Fantasy Camp

Let me highlight something from the Politico article:

Clinton’s top supporters, including her husband, have suggested in recent days that amassing more votes than Sen. Barack Obama, while it has no formal meaning, could offer a key rationale for laying claim to the nomination. The theory: Winning the popular vote might give party leaders known as superdelegates a reason to take the nomination away from Obama, who is virtually sure to earn more pledged delegates.

The assumption here is that superdelegates who have not yet endorsed Clinton are actually harboring a secret, unexpressed desire to overturn the outcome of the delegate-selection process and hand the nomination to her. These people are just waiting to be given a reason to do it.

The thing is: That's crazy. Hillary started out with a huge lead in superdelegates because she got a treasure trove of early endorsements. Guess why? Because her husband used to be President and party figures had every reason to offer her early endorsements. Since that time, all the superdelegate momentum's been toward Obama because, guess what, the people who didn't line up behind Clinton early are people who don't want Clinton to win! I know reality gets distorted in the midst of a campaign, but they're really deluded if they can't see that.

Comments

i'm probably going to simply give up on posting about this, but for an exceedingly smart lad, matthew, every so often, demonstrates a remarkable naivete.

the purpose of the rhetoric emananting out of the clinton camp is to keep the race alive in the hopes that something happens to swing it to them, not to provide carefully honed analytic gems that withstand scrutiny.

as for the people who didn't line up behind clinton early: perhaps they simply didn't subscribe to the inevitability theorem, instead believing, as so many of us did, that the democratic party had 3 able candidates so let's see what happens.

if they really didn't want clinton to win, the undecided superdelegates could settle the race right now, simply by announcing for obama. amazingly enough, they haven't done that either.

does that mean they don't want obama to win, either? (perhaps the remaining superdelegates are all john edwards fans, or maybe they want to band together and bring back kerry?)

i've noted before that i support obama on the grounds of opposing dynastic succession, but really: there is no data set that can prove, one way or the other, who will run a better race against john mccain. clinton remains in the race precisely because she - and millions of democrats - think she is the answer to that question.

the undecided superdelegates appear to be as uncertain as i on the matter; when they achieve certainty, we'll have a nominee. until then, drawing the conclusion that they don't support clinton because they haven't yet supported clinton is...well, i don't want to say it's deluded, because there's a reasonable chance that it's accurate, but at a minimum, it's overstated....

Posted by howard | March 21, 2008 4:38 PM

Hillary started out with a huge lead in superdelegates because she got a treasure trove of early endorsements. Guess why? Because her husband used to be President and party figures had every reason to offer her early endorsements. Since that time, all the superdelegate momentum's been toward Obama because, guess what, the people who didn't line up behind Clinton early are people who don't want Clinton to win!

Amen to that, brother.....

Posted by Michael | March 21, 2008 4:38 PM

"i'm probably going to simply give up on posting about this, but for an exceedingly smart lad, matthew, every so often, demonstrates a remarkable naivete."

You say naiveté, I say intellectual dishonesty.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 4:43 PM

I've been in blog comments trying to draw attention to this for a couple weeks.

No one runs the numbers. She'll need all 25-30 percent blowouts to win:

www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

Even with MI and FL, she'll need blowouts.

It's weird that almost no one talks about this.

Posted by JJ | March 21, 2008 4:44 PM

Lovely, the guy who insists we should use a popular vote count that includes Michigan is accusing someone else of intellectual dishonesty. Nice.

Posted by John | March 21, 2008 4:47 PM

I have been supporting Obama and voted for him in the NJ primary, but if the Wright revelations, fairly or unfairly, continue to produce indications that his electability has been vitiated, I will shift to supporting Clinton. I would hope that many superdelegates share that view.

Posted by Rich | March 21, 2008 4:51 PM

I imagine what Matt writes is largely true,
but I can see a flaw: if most of those superdelegates who are now uncommitted (about 260 of them) are sure they prefer Obama, they could come
out and endorse him, as Bill Richardson just did.

Posted by Edward | March 21, 2008 4:52 PM

I write this as a fervent and annoying Obama supporter, but isn't it also possible that the reason a large portion of superdelegates didn't come out for Hillary early is because they didn't think it would matter or they didn't know they were a superdelegate or they didn't know what superdelgates do and they didn't want to embarrass themselves in front of their superdelegate friends?

Posted by RD | March 21, 2008 4:52 PM

You say naiveté, I say intellectual dishonesty.

You know, the practice of flatly insulting the intelligence or judgement of one's opponent here is getting really stale. If you must do it, can you guys at least try to season your patronizing attitude with some insight or wit?

Posted by James Gary | March 21, 2008 4:52 PM

"Lovely, the guy who insists we should use a popular vote count that includes Michigan is accusing someone else of intellectual dishonesty. Nice."

I've never tried to sugar coat the problems with the January MI vote, which is why I was on the side of the Michigan Democratic Party and the DNC in wanting a legitimate re-vote.

You, on the other hand, seem to stand with the Obama campaign in seeking to prevent a legitimate re-vote. Fuck the Democrats of Michigan. Fuck winning the general election. We want the candidate of General Electric and Marty Peretz, and we don't care if we have to steal the nomination against the will of the Democratic voters to get what we want.

-----

The nice thing about being on the same side as the majority of the Democratic electorate is that I don't have to make intellectually dishonest arguments to say why I think Clinton is the rightful nominee.

Letting everyone vote benefits Clinton. Keeping everyone from voting benefits Obama.

There is no more intellectually honest statement one could make at this point.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 4:58 PM

Two things: JJ: Yes you're absolutely right. She's failed to get the numbers needed for the nomination and she's behind in delegates. A corallary though, Obama is ahead in delegates but he has ALSO failed to get the necessary numbers to lock the nomination. He had his chance in Ohio and Texas and failed to close the deal. Neither of them have earned the nomination so it's still up in the air. His lead does give him a powerful arguement.

Matt: I think your reading of this is unfair. I understand you don't like Clinton and all but lets not go Sullivan here.
All that Clintons supporters are outlining here is the way she can win the nomination. They're not talking much about how likely it is. If Hillary can gain the lead in popular votes then she has an arguement to make to the super delegates. If Obama's speech was not sufficient to reassure voters or if some other event occurrs and he is suffering in the pols for the General that would give the Supers a reason. With an arguement and a reason together Hillary could take the nomination. Whether this is likely or not is open to opinion but I find nothing dishonest or delusional about it.

Posted by Minnesota | March 21, 2008 5:03 PM

We want the candidate of General Electric...

What's your GE source?

I assume you're talking about contributions given by individuals who work for or manage at GE, not GE itself. Because Barack Obama does not accept contributions from PACs and lobbyists, while Hillary Clinton does accept those contributions.

The implication seems to be that Obama is the candidate of corporate America, and I find that hard to accept. Obama accepted Edwards' challenge and has renounced that corporate money, while Hillary has not.

Posted by DivGuy | March 21, 2008 5:07 PM

"If you must do it, can you guys at least try to season your patronizing attitude with some insight or wit?"

Sure. Matt jumped the shark from advocacy into intellectual dishonesty when he attributed Clinton's Ohio victory to racism. He's kept up his patter of intellectual dishonesty about the nomination battle ever since.

And guess what? it's resulted in him getting regular face time on General Electric's TV outlet.

May not be witty, but that's some insight into how the Beltway professional Democrat class functions.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 5:09 PM

These people are just waiting to be given a reason to [endorse Clinton]. The thing is: That's crazy.

Well then what the hell are they doing? If they're even leaning towards Obama at this point, while the entire pundit class grouses about the need for a nominee RIGHT NOW, what is the marginal benefit of holding off?

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | March 21, 2008 5:11 PM

I've never tried to sugar coat the problems with the January MI vote

But you happily use it in your skewed popular vote count, while ignoring caucus states that held legitimate votes but didn't report popular vote totals.

John was pretty clearly addressing your math, not your position on Michigan revotes, wasn't he?

Posted by Marc | March 21, 2008 5:11 PM

The nice thing about being on the same side as the majority of the Democratic electorate is that I don't have to make intellectually dishonest arguments to say why I think Clinton is the rightful nominee.

There is a certain perfection to this argument in that it is both internally coherent and complete bullshit at the same time. You, sir are a master of your craft. Whether this is a craft worth mastering, however...

Posted by Pooh | March 21, 2008 5:15 PM

You hit on the problem when you mention "reality."

Howard, I think the problem for some of the remaining supers is spin--Clinton, with the help of the media, is spinning this as a close nailbiter. If they come out and say "oh give up already, sore loser" the Clintons will spin it as pre-emptive, stealing it from poor Hillary who was only down by a few hundred delegates, who might have pulled it out, they counted her out after NH and look what happened....The perception of a stolen nomination is an election-killing risk. That's why the odds that they would hand her the nomination and send Obama to the back of the bus are infinitesimal. But she can use that same perception as a threat--drive her out of the race and she'll cry she was robbed, even if the means to do it are precisely the means she wants to use on Obama.

"we don't care if we have to steal the nomination against the will of the Democratic voters to get what we want" --Petey
We really need rotfl smileys in here....Obama is winning. That is the whole problem for the Hillary people; if she were winning, then you wouldn't have a problem with all those pesky people making the "intellectually dishonest" argument that we should use the rules we started with, rather than deciding 50 minutes into the game that field goals shouldn't count, but first downs are retroactively worth 10 points.

Posted by Deborah | March 21, 2008 5:17 PM

Who would you rather have pick USSC justices, Clinton or McCain?

No progressive can opt for the latter.

Posted by Rich | March 21, 2008 5:18 PM

Obama is ahead in delegates but he has ALSO failed to get the necessary numbers to lock the nomination.

But how happy will the Democratic base be to have their votes overturned by fiat of the party elites? Good for the morale of the party? If you try to spin it "yes," I'm going to vomit. And how successful would a general election candidate be who earned the nomination in that way?

As Jon Chait put it, if she tries the kinds of tricks her campaign wants to try to win the nomination she won't "be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero."

Posted by JJ | March 21, 2008 5:18 PM

Okay, everyone who wants to spin the popular vote, or make ad hominem attacks -- please skip this comment.

The question that interests me right now is not a "should" question, it's a "what's happening" question.

Let me just draw your attention to the latest post on TPM, titled "Acceptance?"

I'm surprised to be thinking this, but today it seems to me that there's some possibility that this thing is either over, or soon to be over. I know there are people who write on comment threads who are still convinced that this is all excellent news for Hillary. But you know what? That will still be true next March, because a lot of rather zealous people post on comment threads. (I know -- it's shocking!)

The question that interests me is whether something is happening to Hillary's perceived chances in the wider world -- starting with journalists. I'm not sure. But I will say that the fact that JMM has weighed in on this seems to me to count for something. A lot of people in the MSM read that blog.

I'll also say that I've noticed an interesting degree of relative silence from the Clinton camp lately -- except on the topics of MI and FL. Almost as if they knew that was their last shot. I could be projecting. But I'm putting it out there for what it's worth.

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 5:21 PM

"I assume you're talking about contributions given by individuals who work for or manage at GE, not GE itself."

No, I'm not talking about monetary contributions. I'm talking about the in-kind contributions of favorable coverage.

If you're not able to figure this out yourself, there have been several studies out so far this cycle showing how GE has been providing significantly more favorable coverage for Obama and significantly more negative coverage for Clinton than the other news networks.

"The implication seems to be that Obama is the candidate of corporate America, and I find that hard to accept."

The "implication" is that General Electric, which has led a multi-decade crusade against universal healthcare and Social Security, sees in Obama an opportunity to further their interests.

I don't blame GE. They're doing what's in the interests of GE Healthcare and GE Financial. I blame the "Democratic" fellow travelers who are aiding and abetting GE in their attempt to take the nomination away from the choice of Democratic voters.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 5:23 PM

Here's the link for "Acceptance," by the way:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184883.php

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 5:26 PM

Letting everyone vote benefits Clinton. Keeping everyone from voting benefits Obama.

There is no more intellectually honest statement one could make at this point.

Do you realize the problem with this reasoning? Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan. Revoting can only help him since anyone not named Clinton got 42% of the vote. Do you really think Clinton would get 58% of the vote again given a choice between the two of them? Michigan is the one place where a revote(while yes, she is advocating it) can only hurt her, not him(the rest of the stuff is just political gamesmanship).

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 21, 2008 5:27 PM

Hillary is hanging in there because there is a small, but non-zero, chance that Obama's candidacy might implode in a big way, and she wants to be the natural alternative if that occurs. She's probably hoping that the Wright thing turns out to be an implosion-in-slow-motion, but we won't really know until at least PA and NC come around.

She's trying to rhetorically keep things alive to give a plausible justification for why she's simply waiting for a fortunate disaster to happen, not because she'll ever pick up enough delegates to win under most any circumstances.

Posted by Tyro | March 21, 2008 5:28 PM

Even if she seated Florida and Michigan, she would still have to win every race by 20 point margins. Clinton is going to win North Carolina by 20 points? That's laughable. If she doesn't seat Florida and Michigan, she'll need to win every race by close to 30 points.

Of course she can always get the party elite superdels to back her. Then she'd be wearing a latte liberal "kick me" sign for the whole general election.

Posted by JJ | March 21, 2008 5:29 PM

Newsflash: The debate about FL and MI revotes is over. There will not be revotes in either state. The MI legislature has adjourned. We can continue to argue about the issue -- and if you like, we can still be arguing next March -- but it's moot.

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 5:31 PM

Petey says:Matt jumped the shark from advocacy into intellectual dishonesty when he attributed Clinton's Ohio victory to racism

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell has said that some white voters aren't ready to elect a black candidate. Is he intellectually dishonest?

Clinton surrogates often argue that Obama voters will support her in the Fall while HRC voters will not support Obama. Why won't they support him while African-Americans and wine drinkers will support HRC? Is it the health insurance mandates?

And I think Matt gets more face time on News Corp's TV outlet. Rupert Murdoch loves the Clintons -- the Telecommunications Act, you know.

Posted by Mike | March 21, 2008 5:32 PM

I'm always struck by the argument that Clinton has to convince "the superdelegates"

Even if the currently unpledged superdelegates lean toward Obama or against Clinton, which I suspect may not be true, Clinton doesn't have to convince "the superdelegates", she has to convince 65 or 70% of the superdelegates, which strikes me as vastly different.

She doesn't have to convince the superdelegates to overturn the delegate leader. She has to convince a landslide majority of unpledged superdelegates to do so.

To say Obama and Clinton both need the superdelegates to clinch omits the fact that if Obama gets 40% of the unpledged superdelegates and Clinton gets 60%, Obama wins.

The kind of argument Clinton would need to convince 51% of the superdelegates to give her the nomination in opposition to the pledged delegate leader is different from the kind of argument she would need to convince 70% of them.

Posted by Arnold Evans | March 21, 2008 5:32 PM

I don't blame GE. They're doing what's in the interests of GE Healthcare and GE Financial. I blame the "Democratic" fellow travelers who are aiding and abetting GE in their attempt to take the nomination away from the choice of Democratic voters.

And you think Hillary is pure as the driven snow? What corporations are given her money or in-kind contributions?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 21, 2008 5:32 PM

Why did the (failed, it seems) Michigan revote proposal include a provision disqualifying voters who voted in the January Republican primary? What was the purpose of that?

Posted by UN Plaza | March 21, 2008 5:33 PM

"But I will say that the fact that JMM has weighed in on this seems to me to count for something"

Obama sealed up the support of the blogosphere several months ago.

But the support of the upscale faction of the Party hasn't been enough to drag along those pesky Democratic, y'know, voters.

The better Clinton does among the Democratic electorate, the more the upscale goo-goos scream that she's a monster. Democracy ain't their thing.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 5:34 PM

I see it like this:

1. Obama will be the nominee.
2. Party insiders, including superdelegates, have known this for some time.
3. The press hasn't reported this fact, meaning that a lot of regular democratic voters don't realize it's true.
4. Given points 1, 2, and 3, the challenge faced by party insiders -- including SDs in particular -- is how to manage the process by which Obama actually receives the nomination. The chief obstacle they face is that they cannot afford to alienate HRC supporters who still think she has a chance to win by declaring the process over before everybody has voted.
5. Until recently, the indications seemed to be that an extended primary season was helping the democrats, so the thinking was to just let the process play out.
6. Now that has changed: McCain is surging in the polls, and it's increasingly clear that an extended primary is hurting Obama as a candidate.
7. Once this sinks in, the SDs will declare, force HRC to concede, and Obama will get the nomination. Before Pennsylvania, I predict.

Posted by Anon | March 21, 2008 5:34 PM

"...and he is suffering in the pols for the General that would give the Supers a reason. With an arguement and a reason together Hillary could take the nomination. Whether this is likely or not is open to opinion but I find nothing dishonest or delusional about it." --Minnesota

This still comes down to them throwing her the nomination even though he won it. And: polls? He's down in the polls so he doesn't get the nomination, voters be damned? Sorry, that seems to verge toward delusion.

Let's take it as happening, though: Something so horrible that a vast majority of dems will agree that a different nominee is needed. That's already allowed for, as Mr. Ickes so graciously reminds us about the pledged delegates, you know, not going to jail or anything if they switch their votes. And all the supers can switch their votes. With the votes she's earned to date plus all the supers, she can be given the nomination if a true crisis were to arise. She could stop right now, withdraw, and still be the first person the party would turn to in an emergency. So, why is she still in?

That argument requires something almost everyone can agree calls for overturning the voters, of course. A slim majority after a fight on the convention floor, by definition, has not met that standard.

By the way, I know everyone likes throwing the popular vote around, and the problems with it involve basic understanding of math and statistics which rules out an unfortunately large part of the country, but I'll say it anyway: The popular vote measured over primaries held by different rules in each state is pretty meaningless. Caucus states are undercounted. And that's not their fault: no one told them we might change rules halfway through the election if Clinton turned out to be losing by the first rules.

Posted by Deborah | March 21, 2008 5:36 PM

Here's a link for the delegate calculator, BTW.

Posted by JJ | March 21, 2008 5:36 PM

Petey,
i gotta say, as a longtime admirer of yours (re: Edwards), you are mother fucking wrong here. Your acting like a petulant child and throwing jabs around at people in both this (and other) thread(s), and at Matt himself, for no fucking reason.

I'll also say, I am a clinton supporter. You are being a little baby.

Posted by bend | March 21, 2008 5:40 PM

The better Clinton does among the Democratic electorate, the more the upscale goo-goos scream that she's a monster. Democracy ain't their thing.

Huh? How twisted is this? Who has the most votes? By any count?

What are you, a non-reality based Republican?

As I mentioned earlier, I'm really working at not vomiting.

Posted by JJ | March 21, 2008 5:41 PM

"Why did the (failed, it seems) Michigan revote proposal include a provision disqualifying voters who voted in the January Republican primary? What was the purpose of that?"

To comply with DNC rules.

But I assume you knew that already.

-----

And, of course, the re-vote has "failed, it seems" entirely due to opposition from the Obama campaign.

The Michigan Democrats were on board. The DNC was on board. The Clinton campaign was on board.

The Obama campaign knows they're going to lose pretty much every contest between now and June, which is why they're desperate to avoid a re-vote. They know full well that elections are not their friend.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 5:42 PM

Even if you count the popular vote totals for the January Florida & Michigan primaries (i.e., 328k votes for Clinton, zero for Obama), is there any way Clinton can take the popular vote lead after the remaining primaries?

Posted by UN Plaza | March 21, 2008 5:43 PM

I think we should determine the nomination not by primary votes, but rather by what exit polling tells us about how Democrats voted in the primaries. Also, goo-goo, Peretz, General Electric, MANDATES!!!

Posted by Yetep | March 21, 2008 5:43 PM

All right, Petey, use the delegate counter and tell us how Clinton gets the delegate count--even with Florida and Michigan.

Posted by JJ | March 21, 2008 5:45 PM

Rich, if that's all the conviction you have that Obama is only valuable for his ability to beat McCain, then I'd suggest you quit being coy and just go ahead and vote for Clinton.

But I wouldn't suggest you broadcast your weak-kneed reason as a sound justification without expecting to get slammed for it.

If we haven't got the guts to back the person who's got the most character, integrity, intelligence and adaptability for the presidency, for no other reason than his electability, then we deserve Hillary Clinton and nothing better...that is, we deserve another mediocre non-solver working within a political system that still supports the idea that anything and everything you can throw at somebody to win an election is justified, including giving the other party's candidates fodder for the general election.

In other words, Bush-Cheney Lite. In other words, disgraceful.

Personally, I'd rather lose mightily with Obama than vote for someone else because my candidate was "fairly or unfairly" slandered. Or made guilty by association for someone else's views...and without looking at the whole picture.

Winning isn't everything. Winning with integrity is.

So if your comments are representative of how low our expectations have sunk...well, that's a pretty sad statement.

Gov Bill Richardson today laid out a wonderfully straightforward rationale for why he supported Obama. It's worth listening to...I think these guys are cut from the same whole cloth.

Posted by James Lawrence | March 21, 2008 5:48 PM

I think we should determine the nomination not by primary votes, but rather by what exit polling tells us about how Democrats voted in the primaries.

Yetep--that would be fine, except for a little thing called, um, VOTES, which can be pretty important in a democracy.

Posted by JJ | March 21, 2008 5:49 PM

i'm going to make one more comment on this and then bow out, because nothing is more dispiriting than these obama/clinton foodfights.

matthew made a statement that is completely wrong: that it's crazy to assume that superdelegates would vote for clinton, because if they intended to, they would have done so already.

he couldn't possibly be wronger, because if what he said were true, than the superdelegates would already have settled the race and they haven't.

the fact that it's an enormous uphill climb for clinton at this point is neither here nor there; the notion that if clinton won because of superdelegates she couldn't beat hitler's dog couldn't be more nonsensical (does no one ever study history? hubert humphrey won the '68 nomination despite not running in a single primary, the democratic party was splintering over vietnam, george wallace was taking away the south, and yet, with all that against him, he very nearly won that election) and makes me disinclined to read jon chait ever again; the idea that clinton has some obligation to drop out because obama is the most perfectest candidate ever and clinton is merely some annoyance in the way of his annointment is an insult to the millions of dems who have voted for her.

the odds are extremely high that obama wins this, perhaps by the process that Anon at 5:34 outlines; if that's what happens, so be it.

but if it were a given that that will happen, it would and could have happened already.

Deborah, if the case that obama has won the nomination is as clearcut as people like matthew contend, then there is no "stealing" if the superdelegates line up for obama and end this thing, which is why i personally don't think that it's simply a matter of superdelegates being afraid of being perceived as a group of crooks, denying the popular will. i would instead suggest that the popular will is quite evenly split, and that's why the undecided superdelegates remain so.

Posted by howard | March 21, 2008 5:49 PM

I think Anon's seven-step summary of what's happening right now has it exactly right.

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 5:51 PM

"And you think Hillary is pure as the driven snow?"

No. I think Clinton is a pretty flawed candidate who is still noticeably the lesser of two evils by virtue of her courageous willingness to stand up for universal healthcare, knowing full well it would bring the wrath of General Electric down on her.

GE was pretty friendly to Clinton in the first nine months of 2007. It was only when she came out for the Edwards universal healthcare plan and refused to pander to Tim Russert on Social Security that GE shifted course and trained its guns on her.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 5:51 PM

It's over. The superdelegates are not going to save her, and after Super Tuesday they were never going to save her. The Clintons have screwed a lot of Dems over in the 90s and the party did poorly under Bill's tenure. No one in the party wants to go back to those times.

It's time to cut her microphone because this charade is wasting a lot of money that could be better spent for congressional races.

Posted by die berlinerin | March 21, 2008 5:52 PM

To comply with DNC rules.

I didn't know that, thanks. But I don't understand it. Why would the DNC not want Democrats who voted in the January primary to be able to vote in the revote? That doesn't make sense to me.

The Obama campaign knows they're going to lose pretty much every contest between now and June

Here's something else I don't understand (I know, I'm dense). How does it matter? Can Clinton take the lead in pledged delegates in the remaining primaries? None of the analysis I've seen shows that she can. Re-votes in Florida and Michigan would have netted Obama more, not less, delegates, right?

(Unfortunately it no longer goes without saying on this blog in this season, but I'm sincerely asking for info here, not trying to be a jerk.)

Posted by UN Plaza | March 21, 2008 5:52 PM

Obama sealed up the support of the blogosphere several months ago. But the support of the upscale faction of the Party hasn't been enough to drag along those pesky Democratic, y'know, voters. The better Clinton does among the Democratic electorate, the more the upscale goo-goos scream that she's a monster. Democracy ain't their thing.

It must be hard being a Clinton supporter when basically no informed Democrats who aren't on her payroll support the Senator.

You have my sympathies.

Petey, Dec. 21

Posted by Antid Oto | March 21, 2008 5:52 PM

I'm kinda disagreeing with Big Blog on this one. I see no reason for Hillary not to stay in until Obama get's 50% + 1, like practically every 2nd place person does in a contest, most recently Huckabee. Jesse Jackson took it to the convention in 88, IIRC, and it was his right to do so, and it did make the convention more exciting. And the best measure of legitimacy for superdelegates to take into account for choosing a candidate (besides their own preference) *is* total votes, across all primaries and caucuses. Obama's nixing a revote in Michigan is a decision every bit as cynical and wrong-headed as the wrong decisions Clinton has made.

To my mind, the recent downturn in the polls is not because Clinton's still in the race, but because there have been no debates recently, so the broadcast media has controlled the storyline, and they like McCain. Obama made some really good speeches, but it's not clear how much they cut through the chatter.

By not agreeing to more debates, not agreeing to Michigan, etc. I think Obama to some extent is playing prevent defense, and it's not the right thing to do, nor is it helping his campaign.

Posted by roublen | March 21, 2008 5:52 PM

Re: Anon's seven-step summary:

Exactly right, I should say, except for the last part. I'm not sure that anyone really has the power to bring this to a close before PA. The media is having too much fun pretending it's a horserace. It's going to start becoming clearer that it's a loooongshot, and that party elders would like it to be over. But I don't know when it *will* be over.

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 5:55 PM

Matt's post hits on exactly what I've thought, and commented on from time to time, for quite some time.

Of course HRC would have a huge advantage with SDs, given that many owe their position to her and Bill. It is inconceivable that there is a large, but undeclared, pro-Hillary contingent of superdelegates; there is simply no tactical or strategic reason for them to have held back this long (especially since the large early lead in SDs for HRC helped foster the "inevitability" meme). Thus, it stands to reason that they are not pro-Hillary, and will only support her if circumstances dictate no other option or when it becomes safe to declare for Obama (and that time is now becoming more and more apparent, btw).

~

The other mistake that tends to be made about the SDs is to treat them as some monolith - as in, "Hillary can win them over by winning the popular vote". The undeclared SDs don't sit around huddling in a room talking amongst themselves, waiting to declare en masse. They are a disparate group who have individual preferences and foibles, and each may be convinced to declare for any number of reasons. The idea that the undeclared SDs have colluded to wait for some magic moment (eg. a popular vote winner, etc) to suddenly anoint a winner is pretty deluded.

Posted by McKingford | March 21, 2008 5:57 PM

Jon Chait's "Hitler's dog" comment is made in the context of a few other tricks Clinton, Penn, and company have mentioned that they might put into practice, in addition to the superdelegate grab.

Posted by JJ | March 21, 2008 5:57 PM

They know full well that elections are not their friend.

are you high right now?

how in gods name can someone supporting Clinton's campaign write this tripe after her- nay, Penn's- Campaign, blithley undersold the significance of every "election" between Super-Tuesday and the Ohio and Texas Primaries? How in the world? literally, what gaul does it take to write these things with a straight face?

Posted by bend | March 21, 2008 5:57 PM

Yeah, well, I guess that's what happens when you vote for the less-popular candidate... they take the nomination away from you. Or something like that.

Posted by praxis | March 21, 2008 5:59 PM

So now we understand why Senator Clinton's didn't bother to stand for anything during her campaign.

She didn't think she had to run on any particular message since she's running for re-election to be First Lady.

Petey, Dec. 13

Posted by Antid Oto | March 21, 2008 5:59 PM

I have little passion for either candidate, but at this point I really want Obama to win if only to see whether Petey will keep his solemn pledge, which I remember well, to go to the mattresses for whomever the nominee turns out to be (a pledge made in response to criticisms of his habit of hate-mongering against all candidates not supported by him). At this point can he really make that pivot?

Posted by Ryan | March 21, 2008 5:59 PM

Nice catch by Antid Oto.

One more thought about when this will be over. The financial angle hasn't had enough time to sink in yet . . . but as I think about the implications of "in the red" a little more . . .

I don't think it's going to be the party elders or the SDs who declare this thing "over." I think it's going to be the donors. I'm not sure when that will happen. But today's news makes me think it might be sooner than I thought.

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 6:02 PM

I've never tried to sugar coat the problems with the January MI vote, which is why I was on the side of the Michigan Democratic Party and the DNC in wanting a legitimate re-vote.
-Petey today

I'm a Democrat. The Democratic National Committee under Howard Dean came up with a primary schedule that allowed only 4 states to have primaries before 2/5.

Michigan was not one of those 4 states.

At the DNC deliberations in 2007, Michigan made their case to be one of the early states, votes were taken in the DNC representing all national Dems, and Michigan lost their case.

For me, it's simple. The DNC made rules using a fair process. IA and NH played by those rules. The Michigan Dems didn't.

- Petey, January 8

Posted by Antid Oto | March 21, 2008 6:04 PM

More of Petey's greatest hits from Dec. 21:

It must not be easy when basically the only informed Dems standing in your corner are shills.

We'll find out in less than two weeks if helicopters and Mark Penn's slime can pull in enough uninformed Dems to save your cause or not.

Posted by too many steves | March 21, 2008 6:06 PM

This is truly the point in the primary cycle where Petey starts regularly accusing Matt of being on the take. Lord, I've seen this movie before. Peter, how long did you accuse Kos of financial shenanigans before you decamped to Tapped? I respected your JRE advocacy, but these posts the last few months are way too close to the unhinged posting you did in 2004. Do yourself a favor and get help Petey.

Posted by Sharon | March 21, 2008 6:10 PM

he couldn't possibly be wronger, because if what he said were true, than the superdelegates would already have settled the race and they haven't.

As I mentioned above, there is no conceivable reason that an otherwise pro-HRC superdelegate would not have declared for her already. Her early lead in SDs helped push the notion of inevitability. But even if, for some reason, the undeclared pro-HRC SDs *were* holding back for some unknown reason, the dire circumstances of her campaign would have required that they jump on board some time ago - so as to halt the Obama momentum that threatened to wash out HRC some time ago (although if there's one thing this race has determined, it is that "momentum" is entirely inconsequential).

Why haven't the non-pro-HRC superdelegates declared for Obama yet? They may not realize the race is over (which is understandable given the media's poor job of adequately emphasizing how impossible HRC's position is); since the Clintons still hold a lot of power in Democratic circles, nobody wants to needlessly alienate them. As a result, the undeclared either want to reserve the right to jump on board with HRC if circumstances make her inevitable, or they want to wait until Obama is inevitable so that it is safe to do so.

Posted by McKingford | March 21, 2008 6:10 PM

Nice catches, all around. But I think Petey has remembered another appointment.

The more I think about it, the more I think the financial angle is the crucial one right now. I mean, apparently HRC has $11.7 mil cash on hand. But she owes other people $8.7 mil, and owes herself $5 mil.

If you were a donor, would you want to invest in a project with that balance sheet?

More crucially, what would you do if you were HRC, hoping to eventually recoup your own $5M? Might you keep campaigning, and keep accepting donations . . . while going light on actual campaign spending?

I don't know exactly how this plays out, but I do think it may be the $$ that decide when this thing is over.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/hillary_campaign_in_the_red.php

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 6:11 PM

mckingford, i'm really down to my last comment on this matter(i hope!).

actually, there is a reason for a pro-clinton superdelegate not to have declared by now: they don't want to wind up on the wrong side.

that said, fundamentally, sure, the odds favor the presumption that pro-clinton superdelegates would already have let us know, just as the odds favor the presumption that pro-obama superdelegates would already have let us know (although, as you correctly note, they too don't want to wind up on the wrong side).

but matthew offered up a categorical: "guess what, the people who didn't line up behind Clinton early are people who don't want Clinton to win!"

that's what's ridiculous: if they don't want Clinton to win, it's entirely in their power to keep her from winning today.

but they haven't, and as we all know, it ain't over 'til it's over.

more accurate would be "guess what, the people who didn't line up behind Clinton early are truly undecided and waiting, which doesn't bode well for Clinton's chances."

Posted by howard | March 21, 2008 6:22 PM

4. Given points 1, 2, and 3, the challenge faced by party insiders -- including SDs in particular -- is how to manage the process by which Obama actually receives the nomination. The chief obstacle they face is that they cannot afford to alienate HRC supporters who still think she has a chance to win by declaring the process over before everybody has voted.

The big thing here is that any decision made by superdelegates to "end the primary" is going to look like a group of old white guys telling either the woman or the black guy in the election to sit down. By leaving the actual election to the voters, "the man" doesn't have to make a group decision on which person to hold down.

As the election continues to crawl along, more supers will endorse. But any mass endorsement or finisher by the superdelegates (before even the final election is over or someone is completely mathametically eliminated) would be seen as holding a minority group back. So the election is technically over and has arguably been over since Super Tuesday, but the superdelegates/party leadership (as a group) are never going to step into the race until Hillary drops out.

Posted by Alex | March 21, 2008 6:36 PM

Deborah, if the case that obama has won the nomination is as clearcut as people like matthew contend, then there is no "stealing" if the superdelegates line up for obama and end this thing, which is why i personally don't think that it's simply a matter of superdelegates being afraid of being perceived as a group of crooks, denying the popular will. i would instead suggest that the popular will is quite evenly split, and that's why the undecided superdelegates remain so.
Posted by howard

My argument is that the nomination is clear cut for anyone who really looks at the numbers. Unfortunately, "numbers" and "math" and "statistics" aren't things that make most Americans smile and keep reading. So while it can be spun as "I was robbed! Denied! They aren't willing to wait for the voters, but overrule them!" Same problem with "the popular vote doesn't matter, because different metrics are used and any attempt to statistically correct for the different sampling methods...." Hear that? That was a reader out there, falling asleep on their keyboard. So the supers are reasonably concerned about not being seen to steal the nomination--not in July from Obama, but not this month from Clinton. Note I don't say "they wouldn't steal" but "they wouldn't want to be seen to steal"--it's the perception that's at issue.

And, as someone argued above, the supers don't actually don nifty disguises and hold secret meetings. Some have joined Rahm Emanuel under his desk, wacky OH supers are holding out for concessions after the state voted, some earnestly hope not to offend anyone--it's not monolithic. But for those willing to send messages about the supers as a body, such as Pelosi now and Richardson at the beginning of the month and a host doing interviews off the record, all say throwing the nomination is not in the works.

Posted by Deborah | March 21, 2008 6:42 PM

But for those willing to send messages about the supers as a body, such as Pelosi now and Richardson at the beginning of the month and a host doing interviews off the record, all say throwing the nomination is not in the works.

Persuasive. Which is why the real pressure-points may have to be

a) the media,
and, via the media,

b) Clinton donors.

If the message gets out that HRC does not really have a plausible end-game, perhaps donations will dry up. In fact they already appear to be drying up.

Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 6:57 PM

Aren't a lot of them waiting to see what happens? Many are hesitant or they would have endorsed already.

And doesn't winning all the big states count for anything (or conversely, not winning them)? Aren't they absolutely mandatory for November?

Posted by amberglow | March 21, 2008 7:03 PM

Also, aren't there other real reasons like which groups have been voting for which candidate, and the future of the party's growth--Hispanics, old people--esp boomers retiring, single women, and millenials are all giant and growing groups--while white men and union members are shrinking groups.

Posted by amberglow | March 21, 2008 7:08 PM

I really wish we could see polling on whether previous primary voters have been affected by subsequent events--i think we would see it, affecting both of them.

Posted by amberglow | March 21, 2008 7:15 PM

If I was a superdelegate, I'd still be undecided at this point. I wouldn't feel obligated to vote for whoever won either the popular vote or the pledged delegates; that simply isn't a superdelegate's job. The job is to vote for whoever is the better choice for the party.

Obama's showed some serious weaknesses in the last few weeks. And yes, this has a lot to do with Hillary trying to make him unelectable. That's her job. If she can make him unelectable, he was never electable in the first place.

So let it play out.

Posted by AlanC9 | March 21, 2008 7:20 PM

Deborah and JJ. I don't disagree with your responses to me precisely but I feel you are both missing the point entirely. Matts original post and my responses were not about the politics of turning over the delegate count. He asserted that the clintons team is being delusional. I simply asserted that what he calls delusion seems pretty strategic and sensible to me.
If Hillary were able to seize the majority by popular vote and Obama either is plagued by more gaffes or the current gaffes noticably hobble him then there does exist a realistic path to the NOMINATION for her. That is what I am saying, and what Matt asserted is delusional or crazy. Whether this path is advisable or likely is not in question. What is in question is if they're being crazy. I assert they are not. If Hillary had no possible path to the nomination then she would likely drop out. The path remains, she remains theoretically viable and is sustained both by votes and by contributions. Obama had the chance to end it before, he failed to close the deal. Now he's going to have to play the game. Full disclosure: I'm a Clinton supporter but I would prefer that Obama had won to the current muddle. That said I am not impressed by the man. I do not support giving him the nomination just because it makes us feel all tingly-nice. If he wants it he's going to have to earn it (and his frothing supporters as well). When (as it seems likely) he cinches the nomination he shall have my complete support. Until then I shall pass on the koo-aide, thanks much.

Posted by Minnesota | March 21, 2008 7:26 PM

Anyone else think that Hillary is still in this so that Obama loses in the general and she runs again in 2012?

She can't run in 2016, she'll be too old. What does she have to lose if it hurts Obama?

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 21, 2008 7:37 PM

So let it play out.

I believe the entire point of the article is that it has already played out. The Clinton campaign alleges Obama is unelectable. Well, if she can't beat him how does that make her electable?

Posted by Pug | March 21, 2008 7:40 PM

"I didn't know that, thanks. But I don't understand it. Why would the DNC not want Democrats who voted in the January primary to be able to vote in the revote? That doesn't make sense to me."

Because the DNC rules are that you can't vote in both primaries.

One can quibble with the rationale to that rule, just as one can quibble with the rule that says that MI wasn't allowed to hold a vote before 2/5. But both campaigns were fine with the rules before the voting started.

I'm sure the Clinton campaign would be willing to hold a re-vote under Obama's "conditions", but if they did, the DNC wouldn't sanction the vote, which is precisely why Obama laid down those exact cowardly "conditions". They said they'd be fine with re-votes only if the re-votes were held under conditions that would make them not count. More than slightly sleazy.

And FWIW, Obama's attempt to stop the MI and FL re-votes is not technically against the rules. It's just staggeringly dirty politics attempting to disenfranchise Democratic voters because they think they're going to lose the two contests.

"Here's something else I don't understand (I know, I'm dense). How does it matter? Can Clinton take the lead in pledged delegates in the remaining primaries? None of the analysis I've seen shows that she can. Re-votes in Florida and Michigan would have netted Obama more, not less, delegates, right?"

Again, refer to the DNC rules. If a lead in "pledged delegates" was all that was required to win the nomination, that's how the rules would be drawn up.

Obama's support among upscale caucus-goers has close to ensured he's going to have a lead in "pledged delegates" in June. But the superdelegates were put in place in the early 80's specifically to protect the Democratic electorate from a candidate trying to game the system the way Jimmy Carter did in 1976 and Obama is trying to do this year.

If Clinton ends up winning the final three months of the race, as well as winning the overwhelming majority of popular votes among Democrats, she's going to be the nominee.

Obama recognizes this, which is why he's cynically trying to reduce the number of contests between now and the end of June, even at the cost of telling the Democrats of MI and FL to go fuck themselves and likely pissing away the general election in the process.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 8:03 PM

Obama's support among upscale caucus-goers has close to ensured he's going to have a lead in "pledged delegates" in June. But the superdelegates were put in place in the early 80's specifically to protect the Democratic electorate from a candidate trying to game the system the way Jimmy Carter did in 1976 and Obama is trying to do this year.
- Petey today

The caucus rules serve my interests in manifold ways.

- They advantage activist Dems over non-activist Dems.
- They advantage high-information Dems over low-information Dems.
- They advantage progressive Dems over conservative Dems.
- They eliminate the ability of a niche candidate to win with a low percentage in a crowded field.
- They produce a winner who has some rural strength, which is incredibly important for the Dem nominee and the Party as a whole.
- They advantage consensus candidates over niche candidates due to the second choice factor.
- They disadvantage negative ad campaigns over governing messages.

I could go on. The caucus rules are really a fucking brilliant piece of engineering.

I want a strong Democratic Party and a progressive Democratic Party, and so I see the caucus rules as my best friend.

I wouldn't want to see the whole nomination race run like Iowa, but for the first contest, it's pretty close to optimal.

Petey, January 2

Posted by Antid Oto | March 21, 2008 8:07 PM

Antid Oto,

I really don't see anything inconsistent between what I was saying then and what I'm saying now.

I was on the side of playing by the DNC rules then, and I'm on the side of playing by the DNC rules now.

I think everyone back then was fully assuming that MI would have a re-vote if the race was close enough to require one. That was certainly the DNC position back then. I don't think anyone was anticipating that one campaign would try to prevent a re-vote and intentionally disenfranchise Democratic voters.

Seriously, could you have guessed that Barack Obama was going to turn into Katherine Harris? If so, you've got a better crystal ball than me.

But, of course, given Obama's difficulty in winning Democratic voters so far, I guess it makes sense why he'd be willing to screw them over. Obama has already made clear with his stands on policy that his allegiance is to Obama, not Democratic voters. So why not take it to the next level and just tell Democratic voters to shut up?

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 8:15 PM

Antid:

So, in other words, the caucus process distorts the Democratic electorate in a number of ways. Most of the country (or party) isn't made up of activists, liberals, or high-information voters. You forgot to mention more affluent, but that's a distortion too.

A left-wing Democratic party isn't going to be the majority party.

Posted by Tim K | March 21, 2008 8:18 PM

The Obama campaign knows they're going to lose pretty much every contest between now and June,

Well, there's a verifiable prediction if I ever saw one. If this were to actually happen, I might actually have some sympathy for Clinton supporters. But let me go out on a limb to say I doubt it will.

I think that with Obama's great response to the Reverend Wright potential bomb, people are going to start coming around to him. Sure, the usual racist and hardcore Republican partisans will spin it negatively, as well as Hillary supporters, but I think the general sense of people has been to be overwhelmingly impressed with his delicate and inspiring handling of such a tough issue. There are definitely people out there who were neutral or only moderately pro-Obama who have become substantial fans due to his speech.

Posted by mpowell | March 21, 2008 8:18 PM

There's something odd about the fact that Petey starts showing up again right about when the HRC "bloggers" went on "strike". Of course, Petey was kicked of dkos years and years ago. I remember tangling with him back then. So it's not even like he's allowed to "strike" there. I'm just wishing he'd "strike" everywhere else, I'm saying.

My opinion is that it's not the end of the world if the supers don't have their "caucus" until June when all the voting's done. It will still go for Obama, and HRC supporters will just have less to complain about in terms of "unfairness"--everyone will feel like they had their say (except MI and FL, but that was what happened), and then Obama has 2 months to get things back together before the convention. Considering everyone's short attention span, March or June's not going to make that much of a difference and may even help reconcile some Hillary supporters to the outcome.

Beyond June is just plain perverse, and any hesitating superdelegates should be whipped mercilessly until they declare themselves at that point. Howard Dean can start the whipping personally.

As for Petey, I wonder how long it will be from when Obama is the nominee to when we see him talking up John McCain?

Posted by JMS | March 21, 2008 8:21 PM

Tim K -- Antid Oto is quoting Petey.

Posted by Dave | March 21, 2008 8:21 PM

haha really? Well then I'll direct it at him, and Obama supporters.

Posted by Tim K | March 21, 2008 8:26 PM

"I wouldn't want to see the whole nomination race run like Iowa, but for the first contest, it's pretty close to optimal."

If you're going to take me out of context, you really should have excised that bit.

I was pretty consistent throughout 2007 in supporting a caucus/primary mix in the early states only for the precise reasons you've clipped.

I think Obama's caucus win in Iowa and Clinton's caucus win in Nevada were perfectly legitimate, and in many senses, good process.

But as I repeatedly noted pre-Iowa, it's not how later contests should be run. Obama's advantage in pledged delegates comes exclusively from the fact that his upscale demographics are easier to turn out in caucuses.

Early state caucuses serve a purpose in letting activists take a central role in the winnowing the field before the whole country is fully introduced to the candidates. Multiple later state caucuses, once the electorate has gotten to know the viable two or three remaining candidates, serves only to advantage upscale Dems over downscale Dems.

Posted by Petey | March 21, 2008 8:27 PM