which of two strong leaders should go try to implement a pretty widely agreed upon vision of national policy is a healthy thing to do. Meanwhile, the stuff that really matters for general election purposes won't for many months.

Comments

One big mistake in your otherwise pretty accurate wrap-up. You say "she won't have won nearly enough delegates to put this thing out of reach". I am afraid you listened to TV "journalists" a little too much.
It appears (from people who know these things better than I or you or Chris Matthews do) that they will each win roughly the same amount of delegates tonight (give or take 10). So in that sense, tonight was almost a perfect draw.
And he won many more states. She just held on some symbolic ones she was poised to win all along (in spite of the wild dreams some of us had).
So I would have a slightly more pro-Obama tone to my wrap-up if I had been the one writing it.

Posted by Benjamin | February 6, 2008 2:01 AM

Are you sure Clinton won? MSNBC's delegate analyst put the count at 841 to 837 even granting the Clinton's camp the best case scenario in California. If winning both the most states and the most delegates after being down by double digits just two weeks ago doesn't count as a win, what would?

Posted by G C | February 6, 2008 2:01 AM

Why do you pundits keep mentioning New York as if there was ever a possibility of Clinton losing her home state. And it SHOULD be noted that she didn't break 60% in her OWN state. She got 57%, the same percentage she got in MI with no one else on the ballot. How do you not break 60% in your home state and call yourself a national candidate?

Posted by Dawn | February 6, 2008 2:02 AM

"Clinton won, but most indications are that she won't have won nearly enough delegates to put this thing out of reach."

You do understand that she narrowly lost the delegate count tonight, don't you?

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 2:03 AM

I completely agree G C. By both the measure of delegates and states, Obama seemed to have won.
Problem is he lost expectations because the exit polls gave hope for a while he was going to take over MA or CA. And even though he had trailed in those for 16 months, and no poll showed him winning MA, pundits decided THAT was an upset.
And unfortunately if someone as politically literate as Matt buys it, it means average voters will too.

Posted by Benjamin | February 6, 2008 2:04 AM

"The February 5 landscape favored Clinton, and Obama managed to not lose any of "his" states while poaching Connecticut and narrowly grabbing contested Missouri. Clinton won, but most indications are that she won't have won nearly enough delegates to put this thing out of reach."

you must be tired to make a comment like this. clinton was favored, right? from chuck todd's count, obama will win more delegates. (just a matter of how many more) he actually closed the gap and you write "she did not win enough delegates to put this thing out of reach." he won MORE DELEGATES and MORE STATES (at least 13 to her 8) you sound like paul begala or james carville with lines like these. please update this post or correct it.

Posted by platter17 | February 6, 2008 2:05 AM

Benjamin,

Save your breath. Apparently, according to the talking heads who won't give Senator Obama credit for ANYTHING, you can lose a 30 percentage point lead in one month, barely pull out states that you had double digit leads in just a week ago, like California and New Jersey and still be considered the underdog pulling off "surprise" wins. And God only knows how you win your home state by less than 60% and that be considered a decisive win.

Posted by Dawn | February 6, 2008 2:08 AM

Right, the pundits got caught up in the possibility of a huge upset. I was liveblogging it, I admit I got caught up too. But when the papers come out tomorrow with the actual numbers, and they have to talk about the fact that he won 13/14 states and more delegates in a context where he has both a fundraising advantage and a friendly schedule, the idea that he won the day will take shape.

It's actually better for him to be constantly underestimated—Clinton tends to do better when she's down.

Given what the conventional wisdom was before the polls closed, I think Barack won the nomination tonight.

Posted by G C | February 6, 2008 2:10 AM

The thing to note is that Obama won more than a couple blowouts. (2/3 or more of the vote). Clinton won none. Those blowouts will not be split close to evenly between the two. Obama could very well end up tomorrow with a large pledged delegate lead from 2/3+ victories in Illinois, Georgia, Colorado and a few other places.

The reason 2/3 matters is that's where districts with an even number of delegates no longer split 50/50

Posted by Peter | February 6, 2008 2:10 AM

The point being that Obama's going to get killed in Texas, right? I can't imagine the Hispanics will break any better for him there than in CA.

Having McCain as the presumptive nominee helps Obama, I think, because there's a single polling question; which one of the two runs better against him.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 6, 2008 2:11 AM

I think momentum is hugely overvalued at this point. Even if Obama wins every contest for the rest of February, Hillary still has many victories to point to.

While there are many real media events that could shake this race up, Obama winning some states he was favored to win anyway, isn't gonna do it.

Posted by Tony V | February 6, 2008 2:11 AM

Sorry, this was supposed to be the "before" link in my last comment.

Posted by G C | February 6, 2008 2:13 AM

I agree with all the comments here. If Obama ties it's an Obama win. As much as that sounds like spin it's true. And if he ekes out more delegates it's HUGE. This is not about states--even though Obama is going to win 13 or 14. It's about congressional districts and margin of victory. It's the delegates, stupid.

If the Clinton campaign can spin this into some kind of squeaker victory, that says something about the media. I would expect deeper analysis from Matt.

Posted by John SFL | February 6, 2008 2:14 AM

Well, I'm a lifelong New Englander, but I have to admit that if ever there was a time to complain amount the Northeast bias of the mainstream media media, it was tonight. They spent a tremendous amount of time talking about Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York and New Jersey and then seemed to lose interest. Results from state after state after state were rolling in the rest of the night with barely any comment - except for Missouri where the race was close and California which was the big prize. In some cases, the lack of attention might have been justified by the small size of the states, but in other cases the ignored states in question were substantial in size.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 6, 2008 2:16 AM

But Obama doesn't need to shake the race up. Hillary doesn't have a very big delegate lead in the first place.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 6, 2008 2:16 AM

Momentum might be overrated, but a month of losing is tough to overcome. Obama also has a fund raising advantage.

It's going to be strange if Clinton stays in the race AND Obama wins the rest of February. There's going to be two weeks of Texas/Ohio horserace coverage with nothing else happening.

BTW, for delegate counts, the remainder of February is worth more than March. 447 pledged delegates vs 415 for the March states.

Posted by Alex | February 6, 2008 2:19 AM

Dan, which channel were you watching. ABC discussed every state. Plus American Samoa; the only caucus Hillary won.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 6, 2008 2:20 AM

CNN talking heads just fucking insufferable in their delight over racial divides and the possibility of lawyers getting involved re. Michigan and Florida......

Posted by nick | February 6, 2008 2:20 AM

I think Matt and a lot of other people are overlooking the fact that there are more delegates in the remaining February states than there are in March (447 to 415).

Obama is going to have 2 weeks of really good press when he's winning those states and then 2 weeks to focus on Ohio and Texas. He'll have a lead in pledged delegates going into those contests. (Even counting MI and FL.) I think OH and TX will be must win states for Clinton. If she doesn't, it will be effectively over by then.

Posted by kjblair | February 6, 2008 2:20 AM

Dan, which channel were you watching? ABC discussed every state. Plus American Samoa; the only caucus Hillary won.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 6, 2008 2:20 AM

One thing though. Obviously tonight confirms Obama has a slight Latino problem that could cost him Texas. BUT he has a month to make that up. He has Kennedy and time to highlight Clinton's slightly more conservative rhetoric on immigration issues.
It is easier to do when you are targeting one state.

I am more concerned about the expectations being he will run the tables for all primaries between now and March 4th. He is bound to lose at least one considering the way the race has being going and once again the expectation game will play against him.

I don't wanna sound like an naive Obamaniac but it does feel at times the bar is always being placed higher and higher every time he crosses one.

Posted by Benjamin | February 6, 2008 2:21 AM

I've still got a reason to get my okole on down to my local caucus, but I can't shake the thought that (my mom x 1000000) is gonna end up sticking us with a Clinton/McCain race.

If so, I'll pray, PRAY I say, that John comes off like a complete nut job in the general.

Posted by cmholm | February 6, 2008 2:21 AM

Well, if you exclude the outstanding Daley Machine performance in Obama's home state, I don't think he got even 35% of the total non-black vote tonight in a two-way race, maybe barely over 30%. And remember that gigantic California was an open primary, so all the independents could vote for him, especially since they weren't allowed to vote in the closed CA Republican Primary.

Perhaps David Brooks and all his friends are correct when they claim that the Democratic Party is the "racist" party and the Republican party is the "anti-racist" party.

Otherwise, I think Obama would be on track to lose something like fifty states in November...

Posted by RKU | February 6, 2008 2:22 AM

How many delegates is Clinton going to get in California? She seems to be winning it by a good deal more than expected; given its size, I would think that might give Clinton the delegate lead all by itself.

Obama doesn't seem to have a big margin for error right now because you have to assume that Texas is a Clinton state given the importance of Mexican-Americans to the Democratic vote there. If Edwards had stayed in the race, I think he might have thrown Ohio to Obama, but now I tend to think the state's increasing economic malaise works in Hillary's favor.

Of course, Gary Hart won Ohio in 1984 at a time when he was nearly down for the count, so maybe Obama can pull it out. If Obama gets a series of wins under his belt between now and March 4, momentum, which has not been a factor on the Democratic race so far, might finally begin to work in Obama's favor.

Weird aside to the night: who could have guessed there would come a day when the most one-sided Democratic primary/caucus would feature a black man winning in Idaho?

Posted by ChuckE | February 6, 2008 2:23 AM

Heh.... so Hillary campaign is going to argue that winning, e.g., Idaho is meaningless since it won't go Democratic, and then her nomination is going to depend on winning Texas???

Posted by AlanC9 | February 6, 2008 2:27 AM

"I don't wanna sound like an naive Obamaniac but it does feel at times the bar is always being placed higher and higher every time he crosses one."

Blame it on Team Obama's repeated incompetence at playing the expectations game.

-----

"How many delegates is Clinton going to get in California? She seems to be winning it by a good deal more than expected; given its size, I would think that might give Clinton the delegate lead all by itself."

You would think that because you don't understand the delegate allocation rules.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 2:32 AM

'it's hard to argue that Utah, Idaho, and North Dakota are a better prize than New York and California'

Really? If they provide enough delegates to place Obama in the lead why don't they count as valuable prizes? I would also make the argument that Obama's clear advantage in red states, Missouri for example, would suggest his superiority in the general election.

Posted by sven | February 6, 2008 2:41 AM

I'd argue that Utah, Idaho, and North Dakota may indeed be better prizes than California or New York. CA and NY will vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Those red states won't vote for Clinton if she gets the nod.

Barack Obama got more votes in North Dakota than all the Republicans put together.

Think about that for a minute.

Posted by EarBucket | February 6, 2008 2:44 AM

"Well, if you exclude the outstanding Daley Machine performance in Obama's home state, I don't think he got even 35% of the total non-black vote tonight in a two-way race, maybe barely over 30%. And remember that gigantic California was an open primary, so all the independents could vote for him, especially since they weren't allowed to vote in the closed CA Republican Primary."

The Daley machine is a Chicago machine that doesn't even reach into Hyde Park anymore, not a state-wide machine.

Also, Obama got majorities in states like Utah. If you want to think of a white state, think of Utah.

Posted by Reality Man | February 6, 2008 2:50 AM

"if someone as politically literate as Matt buys it,"

Hmmm...That suggests we might need to re-assess Matt's "political literateness".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 6, 2008 2:52 AM

"I'd argue that Utah, Idaho, and North Dakota may indeed be better prizes than California or New York. CA and NY will vote for Obama if he's the nominee. Those red states won't vote for Clinton if she gets the nod."

If you're "arguing" that Obama could win Utah, Idaho, or North Dakota in November, you're kinda stupid.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 2:52 AM

Obama won Missouri. He won 14 of the 22 states. He won in the middle of the country. Hillary picked up ONE up for grabs state, Arizona.

She had a 40 point lead in Massachusetts in October. She had a 30 point lead in California in December.
New York is her home state. This pundits on TV need to quit saying Obama would have much rather had New York, unless they're going to say Hillary Clinton would have much rather had the state of her birth, Illinois, and also Georgia.

This ends the race arguments. Nothing is as white as North Dakota or Idaho. Obama won everywhere. This solidifies his argument that Hillary can't get the states he can, while he will still win the states she gets.

The point is that the democratic nominee gets California and New York off the bat. But what tonight proves is that the middle of the country is off the table if Hillary is the nominee. Democrats need to think long and hard about that.

http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | February 6, 2008 2:56 AM

I show Obama winning the delegates 811-796, but hey what do I know?

Given Clinton's lead only a week ago, I'd say it was a good night for Obama. Obviously if he had taken MA or NJ it would have been huge, but it's clear the momentum is his.

Going in I figured Clinton would have to win the delegate count by at least 50 over Obama for her to have a good night. She missed that by a bit, but delegate-wise it's essentially a draw. If Clinton were anyone else I'd be inclined to say Obama is the now the clear, albeit slight, favorite. But Hillary's last name is Clinton, so imo it's basically a coin toss now.

Posted by blah2 | February 6, 2008 2:57 AM

I voted for Obama today here in Massachusetts, but I'll quite happily vote for Clinton over McCain in November if Obama doesn't win the Dem nod. There is just no rational reason to vote for a Repiglican in November, and there are ample reasons to vote against them.

McCain is insane if he thinks his pro-war rhetoric is a winning strategy. I hope November cripples the Repiglicans for a decade - they deserve it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | February 6, 2008 2:58 AM

Petey is right: Utah, Idaho and ND are not in play in November. Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and New Mexico are. Obama won all 4 of those, CO and MN by more than 2-1.

Pro-immigrant McCain is saying he can contest California. I'm not buying it, but looking at how poorly Obama did with Hispanics in California it'll surely be closer than 2004 if he's the Dem nominee.

Everyone keeps talking about how Hillary took NY, but if you add up the delegates from both the candidates' home states, NY and IL, Obama actually comes out ahead since he won IL by 31% and Clinton won NY by 17%.

Posted by blah2 | February 6, 2008 3:10 AM

Hey y'all, I agree: Obama surpassed expectations, and the media is ignoring it, because they got caught up in the narrative of a late surge. But we can go to sleep.

There's not a lotta point gaming expectations anymore. It's Feb 6th. We're even. No one is going to withdraw. At this point we just need to *win more delegates* than the other guy/gal.

Posted by Ted | February 6, 2008 3:19 AM

No guarrantee Obama won New Mexico

Albuquerque news has Clinton ahead by about 100 votes with only 3 precincts left to report:

http://www.koat.com/index.html

ugh

I really hope those break for Obama.

Still, the point many are making remains: its frustrating to see so many seemingly-intelligent people not realizing that Obama may well have won the delegate count tonight.

Posted by Michael | February 6, 2008 3:28 AM

Yeah, I made a mistake with NM, but either way it'll be close there. Take out all the guaranteed red and blue states, and look at what's left. I think this night showed Obama will do better in those.

Posted by blah2 | February 6, 2008 3:32 AM

At this point, why does Zogby even have a job?

Posted by Reality Man | February 6, 2008 4:09 AM

"At this point, why does Zogby even have a job?"

You Obama folks ought to be happy to have Zogby on your side. Dude's a superdelegate.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 4:12 AM

Well, if you exclude the outstanding Daley Machine performance in Obama's home state

That's some nice special pleading there. Why don't we exclude NY for Hillary, since she had the big home-state advantage?

I don't think he got even 35% of the total non-black vote tonight in a two-way race, maybe barely over 30%. And remember that gigantic California was an open primary, so all the independents could vote for him, especially since they weren't allowed to vote in the closed CA Republican Primary.

This article says "Nationally, Obama won 44% of white voters Tuesday" (and the 'total non-black vote' includes nonwhite voters too, of course, so that percentage would be higher). The article also notes Obama did better among white independents, which would be helpful against McCain in the general election:

"Clinton did much better Tuesday among white Democrats than she did among white independents; in Obama's case, it was just the opposite.

One example: In Connecticut, Clinton led by 8 percentage points among white Democrats but trailed by 25 among white independents.

Another example: In California, Clinton led by 3 percentage points among white Democrats but trailed by roughly 40 among white independents."

Posted by Jesse M. | February 6, 2008 4:55 AM

If you're "arguing" that Obama could win Utah, Idaho, or North Dakota in November, you're kinda stupid.

Well, maybe. But it's kinda hilarious coming from a guy who spent the last few months telling us that Edwards was the man.

Posted by novakant | February 6, 2008 4:59 AM

I said:

"This article says "Nationally, Obama won 44% of white voters Tuesday" (and the 'total non-black vote' includes nonwhite voters too, of course, so that percentage would be higher)."

Whoops, bad math on my part, if the non-black voters who weren't white voted for Obama less than 44% (which I'm sure they did, since most of those would be hispanic) then the total percentage of non-black voters for Obama would be less than 44%. Doubt it would as low as RKU's estimate though, and anyway I don't think many of these voters would choose McCain over Obama in the general election.

Posted by Jesse M. | February 6, 2008 5:11 AM

OBAMA 540, CLINTON 531.

That is the result of all primary voting to date at the conclusion of Super Tuesday. (Clinton won Super Tuesday by 5 delegates.)

It is only when you factor in the totally unaccountable Superdelegate votes (none of which has yet been pledged to any candidate) that Hillary is ahead, and by a substantial margin: since she is up 193 to 106 in Superdelegates, she has an overall lead of 724 to 646, or 78 delegates.

When are CNN, Fox News, CBS, NBC and ABC going to begin devoting real, explanatory coverage to this phenomenon? Even if all the Superdelegates swing the other way 5 minutes from now, this system is still dead wrong - it is Stalinist, not democratic.

WHY IS THIS STORY NOT BEING REPORTED?

Posted by Tim | February 6, 2008 5:36 AM

Hillary doesn't have a very big delegate lead in the first place.

Yes, true, but all she needs is a majority. We keep talking about how Obama just needs to eek out enough delegates to win, regardless of Super Tuesday state-victories, but the same is true of Clinton. In fact, I would argue that the longer the race goes on without a knockout blow against Clinton, the more the landscape favors her. Plus, it fits in to her narrative as a candidate: the indefatiguable pol who works hard and ends up on top.

Posted by Tyro | February 6, 2008 8:23 AM

My take on the day is that Obama easily outpaced the top 2 Republicans in GA and ND. He'd already done it in South Carolina, and lost by a squeaker in AL.

Obama in the general will break up the solid South.

Obama in the general will break Republican dominance in Southern state governments.

Just sayin.

Posted by Luke | February 6, 2008 8:29 AM

Another beautiful speech by Obama. And another wonkish, pedestrian speech by HRC. I use "beautiful" in the simple, literary sense--as good to read as to listen to. All this is another reminder of something I "just don't get." How could one listen to these two for five minutes and not conclude who is the bigger, larger person, in intellect, vision, and compassion? There's nothing wrong with HRC. But Obama demands to be set beside RFK and King (whom I old enough to remember). How can one fail to be swept away?

Posted by Matt | February 6, 2008 9:04 AM

Dude - Obama was trounced in the border south -the only southern states Dems have had a chance of winning since 1984. Southern white Dems are not big fans of Obama and more of them vote in the general election. Obama is good candidate running a good campaign but unless Reagan, Jesus, or Robert E. Lee is his VP you can forget about it.

Posted by whistling past Dixie | February 6, 2008 9:05 AM

"How can one fail to be swept away?"

By digging into issues and rhetoric.

-----

If you want to be swept away, go to a Hollywood movie. This stuff is about who's going to run the government.

Posted by Petey | February 6, 2008 9:07 AM

My people didn't come through, but all in all, not a horrible night.

Zogby, on the other hand, should be more gone than Duncan Hunter at this point.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 6, 2008 9:34 AM

The mechanics is the Achilles Heel

Yes, at the level of ideas, having an ongoing primary contest is all to the good for the party that has the ideas that the electorate seems to want this year.

Unfortunately, a contested convention would grind its gears on the mechanics of the thing, and that's what those of us who fear a protracted fight are wringing our hands over. I don't call it a "brokered" convention because we no longer have party brokers, and no longer have blocs of machine delegates willing to have ther votes brokered. I don't see how even a Mark Hanna could broker a convention as we now constitute them.

The disaster would be even worse for the Republcans. They would have the same problem with mechanics as we do, but would also highlight, as they struggled with each other, competing sets of ideas which have as their only point of agreement that they are all electoral poison.

The underlying problem is that, about a half century ago, we rejected machine poltics as a way of selecting delegates, but didn't finish the job. We no longer think of deals made by pols in smoke-filled back rooms as being legitimate, at least not compared to the results of open elections, so the delegates are now mostly selected by primaries, and machine control is not well-tolerated even in caucuses and state conventions. But since the new open process has always, until possibly this year, given us a completed result before the convention, we haven't yet had to confront the incongruity between this mechanism we use to break ties, and our recent respect for only open elections. Obviously, we need to move to a system that resolves contested nomination fights by means of run-off elections, not conventions.

But we didn't do this before disaster struck, so now disaster is upon us. We can only hope that the other side has a contested convention as well.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | February 6, 2008 9:40 AM

No, it's not about "who runs the government." That's a very narrow, self-limiting view of leadership. You can rent competence (I run a large organization, and to it all the time). The "knowledge of government" meme is way, way overated, especially, I think, among people who have never run an organization of any scale. Elect a president. Hire a chief of staff.

Posted by Matt | February 6, 2008 9:44 AM

If you want to be swept away, go to a Hollywood movie. This stuff is about who's going to run the government.

And we wonder why Democrats have a hard time winning elections.

Posted by Fausto Carmona | February 6, 2008 9:49 AM

"If you're "arguing" that Obama could win Utah, Idaho, or North Dakota in November, you're kinda stupid."

If only President Gore had won any one of them!

What's stupid is nominating a candidate that plays well ONLY in reliably Democratic states.

Besides, the point is that a Democrat who runs up gigantic numbers in places like Idaho or Colorado or Kansas or Minnesota can WIN determinative states like Missouri. Heck, Obama received more votes in South Carolina (a "safe" GOP state) than nearly all the Republican votes cast in a heavily contested GOP primary. Ditto Iowa. Obama's vote in Minnesota was 2.5 times the total GOP turnout (for a critical 'winner-take-all' Republican contest).

Dems have a chance to win a squeaker with Clinton but they have a chance to win a mandate with Obama. The question is what sort of "change" do Dems want? A round of musical chairs in Washington or a sea-change in American politics?

Posted by Jim | February 6, 2008 10:31 AM

One thing I can predict is that you'll see a lot of handwringing about how this fight is dooming the Democratic Party. It's all, as best I can tell, total nonsense.

Seriously. It's hard to imagine how continued press coverage of the democratic primary--particularly since the Republican primary is all but wrapped up--is a bad thing for whoever wins. It's like free advertising. It would be great if it went on all the way to the convention.

Posted by TW Andrews | February 6, 2008 12:05 PM

Maybe Matt's right about the knowledge-of-government meme, but from where I sit the swept-away meme is even more overrated.

I think there's some sort of basic divide here between people who want to be inspired by political leaders, and people who either don't want to be or can't be inspired.

Having said that, I'm still supporting Obama. He's all right on the policies, and looks to be somewhat stronger in the general. I'm a little less certain about him as President; it kind of depends on whether or not he believes his own rhetoric.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 6, 2008 12:25 PM

It occurred to me while trying to get a grip on delegate tallies that states essentially don't exist in the nomination fight, except insofar as each sets a primary date and its own arcane rules for delegate allocation.

Posted by Asp | February 6, 2008 1:47 PM

Matt, you say "Disagreeing about which of two strong leaders should go try to implement a pretty widely agreed upon vision of national policy is a healthy thing to do", but from my perspective, this is based on a false assumptions that all democrats view both as "strong leaders" and agree that their vision of national policies are not very different. I can say based on my conversations with my admittedly biased group of family and friends (which includes many dem leaning independants and former republicans) that there are many people who are enthusiastic about Obama, but just can't freakin stand Hillary. I do not see Hillary as a strong advocate for the issues I care about, I see her as an aimless, poll driven opportunist. Iraq and the war on drugs are two areas where I do not trust Clinton at all to represent my positions. If she wins the nomination, I will really have to hold my nose and close my eyes before pulling the lever for her. If Obama wins, I will be out there knocking on doors, making phone calls, and devoting my every effort to see victory. Its not just a choice between two good options for many of us, its between inspiration and stagnation.

Posted by wahoomatt | February 6, 2008 2:03 PM

I wish the Clintons could just lighten up on their endless creation of divisions. Now it's Begala & Co. pushing the income divide: Hillary is for folks working the night shift. How craven.
As David Lebedoff explained in his prescient book: "The New Uncivil War: How a New Elite is Destroying Our Democracy", the eggheads and wonks who hijacked the Democratic Party replaced real progressivism in the party with all of their clever games to stay in power. Too many student council presidents in Washington.
Now the Clintons are working for the little guy?
What hypocrisy. The masters of influence-peddling and Crony Capitalism care about something other than power? Gimme a break.

Posted by fougasseu | February 6, 2008 3:50 PM

wahoomatt, make up your mind. If Hillary really is a poll-driven opportunist, would she take the Iraq stand she has? It's a clear loser in the primaries, and maybe even in November.

Posted by AlanC9 | February 6, 2008 4:19 PM

If you want to be swept away, go to a Hollywood movie.

You might want to take that advice yourself, having shown here for the past year how much you’ve been swept away by the intensity of your own unconvincing arguments for your losing candidate.

Posted by Justin X | February 6, 2008 4:40 PM

Can somebody wake people up here?

Obambi got his butt kicked in California. She beat him like a rented mule. The Hispanics came out, hammered him in Cali, and will do so in Texas and Pennsylvania. I suspect that if there's a tossup state, it's Ohio.

Superdelegates want to know who can claim the loyalty of the Hispanic voters in a national election. Let's be honest here, black voters have nowhere to go. They're not voting for my guy, McCain. They're going to come out for Hillary anyway.

But will Hispanics come out for Barack? That's what they've got to be asking themselves. Or can JMC poach enough of them?

Bad news for Hillary, however. She shouldn't have to do the Mormon thing and lend herself money like Mitt. She should be able to get herself some Mob Money from her goon friends. Maybe she should call up her old friends in the People's Liberation Army, eh what? WTF is wrong here? What happened to her rainmakers? Her cash flow is drying up.

Posted by section9 | February 6, 2008 5:14 PM

I can't believe how much unnecessary weight they're applying to Massachusetts, New York, and California. I went through and figured out how many net delegates Obama won or lost per state so far. And it's amazing with how few states he was able to neutralize each of those losses. And there's no WAY he's losing New England or the tri-state area to a Republican in the fall, so his strength in the red states that was great enough to match Clinton's strength in blue states is only a signal of greater nationwide competitiveness come the fall than Hillary has.

Here's what I roughly calculated based on the rough numbers available this afternoon.

-42 (93 of 228) for Obama, New York
-01 (12 of 25) for Obama, New Mexico
+43 (87 of 131) for Obama, Illinois
Obama neutralizes New York and New Mexico with Illinois

-39 (163 of 365) for Obama, California
+24 (48 of 72) for Obama, Minnesota
+13 (25 of 45) for Obama, South Carolina
+01 (13 of 25) for Obama, Nevada
+01 (16 of 45) for Obama, Iowa
Obama neutralizes California with Minnesota, South Carolina, Iowa, and Nevada

-17 (7 of 31) for Obama, Arkansas
+17 (40 of 63) for Obama, Georgia
Obama neutralizes Arkansas with Georgia

-17 (38 of 93) for Obama, Massachusetts
+12 (15 of 18) for Obama, Idaho
+05 (9 of 14) for Obama, Alabama
Obama neutralizes Massachusetts with Idaho and Alabama

-14 (42 of 98) for Obama, New Jersey
+14 (23 of 32) for Obama, Kansas
Obama neutralizes New Jersey with Kansas

-10 (14 of 38) for Obama, Oklahoma
+07 (13 of 20) for Obama, Colorado
+03 (9 of 15) for Obama, Delaware
Obama neutralizes Oklahoma with Colorado and Delaware

-06 (25 of 56) for Obama, Arizona
+05 14 of 23) for Obama, Utah

+04 (26 of 48) for Obama, Connecticut
-04 (29 of 62) for Obama, Tennessee
Obama neutralizes Tennessee with Connecticut

+-0 (35 of 72) for Obama, Missouri
+-0 (9 of 23) for Obama, New Hampshire
Obama neutralizes New Hampshire with Missouri

+03 (8 of 13) for Obama, North Dakota
Obama nets North Dakota

GO OBAMA!

Posted by Paid Philosopher | February 6, 2008 10:13 PM

it is so ridiculous to compare obama's states with clinton's as if they are equal. south carolina will NEVER vote blue in November. neither will Georgia. or Idaho. etc. no democrat can win without california, and i hate to tell you. obama preens on t.v. and says he is sure he will get all of clinton's voters in november. he is so wrong.

Posted by pj | February 7, 2008 12:33 AM

Senator Clinton loaned 5mil from her coffers to the compaign. Hmmmm... Time to call the lobbiysts and give-up on, let's say pull-out from Iraq or increase mandates on health care. We raised 32 mil in Jan 08 and over 3mil last night, all from donors like me....

"we are the ones we'r waiting for".

Posted by blue98 | February 7, 2008 12:41 AM

it is so ridiculous to compare obama's states with clinton's as if they are equal. south carolina will NEVER vote blue in November. neither will Georgia. or Idaho. etc. no democrat can win without california, and i hate to tell you.

If Obama is the nominee, do you really think there's a chance he'd lose California, New York, Massachussetts, or any other solid blue state? For the general election we want the person who'll be most likely to win states that aren't reliable Democratic strongholds (and even if Obama can't win some of those specific states, for swing states in the general election you want someone who can win over independents, which Obama seems to be a lot better at doing than Clinton)

Posted by Jesse M. | February 7, 2008 1:33 AM

How do you not break 60% in your home state and call yourself a national candidate?

I blame ManBearPig.

Posted by Al Gore | February 7, 2008 8:55 AM

Can anyone name a single reason that Obama would lose Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, or California to McCain? He lost those states because he was up against a woman with longstanding ties to those communities. Massachusetts was Bill Clinton's biggest supporter across his two campaigns. She's the senator of New York which makes NY AND NJ hers for the picking. And in California she has longer ties to the hispanics.

NONE of that is relevant to Obama's far greater appeal in each of these places than McCain's.

On the OTHER hand, the animosity of the red states to Clinton WAS reflected in many of her losses to Obama. Obama is the only one with a shot to turn those states purple, if anyone has one. And after the disaster of 8 years of Bush this is the time to try to poach those red states and turn them purple while there's an opening. Nominating Hillary means just making them redder.

Posted by Paid Philosopher | February 7, 2008 9:49 AM