Or Maybe We Could Count Jellybeans

I've been remiss in not linking to this thrilling article in which Evan "he's the future of the Democratic Party and he always will be" Bayh explains that superdelegates should consider ignoring Barack Obama's lead in elected delegates and the popular vote, and instead focus on the fact that Hillary Clinton would we winning if primaries were governed by the electoral college.

I believe that by the Duhem-Quine thesis there are actually an infinite number of arbitrary criteria we could devise to prove that our preferred candidate is "really" winning. For example, Obama's leads in delegates and votes are relatively narrow, but I bet that if we counted by mass his disproportionately male base of support would have a much larger edge.

Comments

higher than average snark value in this post. plus it's true! bravo

Posted by dgj | March 24, 2008 3:39 PM

I was wondering win Team Clinton was going to trot this one out. It's the only one on which they'll win. But as Marshall points out (which I didn't realize!) -- it's a back door for the "winning big states by small margins counts more than winning small states by big margins" argument.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 24, 2008 3:41 PM

Adding ... if "form holds" for the remaining primaries, with Obama taking OR, NC, SD, and MT, while Clinton takes KY, PA, WV, with IN a toss-up, then the final delegate count is 241 Obama - 253 Clinton if he wins Indiana. He would have to win Pennsylvania to take the lead in the metric and be able to tell Evan Bayh to stuff it.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 24, 2008 3:45 PM

Why limit oneself to counting by mass? In a universe where space was four-dimensional and Nixon was never assassinated, Dennis Kucinich would have already been crowned Czar of All The Russias.

Posted by James Gary | March 24, 2008 3:47 PM

Was it too much for the NYTimes to ask Bayh if he really expects Obama to lose California and New York or Hillary to win Texas?

Posted by Elyas | March 24, 2008 3:48 PM

Beat me to it, Elyas. This is the dumbest one yet.

Posted by Monster | March 24, 2008 3:54 PM

Counting Obama's support by mass would be completely arbitrary. I instead propose we count according to a census of gametes.

Posted by phil | March 24, 2008 3:54 PM

Why are so many of Team Clinton's arguments designed for stupid Americans? Because that's her base.

Posted by Jake | March 24, 2008 3:55 PM

Great line, Matt.

Posted by mcd | March 24, 2008 4:02 PM

I think the Clinton campaign just has alot of time on their hands, now that they've lost but still have to, like, campaign.

Posted by former deaniac | March 24, 2008 4:07 PM

It's funny because this is a particularly silly line of argumentation, but I am not sure alternative measurements are all that ridiculous. Since we cannot get an accurate measure of the popular vote, it seems sensible to try to find a better proxy of democratic will (not this mind you). Moreover, this is just the Clinton camp in search of an excuse for superdelegates, which is perfectly legitimate as well. For more on this: http://airingofthegrievances.blogspot.com/2008/03/rules-of-game-jm.html

Posted by Jonathan | March 24, 2008 4:08 PM

OOh! I know! How about Obama wins because his voters are younger and will be paying the social security for all the Hillary supporters soon? Or we could do Rock Paper Scissors?

Posted by Lesley | March 24, 2008 4:09 PM

Damn. I thought we were just supposed to count the popular vote (excluding all black people and the white folks that voted for Obama) this week. I guess I'm a couple days behind the HRC conventional wisdom.

Posted by ben | March 24, 2008 4:14 PM

Jonathan,

I would think the best measure of democratic will is just the pledged delegate count. After all, that was the measure announced to the electorate in advance, and to use any other measure after the fact would violate one of the basic principles of fair elections (namely, that the rules to be used in the election must be publicized in advance).

Indeed, if the rules for determining the winner had been different, and announced as such, that may have changed the behavior of the electorate, and it certainly would have changed the behavior of the candidates. So, trying to guess what would have happened in such a hypothetical election by different rules is not really democracy in any recognizable form, since real democracy requires actual voting, not hypothetical voting.

Posted by DTM | March 24, 2008 4:18 PM

If this were a general election it would be the best example of popular complaint regarding the electoral college. Generally speaking Clinton wins big states by fairly narrow margins (

Posted by Robert | March 24, 2008 4:19 PM

A disappointing reference to the underdetermination of theories by experimental data, not unlike Ambinder's somewhat recent reference to the difference principle. Matt, you can do better.

Posted by R. Vangala | March 24, 2008 4:21 PM

There's the germ of a serious argument for looking at the Electoral College and backing the candidate most likely to win enough Purple States to take the general election. Maybe it is Hillary, who knows? But for reasons that have already been pointed out, it isn't sound to look at the primary states won. Obama will take NY, California, and Massachusetts in the general election even though Hillary won the primaries there. If Hillary can make the case that she can take Pa., Fla., Ohio, and Michigan AND OBAMA CAN'T, that would be a good reason for superdelgates to support her. That's the kind of calculation we have superdelegates for. But the argument actually being made -- look at the states I've won -- is just silly.

Posted by CJColucci | March 24, 2008 4:26 PM

Evan "he's the future of the Democratic Party and he always will be" Bayh

Very Nice. Great to see that cliche used wittily rather than tiresomely arrogantly.

Posted by jonnybutter | March 24, 2008 4:30 PM

Obama ignores the hot air balloon-demographic at his own risk.

Posted by Virgania Horsen | March 24, 2008 4:32 PM

Elyas,

Why would the N.Y. Times ask those questions? When Harold Ickes falsely stated that most of the states Obama has won have not voted Democrat since 1964, the Times neither pointed out the error in the story, nor ran a correction when the error was brought to its attention.

Posted by Brian | March 24, 2008 4:37 PM

Matt, you forgot one big problem in your Voter Mass Index: all those Dunkin' Donuts that Hillary Clinton's Democrats have been eating. Barack had better start encouraging his voting block to put half-and-half in those lattes they sip or he's in serious trouble!

Posted by Lee | March 24, 2008 4:50 PM

CJColucci,

First, I don't see why Clinton gets to decide which electoral strategy the Democrats should use in 2008. Kerry + OH and/or FL may be her best bet to win, but that is not necessarily Obama's best bet.

Second, to make her Kerry + OH/FL argument, she also needs to make a compelling case for her not losing the other swing states which Kerry barely won (in addition to PA and MI), which would include states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington. I've notice this is something Clinton supporters rarely voluntarily address, but it is absolutely crucial.

Posted by DTM | March 24, 2008 4:52 PM

Old people are disproportionately obese, though, aren't they? And old people like Clinton, so the mass argument may not be all its cracked up to be.

Posted by Curtis | March 24, 2008 4:53 PM

At this point, I'm convinced that Hillary is angling for 2012, willfully deluding her supporters to donate again and again in futility.

Hilldog's a smart gal; she knows she's virtually done, and that each day she goes by is another day McCain tours Iraq on our dollar and donations get split between the two Dem candidates. She knows that she's not "vetted" like she claims she is. Does she really think the MSM will give her a pass on her taxes, or her records as First Lady, or on her earmarks, when going up against McCain? I find it hard to believe she thinks the worst has passed for her.

Anyway, I'm wondering why people like Evan Bayh are hanging on to this lost cause of a campaign. I mean, the presidency is on a silver platter with a major congressional wave to boot.

Posted by socctty | March 24, 2008 5:04 PM

Curtis: you're discounting the osteoporosis afflicting a significant percentage of Clinton's elderly white female demographic. Obama's more-male and more-black constituencies undoubtedly have a greater average bone density.

Posted by phil | March 24, 2008 5:04 PM

Evan "he's the future of the Democratic Party and he always will be" Bayh

that's not fair.

I enjoyed the film "The Contender" way too much to let this sort of reference go unremarked upon.

In the film Jeff Bridges's President says that to the Governor of Virginia, who I think is played by William Patterson, if that's his name. The Governor, of course, is an overly ambitious charlatan who choreographs an incident that is intended to make him a National Hero, as it were.

Bayh, for all his considerable faults, is not even remotely as bad a person as the Patterson character. In fact, I kind of like him.

Bill Clinton once told Bayh that he would be the President someday. The moment was fictionalized in an episode of the West Wing (Hartsfield Landing, I believe) where Bartlet tells Sam Seaborn he will run for President one day.

This is just a bit of a ramble, but what I am trying to say is this: Bayh is a flawed man- far too conservative for my taste- but he has never been one to betray his own principles in the name of political mobility. Of all Clinton's high profile surrogates, he has the cleanest hands.

He has, I suppose at the end of the day, at the end of the road, much more in common with Sam Seaborn than the The Contender's fictional Governor of Virginia.

Posted by bend | March 24, 2008 5:04 PM

I have a post on my blog (http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com about this topic. Title: "What's Next? Cutest Smile?

Posted by Jay McDonough | March 24, 2008 5:08 PM

I have a post on my blog (http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com about this topic. Title: "What's Next? Cutest Smile?

Posted by Jay McDonough | March 24, 2008 5:09 PM

I have a post on my blog (http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com about this topic. Title: "What's Next? Cutest Smile?

Posted by Jay McDonough | March 24, 2008 5:11 PM

DTM:
I'm not suggesting that HRC should get to decide what strategy the party should follow in 2008, just that the "I can win the Purple States and Obama can't" argument, properly made, is a legitimate one to press on superdelgates, who need some basis for deciding the nominee when neither candidate has the delegate votes to win outright. I agree with your refinement on how to assess the Purple States if you're going to look at it this way. There are, of course, other ways to look at it.

Posted by CJColucci | March 24, 2008 5:15 PM

I think this simply proves how simple-minded a lot of politicians are. Just because they have better connections and more experience than the average person, in general a lot of them just make random guesses based on what sounds good and the same CW that you and I know.

Posted by Shock Mouse | March 24, 2008 5:23 PM

And who better to advance these silly arguments than democrats who still assert that W STOLE the elections and we really elected President Gore and President Kerry. Rip on Bayh, but you've all done it.

Posted by Make Believe Is Real | March 24, 2008 5:27 PM

DTM: The pledged delegates. That is what voters, and candidates, were told mattered. As has been pointed out, both voters and candidates would have behaved differently if told something else mattered.

Here's the real devilish detail: Alphabetically is the way she can beat both Obama and McCain. She beats everyone else in the primaries for both parties, as I recall. BUT do you know whom she doesn't beat--what last chance candidate could still ask the supers and pledged to throw it to him on the basis of alphabetical by last name? Evan Bayh.

Posted by Deborah | March 24, 2008 5:32 PM

CJColucci,

Fair enough. I agree it is sensible for the candidates to be making electability arguments to the superdelegates. And necessarily those arguments must take the form of the candidate winning the requisite number of electoral votes (and implicitly on their rival failing to do so, or at least being at risk of failing to do so), however those electoral votes are distributed.

Posted by DTM | March 24, 2008 5:38 PM

Nobody is likely to get enough pledged delegates. Bayh is suggesting Electoral Votes as a second criteria. Kind of like "wins in conference" is a tiebreaker in the NFL. Do you really not understand that, Matt?

The superdelegates will have to go to some other criteria to decide a candidate. I'm not hearing any suggestions from the Obama side - other than threats to bolt the party if they don't get their way.

Posted by Undecided | March 24, 2008 5:41 PM

Undecided -

That's preposterous. This is the same tired old argument they ran out two weeks ago that we laughed at immediately and the MSM finally caught up to.

At this point, the HRC is a political science peculiarity and a study in egomania.

Posted by socctty | March 24, 2008 5:48 PM

Undecided:

I suggest the superdelegates respect the will of the people. Failing that, I suggest that the superdelegates choose the candidate that they believe is most likely to unite the party and win the White House.

In any event I suggest that the superdelegates should not rely on intellectually bankrupt methodologies, such as pretending that primary election results are predictive of general election results.

I don't claim to speak for the Obama side, but I'm clearly on it, so . . there you have it.

Posted by southpaw | March 24, 2008 5:49 PM

What we have is a campaign team that sat down and said "lets see the way to win the nomination is to get the most delegates, every state allocates delegates differently so lets figure out how every state allocates them and put our resources in the places where we can get the most delegates, tailoring our strategy in each state to its particular rules"

The other campiagn team sat down and said "we're sure to win, no one will dare challenge us cuz its our turn dammit" They then set out to plan really great victory parties and coronation celebrations for after Super Tuesday when everyone bowed down to their awesomeness.

So yeah, ignoring the campaign that has actually happned and picking team #2 does seem like the kind of thing Democrats would do:-(

Its like there was a football game scheduled and team 2 brought a Rugby team and then said "hey this isn't fair, lets play Rugby instead"

Posted by Eric k | March 24, 2008 5:54 PM

It's not "intellectually bankrupt" to factor in electoral considerations. Electoral votes matter. But I'm not suggesting it should be a hard and fast rule either. I just think this mockery of Bayh is being overdone.

My best case for Hillary evolves if Obama stumbles badly down the stretch - evidence of significant damage from Wright. Then it might make sense to throw the nomination to Hillary. Tough call.

My counter to your argument would be that it didn't make sense to create superdelegates if their only role was to rubberstamp the pledged delegates.

Posted by Undecided | March 24, 2008 6:03 PM

The three chief considerations I have seen superdelegates mention are: (1) who they think has earned the nomination; (2) who they think is most likely to win (which is tangled with the first consideration, since nominating someone who is perceived as having lost the contest could be very harmful for the general election); and (3) who they think is going to be best for the Party as a whole such as by attracting new voters and helping out in downticket races (again this is tangled with the first two considerations).

I am sure a few superdelegates will look at all those considerations and end up favoring Clinton. But since the basic coalitions and dynamic were established, the trend among the superdelegates has been pretty clear.

Posted by DTM | March 24, 2008 6:09 PM

Electoral considerations are indeed important. The bankrupt part is saying Hillary won Massachusetts in the primary, so let's pretend Obama won't win it in the general.

If you want to talk electoral votes, look who does better in the state-by-state general election polling. Look at who runs well in states with competitive Senate races. Look at who Democratic politicians in competitive red-state races this autumn would like at the top of the ticket.

Posted by southpaw | March 24, 2008 6:13 PM

Oh, and one of the obvious possible purposes of the superdelegates is to prevent a weak third place candidate from playing kingmaker, which is unlikely to be relevant here. A second obvious possible purpose is to change the nominee in the event there is a disqualifying event (such as a felony indictment or incapacitating illness) prior to the convention. I get that the Clinton diehards are trying to manufacture such an event, and are hoping the Wright stuff counts, but obviously that is a scenario in which the Party ends up weaker as a result. So, one can see why some people are beginning to think the Clinton folks do not necessarily have the Party's interests at heart.

Posted by DTM | March 24, 2008 6:15 PM

Sorry, DTM, my earlier post was addressing one addressed to you, not signed by you.

Undecided: Someone pointed this out on TNR, and it bears repeating: People are lousy at figuring out "electability." Just remember John Kerry, and all the people saying "He doesn't excite me, but he seems like he'd be electable."

We have them, so we need to work with them by the rules we have. Nancy Pelosi is suggesting they will not overthrow the pledged delegates. So are others. It's quite reasonable that, in the absence of that significant damage down the stretch, respecting the pledged delegates is a good default position for superdelegates. If Obama is struck by lightning or rendered genuinely unelectable, she is in a position right now to drop out and, with existing pledged delegates and almost all the supers, take the nomination. But the damage has to be real and clear. The "If Obama can't win Pennsylvania, he needs to withdraw" argument that her side keeps trying to float won't do it.

Posted by Deborah | March 24, 2008 6:16 PM

Sorry, but this argument is just fucking stupid. And adds credence to the belief that Hillary is surrounded by idiots. That said, the ONLY I way I see the supers giving the nomination to Hillary is if Obama is permanently damaged from the Wright controversy. So it makes sense for her to stay in. It won't be a pleasant scene, I imagine, but I, for one, won't be particularly angry because of it, because Obama has no one to blame but himself for associating with such a crackpot.

Posted by Abby | March 24, 2008 6:16 PM

As far as I can tell, no-one has pointed out that Bayh's numbers are actually wrong and therefore don't prove what he claims they prove. By my count it's Obama 241, Clinton 180. Bayh's calculation seems to depend on putting Texas in Clinton's column, but, as we all know, Obama won Texas by receiving more delegates than Clinton there.

Posted by Chris | March 24, 2008 6:26 PM

she is in a position right now to drop out and, with existing pledged delegates and almost all the supers, take the nomination. But the damage has to be real and clear.

This makes sense in a vacuum, but misses the fundamental point: the only way that such damage is going to be inflicted is by an opponent. Absent the nomination contest, the "lightning" will simply never strike, or at least not in time to derail a nomination.

It's not a "wait and hope" strategy, it's a "kitchen sink" strategy.

Posted by Brad L | March 24, 2008 6:26 PM

That said, the ONLY I way I see the supers giving the nomination to Hillary is if Obama is permanently damaged from the Wright controversy. So it makes sense for her to stay in.

I want to push back against this a little. Hillary doesn't have to stay in to wait and see if Obama is permanently damaged. She could, plausibly, suspend her campaign and throw her hat back in the ring down the road (in the unlikely event that Obama is really permanently disabled by Wright). The reason to stay in is to preserve her ability to further injure Obama.

But I don't think that staying in and hurting Obama makes Hillary more likely to be the nominee. The more Hillary antagonizes Obama and the greater half of the party supporting Obama, the more likely it is that the superdelegates--if they have to--look to a third party (Gore maybe). A white knight might have some chance of unifying the party; Hillary probably won't have that potential if a lot of us see her as the malefactor who crippled our nominee.

Posted by southpaw | March 24, 2008 6:29 PM

The Clinton people are getting more desperate by the day. I like the Obama campaign's comment that next they're going to suggest we settle it all with a cribbage game.

But seriously, I am sick of the media not bothering to ask even the most basic duh-type questions to call them out on this ridiculous BS.

Posted by Ruth | March 24, 2008 6:34 PM

Latinos and South Asian people, who favor Clinton. tend to be _smaller_ on average, so I think that would balance out the weight advantage that Clinton supporters have among the elderly.

Posted by Hector | March 24, 2008 6:41 PM

I'm a taller-than average South Asian who supports Obama, so do I count?

"At this point, I'm convinced that Hillary is angling for 2012, willfully deluding her supporters to donate again and again in futility."

Either that or she is hoping that she isn't down $5 million of her own money.

Posted by Reality Man | March 24, 2008 7:56 PM

I enjoyed the film "The Contender" way too much to let this sort of reference go unremarked upon.

The 'future' comment is a paraphrase of a cliche about Brazil ("Brazil is the future, and always will be'). MY is not suggesting that Bayh is a bad man, just that he's been so overestimated for so long. What's wrong with witty mockery?

Posted by jonnybutter | March 24, 2008 8:41 PM

I'm a taller-than average South Asian who supports Obama, so do I count?

haven't you been paying attention? you support Obama so you don't count - at all.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | March 24, 2008 9:00 PM

Is anything more entertaining than a Clintonian electoral Rube Goldberg to start the week? I eagerly await their next contraption, I hope it involves a washing machine and a parrot.

Posted by Kyle | March 24, 2008 9:12 PM

Just when I think Hillary is running out of "IF" scenarios to distract everyone from the reality of the situation, she comes up with something new.

If 50% of men were women, Hillary would certainly be the nominee.

If only if.

Posted by AKBY | March 24, 2008 9:20 PM

She could, plausibly, suspend her campaign and throw her hat back in the ring down the road (in the unlikely event that Obama is really permanently disabled by Wright). The reason to stay in is to preserve her ability to further injure Obama.

Now this is pure silliness. If Hillary suspends and gives Obama a walkover in the remaining primaries then we won't know the impact of Wright until the general election - when it's too late.

I think Hillary is actually protecting Obama from the double barrel he's going to get from McCain and the right wing once the nomination is locked up.

And I can't see giving into the childish threats of the Obama-bots that they will blow up the party if HRC is the nominee. Grow up.

Posted by Undecided | March 24, 2008 11:06 PM

I like this most recent statement from Hillary Clinton: When reached for comment Hillary added that she had, “people trying to understand it as we speak:” http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 24, 2008 11:33 PM

"And I can't see giving into the childish threats of the Obama-bots that they will blow up the party if HRC is the nominee. Grow up."

Yes, because no such threat has ever come from a Clinton supporter.

And someone who uses the term "Obama-bot" has no right to tell someone else to grow up.

Posted by Tony Hussein | March 24, 2008 11:43 PM

Actually, I've been waiting for Clinton to argue winning by acreage.

Posted by Jinchi | March 24, 2008 11:44 PM

If Hillary suspends and gives Obama a walkover in the remaining primaries then we won't know the impact of Wright until the general election - when it's too late.

Eh? You're not grokking the concept. Of course: We won't know who's going to win the general until they run in the general, in any case. Either Democrat could suffer a swiftboating; I think everyone realizes that, and that's absolutely not a respectable reason for HRC to stay in the race.

Some people have floated a different idea--one I consider extremely far out. Their idea is that the Wright story will collapse Obama's support (not that Wright provides the Rs a potentially juicy issue for the general--of course it does, as does HRC's fib-a-thon on Tuzla). A collapse of support means he spontaneously stops being a viable candidate on the strength of the story alone. The effect we're talking about here is what would happen if Obama were indicted for murder or made an impromptu appearance on To Catch a Predator. The superdelegates can smell out that sort of thing without five more months of daily Howard Wolfson conference calls.

Now, of course, Hillary can put on her (increasingly broken-in) Republican cap and campaign on the Wright issue, and it may have some effect. I've explained at length why I think this would be bad for the party, Obama, and Hillary. Still, she can do it. Or she can "grow up" and realize it's over.

Posted by southpaw | March 24, 2008 11:45 PM

Remember Sidney Blumenthal, longtime friend and senior advisor to presidential candidate Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the man who coined the term “vast right-wing conspiracy.” He got drunk and flew through Greeley Park at speeds in excess of 70-mph., in a 30-mph. zone.

What if Barack Obama's preacher had done that? Sidney got arrested - handcuffed. Like Dee Dee Myers does every so often. Sidney declined the Breathalyzer, and was booked for Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated, DWI. And, that's the last anyone ever heard about it: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 24, 2008 11:46 PM

Johnnybutter The 'future' comment is a paraphrase of a cliche about Brazil ("Brazil is the future, and always will be'). MY is not suggesting that Bayh is a bad man, just that he's been so overestimated for so long. What's wrong with witty mockery?

i didnt now that.

Your point is well taken and I retract my, perhaps silly, defense of Bayh, and, withdrawn my offense to Matty's rhetoric.

Posted by bend | March 25, 2008 2:18 AM

The thing is, the Wright issue seems to be having little actual effect on the general electorate. Even after Wright, Obama still is seen positively by 1 out of 3 Republicans and the majority of Democrats and independents. When even Chris Wallace starts to find an anti-Democrat meme tiring, that's a bad sign for the rightwing echo chamber. The 24-hour news networks have been decreasing in their power to set the narrative and fewer and fewer people seem to take them seriously. Blogs, online news magazines, online versions of major papers and magazines, the Daily Show, etc. are starting to fill the void. Chris Matthews is lucky if he gets 1 million viewers in a night. Nobody watches Sean "Penn is an Enemy of the State" Hannity except for wingnuts and loons. O'Reilly's viewers are pretty much the Depends demographic.

And as a pseudo-Brazilian who has often been mistaken for Brazilian, I am filled with pseudo-outrage at this post title. Am I ready to be a right-wing hack yet?

Posted by Reality Man | March 25, 2008 4:23 AM

"Am I ready to be a right-wing hack?

Overqualified.

Posted by heedless | March 25, 2008 5:10 AM