Matthew Yglesias (March 06, 2008) - Contesting Wyoming (Politics)

There had to have been a poll or two done there. I read on one of the blogs that Obama was supposed to kick serious ass there(and how would anyone know that with out a poll?). It will be interesting to see who Freudenthal supports. He's a centrist type(so who knows what his thinking is). Yeah, vacationing at Jackson Hole is gonna build rapport with the little people. Please!! Just like they vacationed at Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 6, 2008 2:33 PM

It would seem media buys might be a better use of money. Does Wyoming receive television signals?

Posted by steve duncan | March 6, 2008 2:38 PM

How many of the Clinton's Jackson Hole pals will vote in a Democratic caucus? C'mon. Are there any Democrats in the state outside of Cheyenne and Laramie?

Like Matt, I had already mentally sorted Wyoming into the doesn't-count file, but I guess we have to wait a couple of days to see if it counts or not.

Posted by ChuckE | March 6, 2008 2:40 PM

Obama has a near monopoly on all white states. There have been 15 contests in states with black populations less than 5%. Obama has won 12, with close losses in New Mexico and New Hampshire, and a pretty big loss in Rhode Island.

I would have to think this will go the same way as North Dakota, Idaho, Utah. Serious Obama blow out, around 65%

Posted by mike | March 6, 2008 2:41 PM

I think she's got a shot.

On the other hand, Cheney is from Wyoming, which means Obama is sorta running as a favorite son there. So if Obama does win, it's hard to see how it will count.

Deciding whether or not a state counts is kind of like releasing your tax returns, better to do it after the election.

Posted by southpaw | March 6, 2008 2:41 PM

Wyoming native here...

Nobody I'm connected to in Washakie County (Wyo's reddest of red counties) has shown support for Clinton. My family and their few Dem friends fully intend to caucus for Obama. I can't speak for what happens in the south (Cheyenne and Laramie) but I have a hard time considering her competitive up north. As for Jackson, well, last time I checked, that was latte country.

Posted by pkoso | March 6, 2008 2:43 PM

Obama is going to be in Jackson Hole and Casper tomorrow I believe.

Posted by former deaniac | March 6, 2008 2:43 PM

She's got a shot there, but I would have thought she'd have been trumpeting it more if she really felt like it was close.

Posted by Helter | March 6, 2008 2:44 PM

Is Wyoming like the other Plains states?

Most of the people live 25 miles or less from the Colorado border.

Posted by Kim | March 6, 2008 2:46 PM

The notion that Clinton did not even try to win the states that ended up not counting because she didn't win is all just part of the spin. In other words, she tried all this in many of those states--she just rewrote history to say she didn't try when she ended up losing anyway.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 2:47 PM

True dat, DTM. She tried pretty hard in Wisconsin, for example.

Posted by Tony | March 6, 2008 2:52 PM

It appears that the Casper Star-Tribune (trib.com) did commission a Mason-Dixon poll Jan 18-21, prior to the Republican caucus. From what I can gather it had Obama in front, but since I'm not a Mason-Dixon subscriber I can't find actual numbers.

The same poll showed Democrat Gary Trauner one point ahead of the likely Republican candidate for the WY House seat.

Posted by Lukeness | March 6, 2008 2:56 PM

The correct phrasing would be "the states that Hillary campaigned poorly in"....

Posted by Gully | March 6, 2008 2:56 PM

I think it is much more likely that she doesn't really believe she can win, but will at least contest it enough to avoid another 30 point blowout, thus losing a bunch of delegates. In other words, the reverse of Obama's strategy, where he keeps it close in the big contests, and then grabs bucketfuls of delegates in the little ones.

It's pretty amazing it's taken the Clinton campaign this long to figure this out.

Posted by Mark | March 6, 2008 2:58 PM

Clinton actually did try to win Maine. She made two appearances the day before (although in relatively small venues) and Bill and Chelsea made a fair amount. Obama was in Maine once in the fall and had one appearance in a large venue the day before the caucuses.

Someone I know who is plugged into Democratic party circles tells me that the internal polls for both candidates showed Clinton winning. Then Obama won 59% of the delegates.

Obama had a better field operation (surprise, surprise) and also a wider ad buy. Anyone know what kind of field activity Obama's folks have in Wyoming.

Posted by mainer | March 6, 2008 2:58 PM

Obama has a near monopoly on all white states. There have been 15 contests in states with black populations less than 5%. Obama has won 12, with close losses in New Mexico and New Hampshire, and a pretty big loss in Rhode Island.

Have to disagree about Rhode Island's characterization. While it has a fairly small black population, it has enough Hispanics that it can't be described as an "all white state." Come to think of it, New Hampshire has been attracting enough Hispanics that it's no longer that way either.

Posted by Peter | March 6, 2008 3:02 PM

Per K2TV-Wyoming:

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES IN WYOMING CASPER, Wyo. - NOW THE WHOLE FAMILY IS COMING...!
TOMORROW BILL AND CHELSEA CLINTON WILL MAKE STOPS AT 10:45 A.M AT CENTRAL WYOMING COLLEGE.
AT 1:45 P.M. BILL WILL BE A SWEETWATER COUNTY EVENTS COMPLEX IN ROCK SPRINGS.
AT 2:00 CHELSEA APPEARS AT CASPER COLLEGE, AND BILL WILL BE AT THE UNIWYO SPORTS COMPLEX AT 5:00 IN LARAMIE.
ON FRIDAY, MRS. CLINTON WILL MAKE HER APPEARANCE AT THE LARAMIE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE GYMNASIUM AT 2:30, AND CASPER COLLEGE BEGINNING AT 6:30 P.M.
ALSO FRIDAY AFTERNOON SENATOR BARACK OBAMA WILL BE AT THE CASPER REC CENTER BEGINNING AT 2-30, AND AT THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING'S ARENA-AUDITORIUM AT 7:00 P.M.

Posted by steve duncan | March 6, 2008 3:05 PM

Clinton may not win Wyoming. But this will force Obama to fight in Wyoming (and consequently not focus on PA, where Clinton will win.)

Everyone assumes Obama will win Wyoming. In fact, he pretty much as to win it. So this is fantastic strategy aimed at diluting Obama's efforts in a state he also has to win. If she wins Wyoming, it's a huge blow to Obama since it dispels this image of him as a uniter of white states.

This also keeps superdelegates from committing to Obama right now, before she can really make her case post PA.

And then her winning PA will be fatal to Obama in superdels minds.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 6, 2008 3:05 PM

Tony,

Yep. Probably the closest post-Super Tuesday analogy for this case would be the Maine caucuses. I believe the whole Clinton team visited Maine (Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea), she had the support of the governor, and so on. She lost by 19%. Arguably looking at the Washington caucuses might also be useful. Again, Washington got the Team Clinton full-court press, Clinton had the support of both Senators, and so on. She lost by 37%.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 3:05 PM

Great last line Matt. Made chuckle.

Posted by Armando | March 6, 2008 3:08 PM

Arguably looking at the Washington caucuses might also be useful. Again, Washington got the Team Clinton full-court press, Clinton had the support of both Senators, and so on. She lost by 37%.

Agreed, but even if she loses, she wins in the overall effort to get the Obama campaign to over-focus on Wyoming. And there's the outside chance she wins.

It sets her up well - if she loses, everyone will discount that as another small caucus state, and if she wins, people will be surprised and she'll get some good press at low cost. And she's also kept Obama somewhat tied down in Wyoming and out of PA, where he really needs to be.

Mark my words. If Obama loses PA, it's over, and Hillary is the nominee by virtue of a massive superdels swing to her.

He can make the delegate argument from here on out. But I think that's just not going to be persuasive to party insiders who will choose a known quantity like Clinton.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 6, 2008 3:10 PM

This is a smart move on Clinton's part. Wyoming is cheap and so campaigning there won't seriously affect her ability to spend money elsewhere. And even if the odds are long, the pay off for a win there for her are huge.

Psychologically if she can put her "big state" Texas and Ohio wins with a win in what everyone is saying is Obama's home turf that would be played in the media like a real big deal.

The key to successful gambling is to recognize when the payoff makes the outlay worthwhile. In this case Clinton is risking very little for something that would pay off big. I have no idea if it will work, and so am willing to trust the posters above who say it won't. But it is still a smart gamble to take. And when betting on a long shot it is also smart not to play it up to much. The important thing is that losing remains no story while winning is a big story.

Posted by Lon | March 6, 2008 3:10 PM

I wouldn't consider this particularly smart, Wyoming isn't all that expensive and if Wyoming is like the other caucus states, Obama's probably had a organization on the ground to start with. You also have to factor that Obama still has a lot more money than Clinton does, so a little extra money in Wyoming doesn't really affect the spending which he can do in Pennsylvania. I suspect the Clinton campaign is trying to prevent Obama from winning enough delegates in Wyoming to neutralize the delegate gains she got from Tuesday (which would be incredibly embarassing to them).

Posted by Elliot | March 6, 2008 3:18 PM

Really, HRC? Really? Wyoming? Won't contesting that small, red state kinda blow your whole, small states, red states and states that caucus argument, out of the water?

And Joe Strummer, when PA is close, won't you feel dumb?

Posted by DSG | March 6, 2008 3:18 PM

LOL Joe Strummer!

Obama can lose the rest of the nominating contests and still go into the convention with a pledged delegate lead and an honorable path to the nomination.

OTOH, Hillary can win the rest of the nominating contests and still her only path to the nomination is appealing to superdelegagtes to overturn the will of the primary voters or lobby to change the rules to find a measure that favors her exclusively (She won all the new states? New York, New Hampshire, New Mexico and New Jersey) instead of using the one standard that has been in place since the beginning of the primary: pledged delegate count.

Posted by Face The Music | March 6, 2008 3:19 PM

"Agreed, but even if she loses, she wins in the overall effort to get the Obama campaign to over-focus on Wyoming. And there's the outside chance she wins."

This might be true if PA was next Tuesday, but it's six weeks away. He's got time to focus on Wyoming for a few days. And then win in Mississippi.

It's not in the bag or anything, but if things go well for him, he'll have picked up another 34+ delegates and erased what she picked up in Ohio. As well has having raised another $50-$100 million.

Posted by Helter | March 6, 2008 3:21 PM

Everyone assumes Obama will win Wyoming. In fact, he pretty much as to win it.
Joe Thatcher,
That is complete and utter bullocks!

Posted by bjd | March 6, 2008 3:21 PM

Pennsylvania doesn't happen for 6.5 weeks. Wyoming vote is this Saturday and Mississippi is Tuesday. It's easy for both candidates to throw their resources into each state with 6 weeks more to campaign in PA. This doesn't tie up Obama's resources. It means that Clinton is trying to keep down the heavy margins. Not a super-smart tactical move on either side - it is the only smart move for both candidates. They both have to be seen in Wyoming and Mississippi.

The only other thing Clinton could do would be to focus specifically and solely on Mississippi. Obama announced his visits to Wyoming before Clinton did, and we'll see what happens.

Posted by Billy | March 6, 2008 3:22 PM

The really ridiculous part of Joe Strummer's argument is the notion that Clinton's taking time away from campaigning in PA, forcing Obama to take time away from campaigning in PA, is going to be a huge blow to his chances there, when the PA primary is SIX WEEKS AWAY!

Posted by BP | March 6, 2008 3:25 PM

Mark my words. If Obama loses PA, it's over, and Hillary is the nominee by virtue of a massive superdels swing to her.

You speak with a bizarre kind of certainty here, Joe. Do you have some inside knowledge on this, or have you read some analysis that you could point us to? Or are you just in the habit of treating your hunches and theories as settled facts?

Posted by djw | March 6, 2008 3:29 PM

as a native of NC, i'm constantly annoyed that people think that PA is the last state that matters. NC's primary is two weeks after PA's and has 114(ish) pledged delegates attached to it. if we're going to move on to PA, then i want my primary to count for once damnit!

Posted by john b | March 6, 2008 3:33 PM

Granted we don't have much time to blog or go to media events but we vote guys. And in my circle of 30 something mom's in Cheyenne we are all voting for Hillary not because she is female but because she is honest about being a politician. Obama is nothing more then an online media marketing campaign. The second he starts to lose he turns negative? Why not focus on his economic plans, his health care policy, his foreign policy? He is just the same as the rest but fails to admit it. At least with Senator Clinton we know she knows the game and how to play it. My sister is also a former R and lives in Upstate New York and she actually Loves her now.

oh and by the way.. I assume the guy who asked if he had tv coverage here is a young white male Obama supporter? nice work

Posted by Women of Wyoming | March 6, 2008 3:36 PM

What don't some people understand here? When everything finally shakes out, Hillary will have come out of these "big" wins on tuesday with less than 10 extra delegates. Her "firewall" was supposed to end Barack's winning streak at 12, which it did, and at the same time drastically cut into his delegate lead, which it didn't.
Obama is going to probably make that lost ground in Wyoming on saturday, and then very probably lengthen his delegate lead in Mississippi next tuesday.

Posted by Will | March 6, 2008 3:38 PM

oh and by the way.. I assume the guy who asked if he had tv coverage here is a young white male Obama supporter? nice work

somebody's sarcasm detector isn't working.

Posted by john b | March 6, 2008 3:40 PM

Can't possibly disagree more Joe Skinner:

Bad as it was, the Penn strategy of "Write off 27 States we'll never win, declare them meaningless" (note -- we'll be seeing a replay of this in November if Hillary gets our nomination) was a better strategy for them.

Sure, 'contesting' Wyoming means she may break his % there slightly.

It also means they can't claim the State "didn't matter" when she made multiple campaign appearances prior to the nomination event.

This means her "winning streak" will end 4 days later, at only 3 States, and there's no way they can deny it.

And then, if they also campaign in Mississippi, she can't claim that State doesn't matter either.

Btw, with 7 weeks until Pennsylvania (!) the next 6 days are not Barack's critical period for campaigning there.

No idea why Team Obama has not yet done what Team HRC did pre-March 4 -- I.e, "She's got momentum now, so if she doesn't win all of the next 3 Primaries serious questions must be raised about the candidacy of Senator Clinton." Precisely what they pulled pre-OH/TX/RI/VT with "He has momentum = He must win all 4 States" claptrap.

Dear 'Women of Wyoming' -- your State is joining 21 others in "irrelevancy" to Team Hillary after Caucus-results on Saturday night. Enjoy your 48 hours of mattering to the fullest. They'll have plenty of disparaging comments to make about your State, your lifestyle, and your value as a human being in 49 hours.

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | March 6, 2008 3:45 PM

Inspired by one of Joe's posts, but not just responsive to that:

Okay, is it possible, perhaps, for the few objective people on both sides to agree on a few facts?

(1) If Obama does somehow win PA, it's over.

(2) If Clinton wins PA, she has an outside shot, only if almost everything else goes right for her. I would say she definitely needs Obama to make a big mistake, or a long series of small ones, or a REAL (and serious) scandal of some type, to get people (other than Clinton supporters) seriously concerned about his fall electibility, and probably at least two of the following three things to happen:

(a) Do overs in Michigan and Florida, with Clinton winning both (or maybe win Florida big, and lose Michigan narrowly);

(b) A blow out in PA (in the 65% range though over 60% might be enough);

(c) Better than expected performances in most of the other remaining states.

Here's the thing - I haven't seen anybody, even the most fervent Clinton supporter, try to argue that she can catch up on pledged delegates. She can't. So her only hope is to narrow the gap some (best case for her, highly unlikely but possible, is probably Obama up by about 50 going in to the convention) and then win over the vast majority of the supers to have a chance.

Does anyone really think there is any chance of that happening unless she can make not just a good case, but an overwelming case, that the pledged delegate numbers should be ignored? And it would take a heck of a lot for her to make that case.

Note to Clinton supporters, arguing that the supers shouldn't require such an overwelming case isn't the same as arguing that they won't require such an overwelming case. They could, I suppose, ignore the possibility of millions of outraged Obama supporters satying home after such a (perceived) injustice, but they sure as heck aren't going to do so lightly.

Posted by LarryM | March 6, 2008 3:47 PM

John B --

N.C. is going to be critical for Obama if he loses PA (which seems, unfortunately, probable).

Your State is going to matter a ton. Stay tuned.

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | March 6, 2008 4:00 PM

LarryM,
You are far too logical to be on this board. What the hell are you trying to prove?

Posted by Sandy | March 6, 2008 4:02 PM

I can't speak with any inside knowledge, but I'd expect WY to be closer to MT, which has yet to vote. Very independent, libertarian, leans conservative. If memory serves, these were some of the reddish/purple states seriously concerned about Clinton at the top of the ticket causing trouble for Dems farther down.

Though I agree that Obama needs to keep the fire lit under his a**, he should do well in states outside of PA. The Keystone State will prove a major challenge, but I'm heartened by news that he plans to hold town halls, not rallies. Of course, there will surely be a Pennsylvania debate.

Posted by Judy | March 6, 2008 4:06 PM

Sandy,

You should read my rants. I need to balance them with cool logic.

Unrelated to that, something else just occurred to me. I can't imagine I'm the first to think of this, but, blog junkie that I am, I haven't read it anywhere else (the first part; the second part is conventional wisdom). Isn't it likely that the supers will take the down ticket races into account? And does anyone, even Clinton supporters, doubt that that factor favors Obama?

Posted by LarryM | March 6, 2008 4:10 PM

They could, I suppose, ignore the possibility of millions of outraged Obama supporters satying home after such a (perceived) injustice, but they sure as heck aren't going to do so lightly.

LarryM: But anointing Obama will surely create millions of "outraged" Clinton supporters. After all, more primary voters have pulled the lever for Hillary Clinton than for Barack Obama, and this lead could very conceivably widen between now and June. Obama supporters seem to think they have a monopoly on passion.

In the end, most superdelegates will quite rightly base their decision on one overriding factor: which candidate has the best chance of winning in November. Or, at least I fervently hope that's what they base their decision on, as I'm mighty sick and tired of Republican leadership.

Posted by Jasper | March 6, 2008 4:13 PM

Basically, three things can happen in Wyoming:

Clinton nets 2 delegates (not very likely)
Obama nets 2 delegates (most likely)
Obama nets 4 delegates (somewhat likely)

I think Obama has the edge for 2, but not the momentum for 4. Intrade has DEM.WY.OBAMA at 93.7.

Posted by eric1974 | March 6, 2008 4:22 PM

A few thoughts:
As a Wyoming native, I will attest to not knowing a single person in the state who is a Clinton supporter. I predict an Idaho style whooping by Obama. My mom might be a Clinton Supporter, but she's registered Republican, as is 80% of the state. I would guess that a lot of the older population favorable to Clinton registered as Republicans in 1975 and never had a reason to change to Democrat (as the Republican primary is usually the most important election in Wyoming).
As to Clinton having a big base in Jackson, remember that it is a ski town with lots of young ski bum bums and semi-wealthy trust funder ski bums (all the wealthy don't live there in the winter). I'd think this would favor Obama. A large amount of the working type folks Clinton types actually live in Idaho where the cost of living isn't ridiculous.

Posted by flounder | March 6, 2008 4:22 PM

LarryM, since many superdelegates will themselves be running in those downticket races, you'd better believe they'll be taking that into account.

Posted by KCinDC | March 6, 2008 4:24 PM

Jasper: C'mon.

Scenario 1: Obama has the most pledged delegates, but not 2025. The superdelegates split, but don't erase his pledged lead. He wins the nomination.

Scenario 2: Obama has the most pledged delegates, but not 2025. The superdelegates massively vote for Clinton, and erase his pledged lead. Clinton wins the nomination.

Now, I'm sure that some people will be huffing angry in either of these scenarios. But if you honestly think that scenario two won't cause a hell of a lot more outrage, disappointment, and people who are willing to sit out the general, I'd like a kilo of whatever it is that you're smoking.

Now, look, maybe there's a Scenario 3 in there, in which Clinton has fewer pledged delegates, but more popular vote or something, and then there's no good answer and somebody's supporters are going to go away feeling that Democracy Has Been Trod Upon. But we don't see any particular sign that that's going to happen.

And, as much as you may want very much for it to be the case that everyone agrees that superdelegates are going to vote their conscience (for your candidate), much as it may even be that they ought to vote their conscience (for your candidate) in the grand scheme of things, it's just crazy to imagine that people aren't going to be outraged if Obama basically does okay from here on in, hits the nomination with 100 more pledged delegates than Clinton, and then gets overridden by the superdelegates.

And the same level of outrage will not be seen if Obama basically does okay from here on in, hits the nomination with 100 more pledged delegates than Clinton, and then the superdelegates split and give the nomination to the person who won the most pledged delegates.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | March 6, 2008 4:26 PM

Jasper-
The outraged supporters will have to explain how somebody who won the majority of states, raised record contributions from millions of donors, beats McCain in virtually every poll, and can reach out to red-states and disaffected independents and Republicans, should not have the nomination.

Good luck!

Oh, by the way, going by survey results, Barack Obama and Hillary both could win. The difference is, Obama's got a movement at his back that gives him so much more room and strength to move against the Republicans after November.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty | March 6, 2008 4:28 PM

Jasper,

Okay, I was stung by that "too logical" comment. Let me go back to asshole mode, and say that your comment wins the prize for stupidest comment of the day. Maybe of the week. On the whole internet.

But to put aside the invective for the moment, and respond substantively despite the transparent idiocy of your comment:

"Anointing" Obama if he has fewer pledged delegates than Clinton would, indeed, create plenty of outraged Clinton supporters. But no one thinks that there is even a remote possibility of that happening. As I said, Clinton is not going to catch up in pledged delegates; if she somehow did, of course the supers would vote for her. As they should if that somehow happens.

Would "anointing" Obama when he has more pledged delegates create outraged Clinton supporters? No, unless they are far more irrational than even I give them credit for.

** And yes, I'm ignoring your moronic "more votes" argument, because the notion that the aggregate number of votes in 50 different primaries/caucuses on different dates under 50 different sets of rules has any meaning at all, and will be considered by the supers is even stupider than the rest of your argument.

And, of course, arguing that more voters have already pulled the lever for Clinton requires you to (a) ignore caucuses, and (b) include Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot. While it is understandable that a political campaign may try to make such an argument, such special pleading really shouldn't be made by a sentient adult without a personal stake in the outcome.

Posted by LarryM | March 6, 2008 4:30 PM

You know, this "doesn't count" thing is getting really old. The snark is just not befitting what this site used to be. Give it a rest! And while you might think it is lame spin, I'm just as insulted by, "but golly he lost by less than polls showed a month ago" because - hello! - does no one at the obama campaign have a calendar? It doesn't matter what polls may have shown before an elecion. all that matters are what the voters do on ELECTION DAY. That seems like pretty lame spin too.

Finally, to Miguel, the "don't count" spin is no more insulting to me than the "Ohio (or Texas or New Hampshire or Latinos or Asian Americans or working class whites or whoever) is racist because Obama didn't win." Which i have seen ad nasuem from Obama supporters since New Hampshire.

Posted by Columbia | March 6, 2008 4:31 PM

While we are on that topic, while I agree that Gore was robbed in 2000, and the Supreme Court decision was a disgrace, I was deeply embarrassed by the idiocy of Dems who argued that the fact that Gore had more votes nationwide somehow entitled him to the presidency.

Along those lines, let me ask you a question Jasper. If Kerry had won Ohio, and thus the electoral vote, in 2004,would you have been "outraged" at his victory, despite Bush's huge edge in the popular vote? I assume so. Just asking.

Posted by LarryM | March 6, 2008 4:36 PM

Incidentally, I do think it matters whether Obama can keep countering close Clinton victories in her hand-picked states with blowout wins everywhere else. Not so much because he needs to do that to win the nomination, but I think it gives all those other states a feeling of investment in Obama that could be quite handy in the general election and/or for downticket races.

Posted by DTM | March 6, 2008 4:37 PM

Jasper may not be as out there as some think. Though I've personally experienced none myself, I keep hearing/reading of loads of older women who are terrified they will die without seeing a woman President.

Anyone who doubts this should check out Pat Schroeder and Geraldine Ferraro on Tom Ashbrook's show:
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/02/20080226_a_main.asp

Trust me, Gloria Steinem's NY Times piece was not an anomaly. On Ashbrook's show, either Schroeder or Ferraro stated that, should Obama be the nominee, he will have a lot of making up to do for all the millions of disenfranchised women, or he won't get their vote. Honestly, I'll be 50 two weeks after Election Day and have always considered myself very progressive, but this nearly sent me over the edge. It would have seemed funny but she was dead serious. They've paid their dues and said Obama had to wait in line. They didn't fight so long and so hard to allow Obama to trump their chance to have a female President.

I'm not saying this is going to happen. I prefer to believe that my fair gender is far more sane than our elder trailblazers would have you think. That said, I'm beginning to think that my mother somehow went wrong in not instilling militant feminism in her two strong, independent daughters.

Posted by Judy | March 6, 2008 4:44 PM

Looking at that SUSA map that has them both beating McSame, if I was a Super delegate, I might consider how I wanted McSame beaten, by winning the Northwest and helping lots of downticket candidates (especially out West) in general, or by winning Florida and pledging lots of Hurricane relief.

Posted by flounder | March 6, 2008 4:44 PM

To follow up on Eric's comment, as I understand it, there are 7 district-level delegates for Wyoming, all in a single district. The breakpoints for that would be:

50.001%: 4 delegates
64.286%: 5 delegates
78.572%: 6 delegates
85.001%: 7 delegates (because the other candidate is nonviable)

There are also 3 at-large delegates, for which the breakpoints are:

50.001%: 2 delegates
83.334%: 3 delegates

And there are 2 pledged PLEO delegates, for which the breakpoints are:

25.001%: 1 delegate
75.001%: 2 delegates

So a win of between 64% and 75% would yield a total of 4+2+1=7 delegates out of the possible 12, for a net gain of 2 (7 to 5 split). It would require exceeding 75% to get to a net gain of 4 (8 to 4), and nearly 79% to net 6 (9 to 3).

Posted by KCinDC | March 6, 2008 4:45 PM

That last paragraph is wrong. It should say:

So a win of between 50% and 64% would yield a total of 4+2+1=7 delegates out of the possible 12, for a net gain of 2 (7 to 5 split). It would require over 64% to get to a net gain of 4 (8 to 4), exceeding 75% to net 6 (9 to 3), and nearly 79% to net 7 (10 to 2).

Posted by KCinDC | March 6, 2008 4:48 PM

Obama supporters on this and other boards are right - HRC CAN'T get the requisite number of delegates to win outright. But what they omit is that he will fall short of the goal line as well. Either way, it's going to come down to superdelegates, who are supposed to exercise judgment that is INDEPENDENT of voting results. Not that they should ignore those, but I think being politicians and people who work in politics, they have to look closer at where the candidates got their delegates from and how that translates into a win in the GE. Obama could have 10 million votes spread across places like Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Wyoming, etc. But does that mean those are pick-ups for the Dems in November? As a Hillary supporter, I don't think so. I think it's more important to have states like MI, OH, FL, PA, etc.

Especially if the delegate tally is close, they need to look at who is the better person for the party to put up as its nominee against John McCain and the Republican machine. You can't go by polls - they have to look at the time of the convention (about 12 weeks out from Election Day), and look at what each candidate brings to the table and who stands the best chance of winning.

Posted by Julie B | March 6, 2008 4:58 PM

either Schroeder or Ferraro stated that, should Obama be the nominee, he will have a lot of making up to do for all the millions of disenfranchised women, or he won't get their vote.

Millions of disenfranchised women? Was that really what was said?

On an emotional level I can understand the bitterness. It's a shame that the first woman to have a real shot at becoming President has all these flaws and baggage.

Posted by whoa | March 6, 2008 4:59 PM

In the end, most superdelegates will quite rightly base their decision on one overriding factor: which candidate has the best chance of winning in November. Or, at least I fervently hope that's what they base their decision on, as I'm mighty sick and tired of Republican leadership.

This is what I keep on coming back to as well. It's possible, I suppose, that they're all completely insane.

I think contesting the caucus is a good idea, particularly if it helps prepare them for Michigan.

Posted by Cal | March 6, 2008 5:05 PM

Jasper, you're lying to yourself and others about Obama losing the popular vote.

If superdelegates swing the nomination to whichever candidate is behind, can we all agree once and for all that the Democratic Party is center-right, anti-populist, and too corrupt to continue existing? That it enacted civil rights 20 years later than it should have, and has done NOTHING liberal since then?

The American left exists IN SPITE OF political representation.

Posted by Luke | March 6, 2008 5:06 PM

I understand the emotion, but think it undermines the cause of gender equality to vote for someone based on their chromosomes.

I wouldn't want someone to vote for a man over a woman because they only want a man, and I don't want the reverse either.

Posted by Suzie | March 6, 2008 5:10 PM

Obama supporters on this and other boards are right - HRC CAN'T get the requisite number of delegates to win outright. But what they omit is that he will fall short of the goal line as well. Either way, it's going to come down to superdelegates, who are supposed to exercise judgment that is INDEPENDENT of voting results.

Look, let's say that you're right. Let's say that it's a giant travesty that self-involved Obama voters don't realize that superdelegates are intended to overthrow relatively slim leads in pledged delegates.

Let's further stipulate that Obama would be a terrible general election candidate, that McCain would snap up all the independents who say they like Obama, that Obama would make gaffes and errors in judgement that Clinton would not.

What LarryM and I are saying is even if you're completely right on the facts, if Obama goes into the convention with a lead in pledged delegates, and he hasn't done anything like devour a live kitten on broadcast TV, and thus still have millions of dedicated supporters, those supporters are going to be really pissed, and a hell of a lot of them are going to stay home. Even if they shouldn't. Even if you are totally on the side of goodness and light. They will perceive an injustice even if you are right in saying that there is no injustice.

The same is not true in reverse. There is no injustice -- perceived or otherwise -- in Clinton going into the nomination with a smaller number of pledged delegates and not getting the nomination.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | March 6, 2008 5:11 PM

Either candidate will have to consolidate the base, no matter what. But if the pledged delegate winner - including a re-voted FL and MI - is not selected the winner via superdelegates, the party will collapse. I can say this right now: if Hillary Clinton takes the nomination without the pledged delegate lead - and with no big Obama scandal, MI and FL settled by re-vote, and the popular vote at least close - then African Americans will stay home this November. You can count on that. And then Hillary will lose PA, MI, OH, NJ, IL, WI and MD. It will be Dukakis all over again.

Re-vote FL and MI to get that settled. And compete through and through to the end. But the math is what it is because Hillary got killed in lots of states. That's her fault.

Posted by Elrod | March 6, 2008 5:17 PM

if Hillary Clinton takes the nomination without the pledged delegate lead - and with no big Obama scandal, MI and FL settled by re-vote, and the popular vote at least close - then African Americans will stay home this November.

Add to this the fact that Clinton would energize the GOP base against her to a much greater degree than Obama would against him, and you have a recipe for a GOP romp of epic proportions.

Posted by hum | March 6, 2008 5:22 PM

There really is a lot of not seeing the forest for the trees among the Clinton followers right now, as is on display above, as well as some wishful thinking (some of that on the Obama side, as well, of course; as I said, he deosn't have it wrapped up quite yet). And really I should just stay out of it, because their delusions aren't going to effect the results, and because I have better things to do anyway.

But I can't let one thing pass. Of course the supers will consider electibility. But, at the risk of beating a dead horse, (a) apart from strong Clinton partisans, most people currently believe that Obama is at least as electable as Clinton; it will take some pretty dramatic events to change that perception; and (b) anyone who thinks that the effects of the perceived injustice of voting against the leader among pledged delegates won't factor into the electibility analysis is just crazy.

Posted by LarryM | March 6, 2008 5:28 PM

LarryM,
You are far too logical to be on this board. What the hell are you trying to prove?

Larry's snark is starting to get fucking annoying. Please stop your antics!

But seriously now when I read these biased anti-Obama people who write things like "If the planets align and this happen and that happens, then Obama is done" it's like I'm reading "the sky isn't blue, the world is flat, 2 + 2 = 5" or Don Rumsfeld holding forth from the podium or the late great Baghdad Bob, Saddam's minister of information who used to proclaim to the international media that the Republican guard had the Yankee scum on the run! meanwhile the allied forces were driving up the highway a half hour outside of Baghdad and Saddam's army had disolved into the populace, waiting to fight another day.

Posted by Peter K. | March 6, 2008 5:29 PM

Peter K.,

Hey, I'm not the one who made the comment about logic. Nice cut/paste job asshole. Please die painfully in a fire.

There. That wasn't snark. Happy?

Posted by LarryM | March 6, 2008 5:48 PM

Obama supporters on this and other boards are right - HRC CAN'T get the requisite number of delegates to win outright. But what they omit is that he will fall short of the goal line as well. Either way, it's going to come down to superdelegates, who are supposed to exercise judgment that is INDEPENDENT of voting results.

Actually, Obama can get to 2025 delegates easily if Clinton acknowledges that she cannot beat him in pledged delegates and concedes. This is what a half dozen or so candidates on each side does every four years. If the Clinton folks had a case, Edwards would still be in the race. After all, neither Clinton nor Obama can get to 2025 delegates, so why can't Edwards have a shot at overturning the will of the voters like Clinton?

Mr. Edwards, would you like to resume your candidacy for President using Clinton rules? Remember after the first round of convention voting, pledged delegates can vote for ANYONE.

How about your Mr. Richardson?

Oh wait.. the other candidates have a sense of honor, fair play and competition..

Posted by Face The Music | March 6, 2008 7:26 PM

Hillary has won all of the large states that are REQUIRED to win in a general election. Obama did not, and could not carry them. If a Democrat is going to win the white house --- it is Hillary who has the shot, not Obama. Just the facts. Oh, and one more fact- historically, no one in over one hundred years, has won the white house, without winning Ohio.

Posted by What Caucus? | March 6, 2008 7:50 PM

What Caucus-

She also won all the "New" states, New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire and New Mexico. That is just as neat as winning most of the large states. Maybe more so, since it's a lot harder to win four diverse states that just happen to start with the same first word.

But it means the same thing: nothing.

In fact, the large states in a compressed time schedule are hardly more than a referendums on name-recognition.

When you consider that large states award proportionally more delegates than small states and consider that she is STILL losing by a hundred and fifty delegates then you get a real sense of how badly Clinton fubarred this election.

And why would we want to overturn the will of the voters to give the nomination to someone who fucked up a gimme Presidential election this bad?

Posted by Face The Music | March 6, 2008 8:00 PM

Obama cannot win big states, he does poorly in primaries...and we Latinos will never vote for him. Blacks in the South won't help too much in the Elections. He in other words is unelectable.

Not considering, inexperience, Rezko, etc. He is just unelectable. The Red State Strategy won't give him a good argument.

Posted by Maria | March 6, 2008 9:08 PM

Obama cannot win big states, he does poorly in those primaries...and we Latinos will never vote for him. Blacks in the South won't help too much in the Elections. He in other words is unelectable.

Not considering, inexperience, Rezko, etc. He is just unelectable. The Red State Strategy won't give him a good argument.

Posted by Maria | March 6, 2008 9:09 PM

Obama cannot win big states, he does poorly in those primaries...and we Latinos will never vote for him. Blacks in the South won't help too much in the Elections. He in other words is unelectable.

Not considering, inexperience, Rezko, etc. He is just unelectable. The Red State Strategy won't give him a good argument.

Posted by Maria | March 6, 2008 9:10 PM

What Caucus-
Hillary has won all of the large states that are REQUIRED to win in a general election. Obama did not, and could not carry them.

What big states are those? CA? MA? NJ? NY? Obama would take all of those against McCain and he has as good a chance of taking OH and FL against McCain as Hillary as the number of Dem voters have swelled in those states. The VAST majority of HIllary's primary voters will vote for Obama and same for Obama voters voting for Hillary, the key in this election is swinging slightly red states to the Dem side, something Obama has show more promise in.

Posted by tom.a | March 6, 2008 9:10 PM

Maria, Im sure you misspoke, butt you sound like a racist. Why wont latinos vote for Obama?..This primary contest,btw, is by no means a contest to see who can win democratic primaries in big states.The goal is to win the most delegates...period.If,otoh, the rules stipulated such, well then, it wouldbt make much sense to hold contest in any other of the states, would it?

Posted by tommy | March 6, 2008 9:18 PM

Obama cannot win big states, he does poorly in those primaries...and we Latinos will never vote for him. Blacks in the South won't help too much in the Elections.

Would you clarify this please? Are you telling people that McCain is going to beat Obama in New York and California? Do you realize this is what you are saying?

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 6, 2008 9:29 PM

Obama's defenders are going to be surprised when he loses in November. I'm not. He cannot win over the working class. He cannot win over the largest minority group. He cannot win older voters. He cannot win working women. This is electable?

Do Obama supporters really believe Clinton's people don't ALREADY perceive injustice at the way the media keeps trying to bury her? That her hard work and sacrifice might have to take a back seat to razzle and dazzle? Do they really believe that working class and older voters won't stampede to McCain if she isn't the nominee?

You need 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. The states that have went for Clinton already represent 263 electoral votes. These include big states and important swing states the Dems realistically have a chance of winning in November. The states that Obama's won? 193 electoral votes. This includes many states the Dems will never win in the general election.

Yet Obama's people really believe that after the GOP attack machine uses every dirty trick in the book to attack him and his wife, he is going to be able to win the electoral college on the back of wealthy liberals, college kids, and Idaho.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Once again Democrats will ignore the working class favorite and nominate the choice of liberal elites and aging hippies everywhere. Once again, they will lose.

Too bad the general election is not a caucus!

Posted by DK | March 6, 2008 9:38 PM

Again, coming in way late on this. But to answer MY's original question: What's going to happen?

Obama's leaked spreadsheet, which has been scary accurate, has him winning Wyoming 60-40.

Posted by Strega Nona | March 6, 2008 9:51 PM

DK, are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you honestly think there is a correlation between Hillary's abilty to win democratic primaries in large states and Obama's ability to win said states in the general? If so, please explain.I suspect. however you are simply repeating what you heard or read elsewhere.

Posted by tommy | March 6, 2008 9:52 PM

Lon, WhatCaucus, Maria, et. al.,

Sorry to nitpick, but Obama won Texas. Our delegate distribution is through BOTH the primary and the caucus, and we consider both processes to be legitimate. One part of the result is no more valid than the other part.

It is looking like he will have won Texas by approximately 5 delegates. Obama won another large state, Texas.

Posted by texasdem | March 6, 2008 10:17 PM

to the dillusional obama supporters who think obama will win: no matter what Hillary will win. Rule #1 don't fuck with a Clinton. And if you obamabots really think the superdelegates will go for obama then you know nothing about politics and under rules of the party, Hillary is right, the supers can vote however they choose and most of the superdelegates that are jumping ship are black, let's just get real right now. I am not a racist person but what I don't like is how this race is turning racist and the black people are so caught up in their black roots that they can't even admit to the fact that that is why they are running to obama in large numbers, not because he is the experienced leader of change. And let's not also forget that the obama campaign strategically put in to the minds of the black voters that the clinton are racist. As I recall, once upon a time before obama existed, the clintons were well respected in the black community and have always done work for that community. Obama is a loser and if he was a white guy, he would've dropped out of this race a long time ago.

Posted by fuck obama! | March 6, 2008 10:59 PM

DK -

It sounds like you are saying HRC is going to carry Texas in the general. If you really think this then you aren't grounded enough in reality to offer political analysis.

If HRC is such an awesome winner, why can't she win the primary straight up?

The Clinton campaign is a zombie. It's been dead for awhile now but it still staggers along trying to kill Obama and the hopes of our party.

Posted by Face The Music | March 6, 2008 11:13 PM

I'm glad you said that, fuck obama!

Because all this horseshit about why Obama can't win (Hillary wins big states that McCain couldn't win if Obama got cought raping boys the day before) made me wonder if her followers were stone fucking stupid. There was *another* possibility that I kept thinking: that it was code for "We can't win with a nigger, you idiots" and really if that's the argument lets just have that and be real. It's a real argument, it's one that you don't really want to have but it beats the hell out of what you are doing.

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 6, 2008 11:13 PM

really ed Marshall? How unbecoming of an obama follower, just as ignorant as obama wants his followers to be. So let me ask you this, what accomplishments has obama had in his political career that would make him so great of a president and please omit the "he would bring people together" bullshit argument. By the way I noticed how you got defensive on my points. I guess because you secretly realize that they are true and don't have a great response except for the " nigger" bullshit. How truly pathetic are you? Are you also one of those idiots that believe that racism only happens in the white community towards blacks?

Posted by fuck obama | March 6, 2008 11:27 PM

HRC needs to win ALL THE REST OF THE CONTESTS with a 30+% margin to pull even with Obama in pledged delegates.

Unfortunately for HRC, there aren't enough old white women in the country to make that happen.

Posted by Face The Music | March 6, 2008 11:37 PM

any Hillary fans want to chime in here and say this guy isn't saying what you really want to say?

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 6, 2008 11:49 PM

Ed, of course, you still can't answer my question as most obama supporters can't do. And the fact that you are still whining about racial shit proves my point even further. You are fucking pathetic, just like your candidate.

Posted by fuck obama | March 6, 2008 11:57 PM

Sigh...Don't waste your time wrestling with a pig, Ed. You just get dirty and the pig loves it.

Apparently this fellow fuck-obama, as with many of his Clinton compadres, isn't very good at math. Hey, FO, guess what? Go play with a delegate calculator for an hour or two. You'll find that the black guy has already beat Sen. Clinton. Get used to it.

Posted by Kevin | March 6, 2008 11:57 PM

Ed, of course, you still can't answer my question as most obama supporters can't do. And the fact that you are still whining about racial shit proves my point even further. You are fucking pathetic, just like your candidate.

Posted by fuck obama | March 7, 2008 12:05 AM

Ed, of course, you still can't answer my question as most obama supporters can't do. And the fact that you are still whining about racial shit proves my point even further. You are fucking pathetic, just like your candidate.

Posted by fuck obama | March 7, 2008 12:06 AM

Ed, of course, you still can't answer my question as most obama supporters can't do. And the fact that you are still whining about racial shit proves my point even further. You are fucking pathetic, just like your candidate.

Posted by fuck obama | March 7, 2008 12:06 AM

Ed Marshall:

Well, I don't like Hillary, but I don't like Obama either. Given my own scientific background, I do like empirical facts and try to use them in order to determine objective reality.

The MSM has been trying awfully hard to avoid giving us unwashed masses information that might "confuse" us, but if you hunt around a little, you can find it, though you have to do the calculations yourself.

For example, let's look at the non-black vote in TX and OH. Unless I made a mistake, Hillary's lead in this category is given by the formula:

Hillary's non-black margin = (H - O + B * (2*OB - 1)) / (100 - B)

Where: H = Hillary total percent; O = Obama total percent; B = Black total percent; and OB = Obama's fraction of the black vote.

Plugging in the numbers shows that Hillary beat Obama by almost 30 points among non-black Ohio voters and by almost 25 points among non-black Texas voters. Meanwhile, Obama beat Hillary by about 70 points among the black voters of each state.

It's totally impossible to say whether Obama gets less non-black support than he "deserves" or whether he instead gets more black support than he "deserves." But there's clearly an absolutely gigantic skew.

The November electorate will be almost 90% non-black.

If Hillary has been generally beating Obama across all the various primaries by an average of about 30 points among non-black voters, perhaps you can explain what will be so tota

Contesting Wyoming

Comments (121)