In Play

Harold Ickes says of states Obama's won:

“Most of those states haven’t voted Democratic in a presidential since the Johnson landslide over Goldwater in 1964, and we don’t see that changing,” said Harold Ickes, a senior adviser to Mrs. Clinton. “They’re great states, but Idaho, Nebraska and the Carolinas are not going to be in the Democratic column in November. He’s winning the Democratic process, but that is virtually irrelevant to the general election.”

The converse of this, however, is that Clinton's delegate count is heavily dependent on states like California, New York, and Massachusetts that aren't in play either. Meanwhile, though they've traditionally gone Republican in presidential elections, I don't think it's beyond imagining that Barack Obama could put some of these north plains states -- the Dakotas, Montana, maybe even Kansas or Nebraska -- into play. There are plenty of Democratic senators from this part of the country many of whom are pretty orthodox liberals. Similarly, border states like Virginia and Missouri that Obama's carried in the primaries aren't out of reach in the general election any more than Colorado is and there's at least some reason to think Clinton would put some marginal blue states (Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota) in play for McCain.

Now what's true is that Ohio was the decisive state in 2004 and Clinton would probably be the stronger candidate for Ohio. There's not, however, much more to the Clinton argument than that. The whole thing about Clinton winning the states that matter or the "big states" just amounts to Ohio. Which is fine as far as it goes, and certainly leads me to believe that if Clinton does wrest the nomination away from Obama she'll probably win on a Clinton-Strickland ticket. I just think Obama would probably win too (especially if Clinton can somehow be persuaded to drop out after Pennsylvania thus letting Obama turn his cash and rhetoric against McCain), except with a larger number of states and more Democratic Senators.

Comments

I think it's clear Clinton would be the stronger candidate for Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. I think Obama would be the better candidate everywhere else and the better President. Easier to know who to support.

Posted by right | March 12, 2008 5:45 PM

"Now what's true is that Ohio was the decisive state in 2004 and Clinton would probably be the stronger candidate for Ohio. There's not, however, much more to the Clinton argument than that."

If you're willing to ignore PA, MI, and FL, as well as OH, sure. What you're saying makes perfect sense.

Posted by Petey | March 12, 2008 5:46 PM

I think you are over-emphasizing the swingedness of states like Wisconsin. Governor Doyle recently defeated a House Republican who was a big time Bush supporter. Think McCain light. And Doyle wasn't particularly loved in Wisconsin. I think Wisconsin is solidly blue this time around, and it wouldn't surprise me if Minnesota ends up that way too.

Posted by freddiemac | March 12, 2008 5:47 PM

He’s winning the Democratic process, but that is virtually irrelevant to the general election.”

1. How great is He’s winning the Democratic process? Bet Wolfson's going to want that one back at some point.

2. Is virtually irrelevant to the general election meant as an argument against primaries, entirely? Cripes, if we're back to smoke-filled rooms as best, it would be nice if someone could say so.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 12, 2008 5:48 PM

Ickes appears to be saying that the entire nominating process is a waste of time. All the Dems in the red states have no business intruding on the process of nominating a candidate. Their views don't count, because the demands of the electoral college trump democracy.

Posted by bloix | March 12, 2008 5:50 PM

It is incoherent to argue that how Barrack does against Hillary in a primary in any given state has any bearing on how he will do in November against McCain. Apples vs. oranges and all that.

The HRC campaign tried to make her trip with Chelsea, Sinbad and Sheryl Crow sound like the Yalta conference or the Camp David Accords, only with extra danger.

Don't expect deep thoughts in the service of their spin.

Posted by Ba'al | March 12, 2008 5:51 PM

If you're willing to ignore PA, MI, and FL, as well as OH, sure.

Didn't "undeclared" pants HRC in MI?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 12, 2008 5:52 PM

Yeah, as Petey said you have to include Pennsylvania and Florida in addition to Ohio, although re-polls have shown Obama up in Michigan, so I wouldn't toss that in.

But the thing is, maybe I'm naive, but swing states really only come into play in a 51-49 election, swing state strategy really only matters to Hillary, who already has 50% negative approval ratings across the country. Obama has a better shot at a 55-45 situation where he could lose Ohio and Pennsylvania but pick up the mountain west, the midwest, and Virgina.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 12, 2008 5:52 PM

If you're willing to ignore PA, MI, and FL...

Could you at least wait until PA votes? And while I agree that Clinton is probably the stronger of the two in MI and FL, it's tough to say by how much what with the messed up nature of the two states' primaries.

Posted by daveNYC | March 12, 2008 5:52 PM

If you're willing to ignore PA, MI, and FL, as well as OH, sure.

It's entirely unclear that Clinton could beat Obama in Michigan.

Posted by right | March 12, 2008 5:52 PM

It is incoherent to argue that how Barrack does against Hillary in a primary in any given state has any bearing on how he will do in November against McCain. Apples vs. oranges and all that.

The HRC campaign tried to make her trip with Chelsea, Sinbad and Sheryl Crow sound like the Yalta conference or the Camp David Accords, only with extra danger.

Don't expect deep thoughts in the service of their spin.

Posted by Ba'al | March 12, 2008 5:53 PM

Does anyone have a case that Clinton would *not* have a better chance of taking FL, OH, and PA in November?

Posted by Anderson | March 12, 2008 5:54 PM

You are way to kind to Clinton. If she had managed a wire to wire victory that avoided destroying the Democratic party, she might - might - have beaten McCain. As it is, if she somehow gets the nomination, the only question is whether she loses all 50 states, or only 48. Well, no, the other question is whether her noxious effect on the down ticket races merely means no gains but no losses for the Dems, or whether she can manage to cause the Republicans to win back the House and Senate.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 5:54 PM

Seriously, though, Tim is correct, this latest statement was a major (or minor, at least) mistake; the last couple of days have shown increasing desperation on the part of the Clinton campaign. Like the Soviet Union, the whole nasty mess may fall apart much sooner than we thought.

Posted by LarryM | March 12, 2008 5:58 PM

Ickes' statement is demonstrably false. Obama has won 27 states, including D.C. Eleven (WA, ME, VT, CT, MD, VA, DC, IL, WI, MN, HI) went Democratic in 2004. A twelfth (IA) went Democratic in 2000. Two more (MO and LA) went Democratic in 1996. That makes 14, or "most" of 27, and you only have to go back to 1996, not 1964. What the heck? Let's keep going: two more (CO and GA) went Democratic in 1992 (so did MT, which Obama will probably win).

What are the chances the press will debunk this demonstrably false assertion by Ickes?

When is someone in the press going to point out that Obama has won NEARLY TWICE AS MANY 2004 blue states as Clinton (11 to 6)?

Posted by Brian | March 12, 2008 5:58 PM

petey,
jesse jackson won michigan. they have no jobs. they'd vote for anybody instead of a republican. unless kwame kilpatrick has poisoned the well too much.

Posted by jay | March 12, 2008 5:58 PM

Part of the problem could be the use of the caucus rather than primaries, so that the vote in some states is not a clear indicator. I hope that either candidate could win, but McCain will not be beaten all that easily.

Will voters go along with Obama on withdrawing from Iraq? The polls say yes, but I sometimes wonder.

Posted by Jennifer | March 12, 2008 5:59 PM

They’re great states, but Idaho, Nebraska and the Carolinas are not going to be in the Democratic column in November.

He forgot to add "if Hillary is the nominee."

Posted by Seitz | March 12, 2008 5:59 PM

First, Missouri and Virginia certainly are more "out of reach" than Colorado for Obama -- the former two would be toss-ups (I suspect Obama would be the slight favorite in Virginia, and the slight underdog in Missouri), but he would be the strong favorite in Colorado. I believe he's up by almost 10 points in the SUSA polls, which isn't hard to believe -- Kerry really didn't even campaign here, and he only lost by 5. Lots of young, well-educated white people in the Front Range, and that counts for 80% of the state's population.

Second, Petey wrote: "If you're willing to ignore PA, MI, and FL, as well as OH, sure. What you're saying makes perfect sense."

This is horseshit. Clinton runs better in OH and PA, to be sure, but that's about it. No Democrat is winning Florida -- the state has been trending red for years, and it has a very popular governor who is a huge McCain supporter. And Obama would probably be a stronger candidate than Clinton, both in a primary and the general election. Michigan is basically Wisconsin with black people.

Posted by Joe | March 12, 2008 6:00 PM

Now what's true is that Ohio was the decisive state in 2004 and Clinton would probably be the stronger candidate for Ohio. There's not, however, much more to the Clinton argument than that.

But it underscores the point that no one is better at refighting yesterday than a Clinton.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 6:00 PM

When somebody says that a state is great, what do they mean?

Posted by Ba'al | March 12, 2008 6:02 PM

and there's at least some reason to think Clinton would put some marginal blue states (Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota) in play for McCain.

McCain pretty much single-handedly killed the Boeing tanker deal and flew into town on a chartered Airbus during the caucus.

He's not going to win WA.

Posted by BFR | March 12, 2008 6:02 PM

It seems rather fruitless to engage in this analysis. As has been said, it's incredibly difficult to extrapolate their performance head to head into potential performance in the general election. I just saw that 24% of Clinton's votes in MS were from Republicans. Does that mean they intend to vote for her in the general? MS might be in play then. Does it mean they were strategic voting? Does it mean they lied to the exit pollster? Who knows?

More fundamentally, if you start parsing the value of particular votes based on which states they come from there's no logical end-point. So we'll just ignore the votes from states that are either un-winnable or un-losable? Why bother having a primary at all? Let's just pick the states we think are "swing states," run some polls there and then nominate whomever is ahead.

Posted by DCMike | March 12, 2008 6:03 PM

This the problem with winning so many more states than your opponent. It turns out that even if you have won more "blue states", it also can be technically true that most of the states you have won are "red states".

Anderson,

Not Florida, but OH and PA perhaps. Obama will likely be stronger in OH and PA among swing voters in suburban areas. Clinton is currently stronger among core Democrats, particularly in Appalachia (Southeast Ohio, and most of PA outside of Philly and Pittsburgh). If Clinton helps Obama campaign among core Democrats in those states, I think he ends up stronger overall (obviously Obama would try to help her among swing voters in the suburbs, but I think there is only so much he can do for Clinton among those people).

Posted by DTM | March 12, 2008 6:06 PM

Does the Clinton-Strickland victory model depend on Florida going Dem? Cause I don't think that's going to happen.

Posted by Jim | March 12, 2008 6:07 PM

Obama has a better shot in PA, FL, and OH because he poses a clearer contrast with McCain. Clinton is McCain-lite on the war and all for sabre-rattling with Iran.

Clinton's resort to identity politics could also hurt her where she has antagonized a lot of voters by her campaign tactics, especially African-Ameicans who might stay home and demcorats making a lot of money who might be tempted to go for McCain for his alleged CFR bona fides and unearned "maverick" rep. Warrants mention that in a general, women make up 51% and not 60% of the electorate. Live by the demographics, die by the demographics.

In contrast, it's about past versus the future with Obama -- and the broken system in washington has not served the people of these states well. And while old people have a lot in common with McCain, they will not go for his privatization dreams for social security nor be impressed with his stunning ignorance of domestic policy. Obama will also benefit from the registration advantages -- as would Clinton to a lesser extent -- it's real that Dem turnout is massively higher than Republican. Polling based on last election's turnout models is overestimating McCain.

Not that it matters, since Clinton already is net down in delegates in March despite her alleged "momentum-changer." While she won Ohio, it was only 10 points -- much less than she needed to make up for some stunning blowouts in Wisco and Virginia.

Posted by David B. | March 12, 2008 6:08 PM

>>If you're willing to ignore PA, MI, and FL, as well as OH, sure

You really are a hack, Petey. I loved Edwards, I think these 2 are much of a muchness - but for fxxx sake, the rules were that MI/FL weren't going to count because they moved their primaries forward, The DNC said so, Clinton and Obama went along. Because of a technicality Clinton's name was the only one that appeared and she won both, and you say that as if she won a fair fight?

For fuck's sake have some dignity

Posted by Amaretti Biscuits | March 12, 2008 6:10 PM

What is clear to me and friends who all voted for Obama is the incredible meanness of Obama supporters is going to work against Obama. The attacks on Clinton by Obama supporters are like extreme Republican attacks on Democrats. This is a destructive strategy.

Posted by Jennifer | March 12, 2008 6:10 PM

What is clear to me and friends who all voted for Obama is the incredible meanness of Obama supporters is going to work against Obama.

polls have shown consistently (especially recently) this working far more against clinton than obama.

Posted by john b. | March 12, 2008 6:15 PM

Like I said, and as described above, Ickes' statement is demonstrably false. I have asked the New York Times to run a correction.

Interestingly, in the chart accompanying the NYT article that quoted Ickes, Michigan was included as a Clinton win. I do not understand how anyone can coherently argue that the outcome of the Michigan primary, in which Obama was not on the ballot, means anything at all.

Posted by Brian | March 12, 2008 6:17 PM

especially African-Ameicans who might stay home

No might about it. The only question is for how many years. You can't steal the nomination away from black folks, who have been the most loyal Democratic constituency EVER and expect them to suck it up. They've been voting for white Democratic candidates for 40 years. The black guy played by the rules and won the most pledged delegates. If you change the rules to give it to the white candidate, you can kiss the next couple elections goodbye.

I'm sorry if this is upsetting to white folks of a certain age and background. All I can ask is that you try to imagine the shoe on the other foot. Think of how outraged you'd be if Obama came in second place and they awarded him the nomination. Think of how outraged you are right now that you got beat fair and square. Got that feeling in your mind? Great, now take away the fair and square part. Now yer getting there.

You've already lost. How much worse do you want it to be?

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 6:18 PM

Petey's been dodging the electoral map / downticket question for a couple of weeks now. Should Clinton seize the nom, the best-looking Senate election calendar in years isn't likely to deliver the goods, and that healthcare plan is dead in the water.

I do not want the Democratic campaign camped out in Ohio and Florida again. No fucking thanks. I've had enough of dildos in Dayton saying on national television that they just can't decide on the issues, and being treated as if they are Jesus come back to earth.

Obama widens the map. He puts new states in play. He has the endorsements of Congresscritters from those states for a reason. His campaign will force the GOP to spend money in states that they've previously left to their own devices, and with a potential fundraising advantage, that matters.

Clinton's saying 'Nominate me because I can get 120,000 votes more than John Kerry in Ohio', and that's pathetic.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 12, 2008 6:18 PM

None of it matters. If Hillary gets the nod, the African-American vote takes a November vacation and McCain wins it. End of story.

Posted by dizzyg | March 12, 2008 6:26 PM

You really are a hack, Petey...... For fuck's sake have some dignity

There is nothing on earth more important than mandates, including Petey's assumed dignity.

Posted by Great White Snark | March 12, 2008 6:26 PM

Like I said before, this is just a new spin on the "these states don't count" meme for which they've been so widely (and deservedly) ridiculed. Various posters whine every time a snark is made about that argument, but as long as the Clinton campaign keeps advancing this seriously, it deserves to be hammered for it. It's offensive and self-destructive to the party which SHOULD be hoping for as strong a victory as possible.

Setting that aside, though, it's still gross how quickly they're willing to dismiss all these votes and delegates. I don't care if Sen. Clinton wins Ohio except to the extent that she acrues additional delegates through that victory. Ohio isn't a magical bullet primary. We don't retroactively decide which states are singly determinative of the outcome and that all the other millions of votes and hundreds of delegates are irrelevant to the process.

And I don't care if North Dakota will go Democratic in the presidential race. I also don't care if Tennessee will or if Mississippi or Oklahoma will. As long as these people are electing Democrats to Congress, as long as they're contributing money to our party, as long as they're willing to engage in activism for progressive causes, and as long as they've been welcomed to participate in our process, they've earned their voice in this process -- a process determined by rules everyone agreed to beforehand.

Posted by jbryan | March 12, 2008 6:29 PM

Funny that he refers to "the Carolinas" as an example even though only one Carolina has had a primary.

Posted by Joseph Hovsep | March 12, 2008 6:34 PM

Funny that he refers to "the Carolinas" as an example even though only one Carolina has had a primary.

They've already written the other one off. Contrast that with Obama who will campaign in Pennsylvania until primary day.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 6:38 PM

This is one thing that pissed me off about the Krugman column from last Friday (I think -- or was it last Monday?). He cherry-picks the state of Ohio -- one of the states Clinton happens to have won handily -- and then extrapolates from the Ohio exit polls to show Clinton beating Obama in all sorts of categories (the economy, health care, etc), and drawing dead even with him on foreign policy. Right -- if he had looked at exit polls in Kansas, maybe he would have found that voters actually like Obama's health care plan more than Clinton's.

Not only was the column embarassing in the flimsiness of its arguments, but near the end it effectively endorses the strategy that has screwed Democrats so badly in 2002 and 2004 -- "talk a whole lot about domestic policy and hope that foreign policy isn't all that big a deal in the election." Paul Krugman himself used to recognize that this was a failed strategy, when he called upon John Kerry to vigorously dispute Bush's foreign policy and not fall into the trap of trying to avoid the battleground of foreign policy while hoping that better domestic policy would appeal to voters. Now, though, he's advocating the stupid "sweep foreign policy under the rug" strategy once again.

Posted by Julian Elson | March 12, 2008 6:44 PM

The way Sen. Clinton has waged this primary campaign is a frightening indicator to me of how she'll wage the general election: narrowly focus on a few key demographics in a couple of specific big swing states and hope all the pieces fall into place as she cedes foreign policy ("I can be tough too") and replays the economy.

Democrats can absolutely win in Virginia and Colorado this year -- two states that have been won narrowly on the presidential level and continue to trend bluer and bluer (electing Dem governors, senators, representatives, and state legislatures). Webb winning in 2006, Warner winning in a walk in 2008, Kaine's success, the Dems' knocking off Devolites-Davis and frightening her husband into retirement -- all of this should be scaring the heck out of Republicans re: Virginia. How is this not an electoral goldmine for us? Same with Colorado. I think we can win Montana, too, and Iowa. All of these states have seen huge Democratic resurgence in recent years as voters are just disgusted with the state of the Republican party.

North Carolina and North Dakota? May be tough, but why not give it a shot? The point is, it's insane for us to be preemptively conceding huge swaths of the battlefield. We've got the opportunity to acquire huge financial resources for this particular fight and put them to good ends all across the country. We should fight for each state, make McCain fight for them, and try to win as banner a year as we can (while dragging in as many senators and representatives in what's looking to be even more of a blowout than 2006 was).

Posted by jbryan | March 12, 2008 6:48 PM

Kaine's success

Kaine would be a good VP pick, even though he's pissed me off a couple times already. He is Catholic and my recent Atlantic Monthly informs me that Catholics are historically the most reliable swing group or somesuch.

With Johnny Mac giving Catholics the big fat middle finger, perhaps they could be enticed over.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 7:00 PM

There are really two possibilities here if Barack Obama succeeds in beginning the nominee.

Either all you Obama supporters are correct and this election is an opportunity to re-draw the map, many more states will be in-play this time with Obama, Obama will beat McCain decisively with independents, and millions of new voters (especially African Americans and young voters) will cast ballots. If that's true then the election won't come down to states like Ohio or Pennsylvania, and this will be a 40 state landslide for Obama with 400+ electoral votes. That's one possibility and I will admit it is possible.

The other possibility is that you are all wrong and the election is lost.

It's that simple.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 7:05 PM

Tim K: Can you repeat your claim that Obama will win with either 40 states, or will lose, with no possibility of something in the middle? I'm sort of astounded that anyone could manage that with a straight face, so I'd like to watch your technique.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | March 12, 2008 7:10 PM

He’s winning the Democratic process

Hey, I know! Let's pick the candidate with the 45% unfavorable rating vs. the other's 20%. Or even better! Let's pick the candidate who won Southern Ohio because everyone knows the rest of the country is just like it. And next time, let's just have primaries in nine states!

Posted by asl | March 12, 2008 7:12 PM

Michael B Sullivan:

I don't think Obama will win a close race. If it's a close race that means the assumptions many of you have made concerning Obama's extraordinary cross-over appeal proved unfounded, and the dismissal that Clinton supporters would flock to support Obama as the nominee was either wrong or exaggeration. If Obama cannot bring states like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado and the plains states into play then the election will once again come down to a Kerry+ strategy of winning Florida, Ohio while holding Michigan and Pennsylvania. If it comes down to that I don't have a lot of confidence in Obama be able to do that. That's why - with a straight face - I say it will the most likely scenarios are a decisive Obama victory or a defeat, but not a close victory.

For Clinton I agree with many of you that there is virtually no possibility of a landslide victory. Having said that I think the overwhelming likelihood is that she carries the Kerry states and adds Ohio, Florida, Arkansas and New Mexico.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 7:25 PM

Petey, no one is ignoring MI, PA or FL. But Michigan and Pennsylvania will be won by the Democrat, unless HRC is effective in destroying Obama in the minds of Democratic voters as seems to be her aim, and Florida will go to the Republicans either way.

Obama will win Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. HRC may lose any of the above and would probably lose 2 of the 3. Obama could win Virginia and/or Colorado, Clinton will not. Obama is a sure thing in Washington and Oregon, Clinton is not.

The electoral map plays in his favor, period.

Posted by TH | March 12, 2008 7:28 PM

Tim K--your scenario for Clinton being the best choice for another close general election overlooks the reality that she'd have to basically steal the nomination in the first place. How would she bring all those outraged Obama voters back into the tent? How would she repair the damage done to the party?

Posted by Claudius | March 12, 2008 7:35 PM

She'd win on a Clinton/Strickland ticket?

Without the black vote? I doubt it and she'll never get that back.

Posted by Jay | March 12, 2008 7:37 PM

For Clinton I agree with many of you that there is virtually no possibility of a landslide victory. Having said that I think the overwhelming likelihood is that she carries the Kerry states and adds Ohio, Florida, Arkansas and New Mexico.

Wow.. she wins all those states without African-Americans? Are you using Underwear Gnome logic?

1. Steal nomination from black guy and piss off most loyal Democratic bloc of voters

2. ???

3. Win all states Kerry won plus Ohio, Florida, Arkansas and New Mexico.

And while you're pulling stuff out of yer ass, how about giving us your popular vote methodology and how it's reprensents victory for HRC even though it doesn't include four or more states/contests and unfairly diminishes states with caucuses.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 7:40 PM

Claudius:

To be totally frank with you I don't know the answer to that question. But I'll also tell you that one would have to be naive at this point not to expect Barack Obama to have similar problems with Clinton supporters, particularly if she keeps winning states. And if Obama supporters continue with this level of vitrole, the likes of which I have never seen from a front-running campaign. It's really startling bitter, defensive and ungracious.

Jay:

Any Democrat is going to get 90% of the black vote after 8 years of George Bush. We're only talking about marginal turnout problems and 90% as opposed to 95%. The idea that most black Democrats would not vote or vote Republican is just absurd.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 7:42 PM

For Clinton I agree with many of you that there is virtually no possibility of a landslide victory. Having said that I think the overwhelming likelihood is that she carries the Kerry states and adds Ohio, Florida, Arkansas and New Mexico.

As a native, I honestly don't think Florida is in play. It's been trending Republican for years, and is perfectly suited for McCain.

McCain also isn't going to lose New Mexico, unless Hillary chooses Bill Richardson as her running mate (not impossible, I suppose).

So even if Hillary flips Ohio and Arkansas, she has to hang onto all the other Kerry states, including New Hampshire (which adores McCain), Wisconsin (where she pulled 41% in the primary), and Minnesota (32% in the caucus). Without at least two of those three she doesn't win.

Looking more strategically, Obama puts McCain on the defensive. The election will be fought in Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, and Iowa, areas of upside for the Democrats. A Clinton nomination allows McCain to focus on flipping Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. (Ohio will be hotly contested in either scenario, Florida not so much I think).

Posted by right | March 12, 2008 7:46 PM

I just read the most sarcastic and unprofessional memo from the Obama campaign.

If there weren't so much at stake in this election I would really relish Obama losing in November.

This has to be one of the most arrogant and self-satisfied campaign and candidates on record.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 7:46 PM

It's really startling bitter, defensive and ungracious.

It SHOULD sound that way. You have all but admitted the only way you can win this thing is to change the rules and award the nomination to the second place finsisher.

Christ on crutches, dude. Get a conscience.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 7:47 PM

Tim K in italics.

I don't think Obama will win a close race. If it's a close race that means the assumptions many of you have made concerning Obama's extraordinary cross-over appeal proved unfounded, and the dismissal that Clinton supporters would flock to support Obama as the nominee was either wrong or exaggeration.

Or, you know, maybe it'll just be that Obama's cross-over appeal will be good but not "extraordinary."

That's why - with a straight face - I say it will the most likely scenarios are a decisive Obama victory or a defeat, but not a close victory.

No, actually, that's not what you said. You said that the only possibility was either an incredible blow-out victory or a defeat.

See how that's different from "the most likely scenarios are a decisive victory or a defeat"?

But, in any case, that's silly. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Obama puts some additional states in play but (gasp!) doesn't win every state that he puts in play, and ends up with a narrow victory or a normal victory instead of a huge blowout. There are no mental gymnastics involved: it just involves tuning up or down Obama's appeal to new voters, independents, and Republicans, or his various negative variables.

For the record, I think that Obama will have a relatively easy time beating McCain, and I think that Clinton would also have a relatively easy time beating McCain providing that she could get the nomination without half the Democrats feeling like she trampled on their democratic rights.

(And, yes, Obama would also have difficulty getting the nomination if half the Democrats felt like he trampled on their democratic rights. But, you know, that's not what's happening. What's the great injustice that Obama is doing to Clinton's supporters? As far as I can tell, the strongest argument you've got that Clinton supporters will feel angry and stay home in November is, "I feel really bad about how mean Obama supporters were in Matthew Yglesias' comments section." Which isn't exactly an issue that I think has a lot of national sway.)

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | March 12, 2008 7:51 PM

My bad in the above post: I should have written, "Obama would also have difficulty winning the general election if half the Democrats felt like he trampled on their democratic rights."

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | March 12, 2008 7:53 PM

When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."

When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.

When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.

When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.

And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.

But the facts are clear.

~~~~~~~~~
(this is from the Obama mailing list)

Posted by Erik | March 12, 2008 7:54 PM

Tim, about your firm belief that Obama can't win a close race, I just don't get it. What if your theory is, like, half right, and everyone elses theory is half right as well.

In other words, you're correct that Obama is a liability in OH, FL, MI, and PA. However, he's not such a liability that he actually manages to lose MI and PA, although they're closer than they should be.

And he expands the map a little bit and manages to bring a few new voters, but not to the extent that Obama supporters hope. This leads to Obama victories in VA and either CO or IA, giving him a narrow win along with the Kerry States.

In that scenario--Kerry+CO/IA+VA--he wins a close race. What is so implausible about that?

Posted by djw | March 12, 2008 8:04 PM

How would she bring all those outraged Obama voters back into the tent? How would she repair the damage done to the party?

I don't think you should assume everyone cares as much as you do. Seriously. The general population has pretty much ignored elite opinion thus far.

No doubt there will be a poll at some point. My guess is that black voters will come out in good numbers, but not huge numbers. White liberals are more likely to stay home (or vote for Nader)--but they are by far the least essential element of the Democrat coalition.

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 8:05 PM

Let me figure this out Tim K:

If Clinton steals the nomination from Obama, all the Obama supporters will just flock to Clinton because "the idea they would stay home after 8 years of Bush is absurd."

If Obama wins the nomination, with more states, more delegates, and more of the voters, all the Clinton supporters will stay home because of the "level of vitriol from Obama supporters in blog comment sections."

Nobody yet has invented drugs powerful enough for me to be able to understand an argument that incredibly stupid.

Posted by cd6 | March 12, 2008 8:06 PM

Cross posted with Sullivan there.

Posted by djw | March 12, 2008 8:12 PM

It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Obama puts some additional states in play but (gasp!) doesn't win every state that he puts in play, and ends up with a narrow victory or a normal victory instead of a huge blowout.

The point, of course, is to compete -- and not to re-enact 2004 and its All Ohio, All The Fucking Time strategy.

If now's not the time to be bold and take the expansion of the map in 2006 into a presidential campaign, I don't know when that time is. This year's Senate prospects are bound to states where Obama is competitive (the House less so, but that's less crucial) and getting past the Liebermajority is almost as big a priority as the White House. There will not be as good a two-year window for Dems to make use of an increased Senate majority for many years to come. Time to change the map.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 12, 2008 8:13 PM

I don't think you should assume everyone cares as much as you do. Seriously. The general population has pretty much ignored elite opinion thus far.

No doubt there will be a poll at some point. My guess is that black voters will come out in good numbers, but not huge numbers. White liberals are more likely to stay home (or vote for Nader)--but they are by far the least essential element of the Democrat coalition.

Cal, KO just had a survey up about what if the leader in pledged delegates doesn't get the nomination. 38% - the largest bloc - said the nominee wouldn't be legitimate.

So as I continue to hammer home, you've already lost, all you can do is make it worse at this point. But I can't understand why you'd care, you've already said you'd vote for McCain in the general.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 8:16 PM

NC is in play with Obama heading the ticket.

Tim K, let the rest of us in on it. What memo? What was said? Was it out of thin air, or responding to Clinton spin? They get more of a pass if it's the latter, don't you think?

Posted by drinkof | March 12, 2008 8:16 PM

People should remember that Cal is a registered Republican who is fairly indifferent to Clinton or McCain being elected.

Posted by Barbar | March 12, 2008 8:23 PM

Matt think the Dems can win in the Dakotas, Kansas, and Nebraska? Is he high? What the hell, maybe the voters in those states will bite, because after all "The power of Obama compels you!" The brain-rotting effect of Obamania on liberal pundits continues unabated.

Posted by scottreads | March 12, 2008 8:25 PM

Cal, KO just had a survey up about what if the leader in pledged delegates doesn't get the nomination. 38% - the largest bloc - said the nominee wouldn't be legitimate.

Link? I don't know what poll you're talking about. If you're talking about a survey of user responses, that's useless.

Newsweek Poll

Should neither Clinton nor Obama secure enough delegates to win the nomination (a scenario that looks increasingly likely), 43 percent of Democrats said they would prefer that the candidate trailing in the delegate count concede the nomination, while 42 percent think superdelegates should choose the nominee. Should the ball end up in the superdelegates' court, most respondents (42 percent) think they should choose the best-qualified nominee in their judgment, while 38 percent believe they should choose the person with the popular vote lead.

As I said, that number was closer to 70% before Texas, which is not a good sign for Obama, if it dropped that fast.

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 8:27 PM

Yer right, Cal. All this winning is really sinking Obama's chances. I said I saw the poll on Keith Olbermann's show. How can I provide a link to a television show segment that just aired five minutes ago? When I see it online, I'll post it so you can figure out how to shoot it down. After all, you know better what the Democrats will do if the nomination is stolen, even though you're voting for McCain in November.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 8:34 PM

People should remember that Cal is a registered Republican who is fairly indifferent to Clinton or McCain being elected.

Indeed they should. Or perhaps learn it for the first time. They don't have taglines here, or I'd put together a list to remind everyone of what I'm not.

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 8:36 PM

If it's a close race that means the assumptions many of you have made concerning Obama's extraordinary cross-over appeal proved unfounded, and the dismissal that Clinton supporters would flock to support Obama as the nominee was either wrong or exaggeration.

So you're saying if Obama doesn't have an insurmountable lead against McCain everywhere in the fall, you're going to whine and whine about Hillary being hypothetically better. How pleasant for everyone concerned.

Posted by blahblah | March 12, 2008 8:41 PM

I said I saw the poll on Keith Olbermann's show.

You didn't, actually. I didn't get the KO reference. So I was just looking for a cite. You might be right; I'm not challenging you without the poll.

All this winning is really sinking Obama's chances.

I wouldn't go that far. Clearly, though, his winning "streak" over the past month didn't do him any good in Texas and Ohio and it won't help in Pennsylvania. So I would say at least that the general electorate seems unmoved by his wins as far as their feelings about him.

All that said, my only point was that Democrats seem to be changing their mind about whether or not they want the superdelegates to overrule the pledged delegates. That seems to suggest that more of them would rather Hillary be the nominee.

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 8:41 PM

Matt think the Dems can win in the Dakotas, Kansas, and Nebraska? Is he high? What the hell, maybe the voters in those states will bite, because after all "The power of Obama compels you!" The brain-rotting effect of Obamania on liberal pundits continues unabated.

Scot Treads, psychic in nc addressed your concerns 12 minutes before you voiced them.

The point, of course, is to compete -- and not to re-enact 2004 and its All Ohio, All The Fucking Time strategy. If now's not the time to be bold and take the expansion of the map in 2006 into a presidential campaign, I don't know when that time is. This year's Senate prospects are bound to states where Obama is competitive (the House less so, but that's less crucial) and getting past the Liebermajority is almost as big a priority as the White House. There will not be as good a two-year window for Dems to make use of an increased Senate majority for many years to come. Time to change the map.

One nominee on the Democratic side can't be bothered to go speak TO DEMOCRATS in about a dozen states to secure the nomination. Tell me how she's going to speak to the entire nation.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 8:45 PM

The Obama memo was fucking hilarious, and Monsters, Inc. deserved it.

Posted by Monster | March 12, 2008 8:45 PM

Matt, I think you ignore a fundamental problem for Clinton. Whether she wrestles the nomination away or not, she will not be President in 2008.

In order to get the nomination she's going to have to pull some sort of trickery that will kill any chance she has to win in November. Even worse, if through some back room deal she overturns the will of the majority of the Democratic electorate and takes the nomination from an African American, the Party won't win the WH for a generation or more. The Democratic Party, as a legitimate, viable Party, will be dead. That's the truth no matter how you slice it. The faster we accept this reality the better off we will all be.

The 2008 Dem. nomination is worth nothing in Clinton's hands.

Posted by jujuluv | March 12, 2008 8:51 PM

Michael B. Sullivan

What's the great injustice that Obama is doing to Clinton's supporters?

From the perspective of many Clinton supporters, though, Obama is doing a great injustice to Clinton by denying her a nomination which she deserves. The subtext of the Clinton campaign is "I did my homework, put in my thirty-five years, and have earned the presidency. You should vote for me because I am the most deserving candidate." Not voting for Clinton is demonstrating ingratitude for all the wonderful things she's done for our country.

Posted by Julian Elson | March 12, 2008 8:51 PM

It is conceivable that if Clinton has fewer pledged delegates going into the convention, and convinces superdelegates to vote for her, and so secures the nomination, that an insignificant number of people would understand what happened or consider it important, and so she would not suffer in the general. I don't think it's likely, but it's not a prima-facia ridiculous concept.

I don't think that you can trust any polling on this subject, 'cause it's a new concept and I think there'll be a lot of education of the public between now and the convention. But sure, it's not impossible that Obama could have the pledged delegate lead, lose the convention, and Clinton doesn't suffer much for it.

It's also not (quite) crazy to predict that the Democrats have already torn themselves apart, or are on track to, and that by the time of the convention, no matter who wins, there will be massive bad feelings on the other side and whoever wins will be doomed in the general. I think it's a pretty damn hard sell to suggest that this has already happened, but I could imagine believing that it's on-track to happen, and to predict that it will happen.

However, it is completely nuts to believe that if Obama wins the nomination with a majority of the pledged delegates and a majority of the superdelegates (but without 2025 pledged delegates), Clinton's supporters will stay home and doom his general election chances, while simultaneously believing that if Clinton wins the nomination because superdelegates overturn Obama's greater number of pledged delegates, Obama's supporters will bury the hatchet and happily support Clinton in the general.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | March 12, 2008 8:52 PM

Let's keep this reality based...Obama won Texas (close loss in the primary, good win in the caucuses = delegate win overall.

Posted by bemused | March 12, 2008 8:54 PM

You didn't, actually. I didn't get the KO reference.

I did actually. I can't be expected to know the depths of your ignorance and compensate in advance. At any rate, instead of reflexively requesting a link, you could have simply said you were unfamiliar with "KO", (which EVERYONE knows is Keith Olbermann - Gah!) and asked for clarification.

I wouldn't go that far. Clearly, though, his winning "streak" over the past month didn't do him any good in Texas and Ohio and it won't help in Pennsylvania.

Actually, you have that backwards. HRC's pull out all the stops, throw the kitchen sink, race-bating strategy netted her exactly zero delegates from her first three wins in sixteen contests. So you see, in a contest for pledged delegates, HRC got zip. Considering those contests represented 38% of the remaining delegates, netting zero actually put her further behind, effectively disqualifying her from being able to win the most pledged delegates. So now it doesn't even matter what happens in Pennsylvania.

All that said, my only point was that Democrats seem to be changing their mind about whether or not they want the superdelegates to overrule the pledged delegates. That seems to suggest that more of them would rather Hillary be the nominee.

Yes, much like Special K, you just know shit that happens to not be true.

Posted by Face The Music | March 12, 2008 8:57 PM

Too many people responded to my points for me to give a comprehensive answer, but I will try to summarize:

I don't think really think there is any chance for Barack Obama to win Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, or Texas. Now, if I'm wrong about that then this whole conversation is irrelevant and he'll win in a landslide. If I'm right about that then Obama will have to win Ohio or Florida, without losing Pennsylvania or Michigan. If he can't win either Ohio or Florida then he must win both Virginia and Colorado. There would be no margin for error. If he wastes valuable time and money competing in North Carolina and the other states I mentioned that will give McCain an advantage in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Bush made that mistake in 2000 wasting resources on California.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 8:58 PM

I don't think you should assume everyone cares as much as you do. Seriously. The general population has pretty much ignored elite opinion thus far.

They wouldn't be staying home because they listened to "elite opinion" -- they'd be staying home as a result of a direct slap in the face.

Posted by hum | March 12, 2008 8:59 PM

It's fine and dandy to talk about hypothetical states 6 months out, but honestly, we might as well be debating the position of the stars and extrapolating from that. I'd suggest a couple of demographic points that deserve more consideration:

Hillary Clinton began this primary with remarkably high negative ratings - generally around 48-49 per cent aong the population as a whole. This was before she had achieved the ill-well of numerous Democrats, in particular the young voters, African Americans, (and yes, the possible Independent cross-overs). Let's grant, generously, that these groups might constitute around 24-25% of her available votes. Suppose then that one in four of those voters turns against her (a figure which strikes me as cautious, but defensible). She loses 6% of available Democratic support - and so 3% of the national vote.

That puts her negatives at 51-52 per cent, which leaves her with quite a mountain to climb - and remember, that we took a fairly optimistic view of her chances of hanging onto those votes. Given how close matters were in some of the swing states last time, this hardly looks like a recipe for success to me. I can't see how she makes up the lost votes from Republican defecters, especially after McCain finds a good, solid conservative VP.

The second point is this: Hillary Clinton shows no major sign of outperforming her polls, with the relatively trivial exception of New Hampshire, and has lost large leads or seen them diminish consistently. If you doubt this, consider what she had in the way of an edge in most polls 6 months or even 3 months ago. In recent terms, remember how she pretty much lost Texas in real terms, and saw a big lead in Ohio whittled down to around 10 per cent, even after the NAFTA-gate incident. What was her lead in those states - generally around 20 points for a long time. What does that imply for a national race where she has, at best, a miniscule lead over McCain - generally around 1-2 per cent at best, and is often behind by the same or worse margins?

Now, Hillary Clinton's standing in the polls has pretty consistently diminished, even though Obama has not campaigned particularly hard against her in personal terms. Do we believe that Republicans will play nice and leave the scandals and corruption charges off the table? No, of course not. Will Hillary get a bump in the polls? From what? Winning an increasingly bitter primary by tactics that leave many Democrats regarding the Clintons without enthusisam - or with clear dislike? That hardly seems like a realistic vision.

Thus, I'd suggest that Clinton's claim to have been vetted is simply not true, but even if you grant the premise, it remains trivially true - and attacks work, especially when the target is already disliked and has high negatives. People won't give her the benefit of the doubt as they might have done back before 2000. Here we might remember that her negatives have been engrained for most of a decade, arguably more. How exactly do you shift people's minds after all that accumulated distrust and dislike? Isn't it more plausible, and in keepping with what we have seen that those negatives will rise - and remember that they do not have to rise much to be over 50%. What odds for a candidate in those circumstances?

Given the above analysis, which I think is based on generally accepted facts, I am not sure how anyone sees Hillary Clinton as a strong, even viable candidate for the general election. You can argue about polls in various allegedly "key" states - but the overall trend is clearly unfavourable to her, and unlikely to improve. In fact, based on the last 6 months, the trend shows every sign of worsening. That's an ominous sign for Democrats contemplating choosing Clinton over Obama.

Posted by morzer | March 12, 2008 9:00 PM

Michael B.

I don't disagree with anything in your post. Which means that if you were trying to state my position, then you missed.

The issue is quite simple: who loses more voters?

Will more white and Hispanic Democrats vote for McCain because they don't want Obama (not because of his race, but because of his inexperience or radical views or whatever) or will more blacks and liberals stay home or vote for Nader out of outrage at Clinton being given the nomination via the superdelegates?

Posted by Cal | March 12, 2008 9:05 PM

With Fallon forced out, the powerful leader of la resistance to predatory loans, my unlamented Gov. Spitzer, nailed in more ways than one, and, finally, a group of unrepentent fellas with absolutely nothing to lose, it's quaint any of you could honestly think McCain won't kick the shit out of either of these two.

(For the record, I couldn't vote because NY never sent me my absentee, but I'd probably have gone Clinton - though if I bothered to register in Hyde Park, I'd vote for Obama, and I certainly will in the general election).

Posted by Greg | March 12, 2008 9:11 PM

Morzer:

I'm not sure if I've read so little new said in so many words.

Hillary Clinton, as you pointed out, began this campaign with roughly 50% of the country having a positive impression and 50% having a negative impression. After a pretty rough 14 months where she has undergone more scrutiny than all her opponents combined, and received generally unfavorable press throughout, her ratings are exactly the same. Thus, as many of us have held consistently, her numbers are remarkably durable.

Barack Obama, on the other hand began the election season with something like 10% having a negative impression, a number that has now grown to about 40% (Rasmussen says 46%) and most of the attacks on him haven't even begun. I don't expect Obama's ratings to be as durable as Clintons have proven to be.

Posted by Tim K | March 12, 2008 9:12 PM

“They’re great states..."

As in: "you've been a great employee but we really need to let you go."

Or: "you've been a great wife but I really need to move on."

And: "you are such a great dog but I just think it's time for us to put you down."

On the other hand: maybe the Obama fellow's supporters should wonder aloud why so many working class people haven't voted for him. Maybe they shouldn't it has much if anything to do with Obama's race.

Posted by Linus | March 12, 2008 9:15 PM

Tim K, perhaps you might read the overall argument, and build a reasoned case against it? I know that I am asking you to go against all your previous habits, but make the leap. You may even find the use of logic refreshing. Try it - for the novelty, if nothing else.

Posted by morzer | March 12, 2008 9:16 PM

Obama just can't win: if he wins a blue state like Vermont or Connecticut, it apparently means nothing b/c any Democrat would win it. But if he wins a red state, that doesn't matter b/c no Democrat would win it in the general.

Here's another question: even if Ickes were right about those states having little chance to turn blue, since when are Dems in those states not allowed to have a say as to who the party's nominee is?

Posted by Paddy | March 12, 2008 9:17 PM

Will more white and Hispanic Democrats vote for McCain because they don't want Obama (not because of his race, but because of his inexperience or radical views or whatever)[...

You mean older white women. Because Obama's done perfectly fine with white men in most states -- and Venn would suggest he's done perfectly fine with white Democratic men, too.

...or will more blacks and liberals stay home or vote for Nader out of outrage at Clinton being given the nomination via the superdelegates?

Blacks, liberals, the youth, and you conveniently leave out independents -- a pretty key bloc of voters in a general election and one with which Sen. McCain is very competitive. Sen. Obama can beat McCain with independents; Sen. Clinton will have a much harder time.

Posted by jbryan | March 12, 2008 9:18 PM

Shorter T