Information Gap

Ambinder says "given that undecided superdelegates have said that their primary criterion for determining who they'll choose is who has the best chance of beating John McCain in the fall, there's no real reason for those superdelegates to choose in June. They'll have MORE information about electability in July or August... so why choose in an environment with less info?"

Well, I'd say the reason is that we're not really gaining more information as time goes on (Clinton backers, for example, were making the Wright/Ayers anti-Obama argument to pundits and no doubt superdelegates as well quietly for months before it "hit" the mainstream). What's happening, instead, is that both candidates' negatives are going up while resources aren't being applied against John McCain. Insofar as superdelagates genuinely want to pick a winner, they'll recognize that picking someone gives them a better chance of winning than does a summer of indecision.

Comments

And as Howard Dean said yesterday, what matters almost as much as who wins is how the loser loses. They'll have to hold rallies, speak at colleges, etc. for the winner.

Look at what Giuliani and Romney have done for McCain. Among other things, Giuliani appeared at his biggest California rally with the Terminator, and Romney has been asking his biggest donors to donate to McCain.

At this point, I really can't imagine Hillary or Bill doing any of that.

Posted by 55 | April 28, 2008 1:24 PM

The "electability" of a candidate doesn't sit, static but waiting to be discovered, as time goes on. It changes because the other candidates are trying to change it. How is this hard to understand? This issue has been mooted over and over again, forever. Is this just a mind burp on Ambinder's part, or an unintended expression of his Republican commitments?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 28, 2008 1:24 PM

Ambinder is a Clinton shill (and I NEVER say that about anyone in the media).

The democrats are yet again in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I can't believe that John McCain is now the frontrunner for the Presidency--jesus christ!!11!! This party is unimaginably incompetent at winning elections.

Posted by Korha | April 28, 2008 1:26 PM

Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe thinks Hillary would make an EXCELLENT President and wants to know more about this "Michigan-style Revote" in which supporters of your opponent are banned from the polls.

The US Embassy in Zimbabwe responded with an embarrassed silence and then tried to change the subject.

Posted by Don Williams | April 28, 2008 1:29 PM

Another factor to consider is how the election is won. It would help if Hillary's supporters felt that Obama won fair and square, to the extent that that is possible. So, if Obama were to win in NC and Indiana before the final superdelegates flocked to his side, maybe that would be better than if they did it now.

Posted by Jim W | April 28, 2008 1:31 PM

What? There's precious little about electability that isn't known already after 16 months of campaigning, and the Democrats can't afford to waste any more time than is necessary on picking a candidate. Given it's a close race it's only fair to allow the primary process to play out, but after the last contests on the first week in June, it's time to finish cutting bait and go fishing.

Posted by David W. | April 28, 2008 1:38 PM

Well, I'd say the reason is that we're not really gaining more information as time goes on (Clinton backers, for example, were making the Wright/Ayers anti-Obama argument to pundits and no doubt superdelegates as well quietly for months before it "hit" the mainstream).

I don't think this argument is quite right. Were the Clinton backers using the "God Damn America" clip? I doubt it. We ARE, in fact, "really gaining more information as time goes on". And, you know what, it is possible that between now and July or August, the superdelegates really will learn some new information that will bear on their decision in a material way. What I think Matthew really should be arguing is that the harm to the two candidates is immediate and certain, while the possible benefit to the superdelegates is only potential, and therefore the superdelegates should weigh the harm of their non-decision much more than they currently are.

Posted by Al | April 28, 2008 1:38 PM

New poll out today from AP/Ipsos:

Clinton 50, McCain 41
Obama 46, McCain 44

Hillary Rodham Clinton has a better chance than Barack Obama of beating Republican John McCain, according to a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable in the fall than her rival for the Democratic nomination.

Plouffe is giving Doug Feith a real run for the money in the stupidest fucking guy on the face of the earth department.

I'll now issue a recommendation I've never given before in these pages: folks ought to buy Clinton on Intrade to win the nomination. At twenty cents on the dollar, it's officially reached the no-brainer stage.

Posted by Petey | April 28, 2008 1:39 PM

Ambinder is a moron who needs to study the psychological effects of frustration.

If both sides think their candidate is going to win up until the convention, the psychological impact of their goal being thwarted so close to realization will be massive, especially given the importance of this goal to certain subsets of the population. There will be no unity after that. Most people will regress into a childish, vengeful state. They will actively vote for McCain out of nothing but spite. Others will quit the political system altogether, particularly older women or blacks, because they will feel persecuted by the resulting perceived injustice. A small subset of the losers supporters may even resort to violence against the winner or their supporters, as the frustration overwhelms their socialized mechanisms for dealing with this anger.

None of these is even remotely unpredictable. They teach this crap in Psych101. It's best to end this before the convention, even if they are going to pick the perceived loser. We still won't likely win in November, but we may avoid people dropping out of the political system forever and defuse a potentially violent situation.

Posted by soullite | April 28, 2008 1:39 PM

What an Ambinder comment thread by proxy? The man is a coward, not gutless by any means, but a coward.

Posted by bjd | April 28, 2008 1:40 PM

Ambinder is giddy with glee over Hillary's good polling day. It's gross to watch.

I'm inclined to think that nobody but the Republicans and Mr and Mrs Clinton really believes that it's a good thing for this to go on and on.

Posted by Kristen | April 28, 2008 1:43 PM

I said it on the other thread, anybody who responds to Petey is almost as much of an idiot as he is. You've been warned.

Posted by 55 | April 28, 2008 1:43 PM

I take Matt's point not to be that literally no new pieces of information are going to come out before the convention, but rather that the marginal utility of that additional information is increasingly being outweighed by the marginal disutility of delaying a resolution.

That said, I'm not sure it is obvious that the superdelegates waiting a while longer, perhaps even until after the last primary, to endorse really has much marginal disutility either. And that is in part because I think Clinton has basically announced that even once Obama gets to 2025, she is more than prepared to take it to the convention anyway.

Posted by DTM | April 28, 2008 1:45 PM

Because we need the elderly vote, I do believe that HRC is more electible than Obama. However, I think that bringing in new voters is also very important. This is especially true for the Democrats. Go to any Democratic meeting and it is filled with the the elderly and middle-aged so it is really important that we get new blood. The only way I can see this is a joint ticket.

Posted by Micheline | April 28, 2008 1:50 PM

The superdelegates would have even more information on the electability question in December, so perhaps they should wait until then. Or, to be safe, after inauguration so that they can feel better about the legal process.

Posted by El Cid | April 28, 2008 1:52 PM

Because we need the elderly vote, I do believe that HRC is more electible than Obama. However, I think that bringing in new voters is also very important. This is especially true for the Democrats. Go to any Democratic meeting and it is filled with the the elderly and middle-aged so it is really important that we get new blood. The only way I can see this is a joint ticket.

Posted by Micheline | April 28, 2008 1:52 PM

Because we need the elderly vote, I do believe that HRC is more electible than Obama. However, I think that bringing in new voters is also very important. This is especially true for the Democrats. Go to any Democratic meeting and it is filled with the the elderly and middle-aged so it is really important that we get new blood. The only way I can see this is a joint ticket.

Posted by Micheline | April 28, 2008 1:52 PM

I take Matt's point not to be that literally no new pieces of information are going to come out before the convention, but rather that the marginal utility of that additional information is increasingly being outweighed by the marginal disutility of delaying a resolution.

As I pointed out above, that should be Matthew's point, but it isn't quite. He does appear to be making a flat statement that no new information is coming out.

Posted by Al | April 28, 2008 1:53 PM

"I think Clinton has basically announced that even once Obama gets to 2025, she is more than prepared to take it to the convention anyway."

Then be prepared to lose in November.

Posted by David W. | April 28, 2008 1:54 PM

Micheline,

The hidden premise to your comment is that each person's voting bloc in the primaries won't switch over to the other candidate for the general election unless their preferred candidate is on the ticket. This is unlikely to be true for the vast majority of people voting for the eventual loser in the Democratic primaries, provided that (A) the perceived winner of the contest is in fact the nominee and (B) the losing candidate endorses and campaigns for the winner.

Posted by DTM | April 28, 2008 1:55 PM

I don't understand why Matt feels the need to respond to Ambinder's asinine views as often as he does. Apparently Ambinder disabled his comments thread a few weeks back because he was tired of being called out as (1) a relatively predictable commentator who seems to be interested only in hyping the horse-race aspect of the Democratic race and (2) in part because of (1) and in part because of his connections, an obvious supporter of the Clinton campaign. He is not worth taking seriously.

Posted by wj | April 28, 2008 1:55 PM

Marc sure has gone even further in the tank for Hillary since he decided to cut off commenting, hasn't he?

Three polls concerning electability, Ipsos, Rasmussen, and Gallup. One shows Clinton doing better, one shows Obama doing better, and one shows Obama and Clinton about the same.

Now which one is Ambinder going to trumpet?

Incidentally, anyone notice that small Obama leads are always "statistical ties" on Ambinderland?

As for the issue at hand, unless polls show Obama losing 60-30, the superdelegates have no cause to overturn the election and should ratify the results of the pledged delegate contest in May when Obama clinches it.

Posted by Seth | April 28, 2008 1:55 PM

With all the negative press Obama has been receiving, it is amazing that he is still polling better than McCain in the AP-Ipsos poll.

Posted by Micheline | April 28, 2008 1:57 PM

Clinton backers, for example, were making the Wright/Ayers anti-Obama argument to pundits and no doubt superdelegates as well quietly for months

Whoa, really? I didn't realize that. That seems like sort of a big deal.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | April 28, 2008 1:59 PM

DTM,

I agree with you that most of HRC's supporters will vote for Obama in the general. I singled out the elderly because I think that racism is one of the factors for all of these people voting for Clinton. Remember many of the elderly we see now were Reagan Democrats who voted Republican primarily because of race.

Posted by Micheline | April 28, 2008 2:04 PM

I see Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy as thus:

1. Dent Obama's inevitability - check

2. Finish strong, showing change of momentum going her way - still possible at this point

3. Hang tough until Denver, making a joint Clinton/Obama ticket the only option with a chance against McCain in the fall - stranger things have happened

However the risk of fatally fracturing the party is a huge consideration, and Clinton may only get the nomination at the price of losing the election. At this point, if Clinton pursues it to the bitter end in Denver and wins it there, it's not worth doing much to support her in the general as far as I'm concerned. I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat myself, but there are plenty of others who aren't and I don't fancy wasting my time or money on her as a sure loser.

FWIW, I'd say the same thing if it was Obama who was the bitter ender. Because at some point, it isn't about them anymore, it's about the Democratic Party. Neither candidate should put their chances before those of the party, and I hope neither does.

Posted by David W. | April 28, 2008 2:07 PM

Micheline, good luck winning the election without black voters.

Everyone knows what 'electability' really means. It means 'we can't nominate a black guy'. White liberals find ways to pretty it up for themselves, but black people aren't stupid. They aren't going to vote for a party that rigs its vote against the black guy who won the primaries. You can't even really ask them to, no matter how important you think defeating John McCain is. You don't get to spit in peoples faces and then demand that they support you.

Posted by soullite | April 28, 2008 2:10 PM

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows John McCain attracting 46% of the vote while Barack Obama also earns 46%. In a match-up with Hillary Clinton, it's McCain 47%, Clinton 45%.
Among White voters, McCain leads Obama by twelve and Clinton by eleven. Among African-American voters, Obama dominates but Clinton attracts just 59% support.
Imagine how many states we will lose if we only get 50% of the black vote.

Posted by bjd | April 28, 2008 2:13 PM

Ambinder usually is a little dumb. I don't see how that guy adds value.

Posted by Chris M | April 28, 2008 2:17 PM

Soullite,

Hence I propose a joint ticket. In the recent Rasmussen poll, HRC is polling at 59% with blacks which is shockingly low for a Democrat.

Posted by Micheline | April 28, 2008 2:20 PM

"unless polls show Obama losing 60-30, the superdelegates have no cause to overturn the election and should ratify the results of the pledged delegate contest"

Unless polls show Clinton losing 60-30, the superdelegates have no cause to overturn the election and should ratify the results of the popular vote.

Posted by Petey | April 28, 2008 2:22 PM

I didn't see bjd's posting this but it should be pointed out that Democrats generally lose the white vote. This was also true with Clinton although he won the white working class vote by one percent. This was also true in 2006. 52% of white vote went for the Republicans. The problem we see right now is that we never had a viable black candidate before so one cannot dismiss HRC's arguments especially in light of Wright reappearing in the spotlight.

Posted by Micheline | April 28, 2008 2:26 PM

I didn't see bjd's posting this but it should be pointed out that Democrats generally lose the white vote. This was also true with Clinton although he won the white working class vote by one percent. This was also true in 2006. 52% of white vote went for the Republicans. The problem we see right now is that we never had a viable black candidate before so one cannot dismiss HRC's arguments especially in light of Wright reappearing in the spotlight.

Posted by Micheline | April 28, 2008 2:27 PM

I didn't see bjd's posting this but it should be pointed out that Democrats generally lose the white vote. This was also true with Clinton although he won the white working class vote by one percent. This was also true in 2006. 52% of white vote went for the Republicans. The problem we see right now is that we never had a viable black candidate before so one cannot dismiss HRC's arguments especially in light of Wright reappearing in the spotlight.

Posted by Micheline | April 28, 2008 2:29 PM

Clinton will get more than 59% of the Black vote, but it's very hard to see why Black turnout will be better than terrible in the event of a Clinton nomination. And it's generally hard for Democrats to win in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Illinois, and Missouri with dismal African American turnout (although I would guess that Clinton would likely still win the more Democratic of those states, like New York, New Jersey, and Ilinois.)

Posted by John | April 28, 2008 2:29 PM

"Hence I propose a joint ticket. In the recent Rasmussen poll, HRC is polling at 59% with blacks which is shockingly low for a Democrat."

Yup. Giving Obama the Veep slot actually solves two problems:

1) It brings AA's home to the ticket with enthusiasm.
2) It brings the upscale goo-goos and their deep pockets home to the ticket in the form of a gigantic ATM.

Posted by Petey | April 28, 2008 2:30 PM

I see I'm not the only one who thinks Ambinder is an embarrassment.

Posted by beckya57 | April 28, 2008 2:33 PM

Unless polls show Clinton losing 60-30, the superdelegates have no cause to overturn the election and should ratify the results of the popular vote.

Fuck all that. The superdelegates should vote for Edwards until all those pledged delegates come around. I'm sure he'd be up for it, and I'll go along if I don't have to spend the whole summer fighting off progressives hawking selective data on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

Posted by southpaw | April 28, 2008 2:33 PM

No. It solves neither. Black folks don't like being told to go to the back of the bus. And upscale goo-goos don't want to vote for a sleazy liar. They want to cleanse the party of Clinton stench, not roll around in it.

Posted by Yetep | April 28, 2008 2:35 PM

Sorry for the triple posting. :)

Posted by Micheline | April 28, 2008 2:39 PM

Unless polls show Clinton losing 60-30, the superdelegates have no cause to overturn the election and should ratify the results of the popular vote.

There's no "should" available here. This is a fight between two factions. If you like sucking SoCon dick, you should go with Petey, vote for HRC, and hope that she wins by whatever means necessary. Otherwise, you're an Obama supporter, and you should hope that he wins by whatever means necessary. But, at least for a lot of people, there's no "should" bridge that supports switching sides.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 28, 2008 2:45 PM

Not to pile on, but there is a reason I read Matt's stuff and assiduously avoid Ambinder. I agree with those that aren't quite sure what he brings to The Atlantic.

Posted by dannity | April 28, 2008 2:48 PM

They'll have MORE information about electability in July or August... so why choose in an environment with less info?"

Because the election is in November, and the opponent will have the benefit of two extra months of back o'th'bus journalistic fellation?

Really, Ambinder's just trolling.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 28, 2008 2:49 PM

Al,

I read the italicized "really" in Matt's proposition to more or less imply what I made explicit.

Micheline,

If racist older people are voting against Obama because he is black, I don't see how putting him on a ticket with Clinton helps ... he is still going to be black.

No, the only way Clinton helps on the ticket is if older Democrats are actually voting FOR her, not AGAINST Obama. But if older Democrats are voting for her and not against Obama, then for most of those people it should be sufficient if Clinton endorses Obama and campaigns for him.

Incidentally, most "Reagan Democrats" are now independents or Republicans (or have passed away--Reagan last ran 24 years ago). Moreover, outside of the South and west of Appalachia, Obama is doing fine in the demographics most closely resembling the former Reagan Democrats. So, the people in question are actually "Clinton Democrats"--older Democrats who have fond memories of the Clinton Administration and who feel the strongest cultural affinity with Bill and/or Hillary. Again, that just shows these people are more voting for Hillary (and Bill) than against Obama, and if the Clintons campaign for Obama, that should be sufficient for most of them.

Posted by DTM | April 28, 2008 2:51 PM

1) It brings AA's home to the ticket with enthusiasm.

That Petey doesn't find anything problematic about the winner of the most pledged delegates under DNC rules getting handed second place and a cookie in the hope that it'll placate black voters happy says all you need to know about him.

Enthusiasm, indeed.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 28, 2008 2:54 PM

DTM,

You do have a point. I was proposing the joint ticket because contra the media and blogs majority of Democrats like both candidates that is why this primary has been endless. Nobody really wants to see either candidate lose. Hence the volatility in the polls.

Posted by Micheline | April 28, 2008 3:00 PM

That Petey doesn't find anything problematic about the winner of the most pledged delegates under DNC rules getting handed second place and a cookie in the hope that it'll placate black voters happy says all you need to know about him.

Yep. It's almost as if he'd never heard the phrase "Uncle Tom" before.

Posted by Yetep | April 28, 2008 3:00 PM

That Petey doesn't find anything problematic about the winner of the most pledged delegates under DNC rules getting handed second place and a cookie in the hope that it'll placate black voters happy says all you need to know about him.

If the party rolls over for the Vichy Dems when Obama leads the pledged delegate count, I hope it's not just, or even primarily, African-Americans who get angry. My recollection is that the anti-DLC animus is strongest among the young; if we get the Vichy Dems, I hope we/they spend decades kicking in the knees of those who rolled over on us. But, precisely because I think that could happen, I don't expect HRC to get the nomination unless she actually gets the pledged delegate lead without MI or FL. HRC voters are going to age out of the "threatening" category much faster.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 28, 2008 3:05 PM

Micheline,

Agreed--all this talk of a major rift in the Party is overblown. And as long as the two conditions I noted are met, I am confident it would come together behind either candidate.

Posted by DTM | April 28, 2008 3:16 PM

Let me point out most Obama supporters think he will be the nominee, so they're not that upset at the moment. Should Hillary become the nominee without winning the most pledged delegates this dynamic will change, and when it does it will be ugly.
That 59% black willing to vote for Clinton will drop dramatically. If the nomination is taken away from the person who played by the rules and won the most delegates the party will be broken. Not just this year, but for years to come. The alignment between the Democratic party and the black vote be lost.

This is not just because the black voters will fill aggrieved at losing Obama as a candidate, but they will justifiably think that Clinton, though not a racist, appealed to people fears to vote against a very viable black candidate.

Posted by bjd | April 28, 2008 3:29 PM

If obama even appears to get screwed by the clintons, Hillary is going to get way less that %59 of the black vote. The only way Hillary can win the nomination and not lose the general is if she has gets more delegates without unfair backroom dealings on Mich, And Fla. And that isn't going to happen. So the fricken superdels. might as well just end this thing now. If Obama has enough time most of the hillary supporters will come to him. They will get used to the idea that he is the candidate and take another look, and he is a good politician. There is a lot to like about him. I believe he would beat McCain pretty easily. This is the Dems best chance at winning. Hillary has alienated too many black/upper class liberals to win.

Posted by cw | April 28, 2008 3:53 PM

"Fuck all that. The superdelegates should vote for Edwards until all those pledged delegates come around. I'm sure he'd be up for it, and I'll go along if I don't have to spend the whole summer fighting off progressives hawking selective data on behalf of Hillary Clinton."

Hear, hear!

Posted by Petey | April 28, 2008 4:16 PM

2. Finish strong, showing change of momentum going her way - still possible at this point

Not gonna happen. In fact, this election has been over since February - even if we didn't realize it at the time. Clinton has won all the states that she was expected to win on February 6th (and by similar margins). Obama has won all the states he was expected to win. There's no evidence for momentum in either case. The Reverend Wright, NAFTA, Tuzla and "bitter" controversies haven't affected the race at all. Despite reports of voters who haven't made up their minds - they basically have.

Obama will win in North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, and Montana. Hillary will win in Kentucky, Puerto Rico and West Virginia. Indiana will be essentially a tie. He'll end up with about a 150 pledged delegate lead.

And the superdelegates aren't going to overturn that result.

Posted by Jinchi | April 28, 2008 4:56 PM

this election has been over since February - even if we didn't realize it at the time.

Well, I realised it, (As did Petey, before he became a huckster.) Also from Feb 5:

I do think that Obama has more 'outs' than Clinton, and I'd worry that b) has the potential to turn into a war of attrition, and raise the focus on superdelegates. The line between 'competitive and energising' and 'bloody fight' is easily crossed.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 28, 2008 5:30 PM

I don't mean to be off-topic, I haven't yet seen Rev. Wright but from what I heard was that the man did not do Obama favors, what do you guys think?

Posted by Micheline | April 28, 2008 5:48 PM

This isn't going to the convention. Gore, Carter, and now Howard Dean have signaled this is going to end by June. The party elders are going to pressure the superdelegates to commit early and end this.

Ambinder is as much toast as Clinton.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 28, 2008 5:50 PM

Matt, this is so staggeringly obvious. Maybe Marc should switch his comments back on.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 28, 2008 5:50 PM

I agree, its been over. Barack Obama will be in the second year of his presidency and we'll be reading about how Hillary Clinton's acing all the polls. Hillary supporters will march up and down Pennsylvania Avenue carrying signs: Why isn't Hillary in the White House?! Whose that in the White House?! Whose sleeping in Hillary's bed?! The election was RIGGED. RIGGED I'm telling you. If Hillary were president, gasoline would be only 2 cents a gallon. Look, it's raining; and the Earth's probably going to overheat. Where's Hillary?! And, Hillary of course will be in the Caribbean reading: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | April 28, 2008 6:07 PM

Speaking of Heads in the Sand, how about all the Obama supporters, like our host here, who had vaguely heard about Rev. Wright, but just pretended to themselves that if they just buried their heads in the sand coming up only to denounce anybody as a racist who mentioned Rev. Wright, he'd just magically disappear?

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 28, 2008 7:37 PM

Speaking of Heads in the Sand, how about all the Obama supporters, like our host here, who had vaguely heard about Rev. Wright, but just pretended to themselves that if they just buried their heads in the sand coming up only to denounce anybody as a racist who mentioned Rev. Wright, he'd just magically disappear?

He's a black guy running for president, Steve. Nobody thought it'd be a smooth flight. Some of us just thought it would be a trip worth taking.

Personally, I'm still waiting with some trepidation for the Kenyan politics issue to surface. The thing is, even if I know this stuff before it breaks, there's not much I can do about it. I've looked at it and found it unpersuasive, just like I looked at Wright and found that unpersuasive. (And it is thin; the thing we didn't know is that Wright himself makes for good television.)

Anyway, none of this exceedingly vapid shit suggests to me that Obama would not be a good president for this country, so I'm not sure what you want me to do. All I can do, from my perspective, is try to defend my candidate as best I can when it comes up.

Posted by southpaw | April 28, 2008 8:08 PM

Re Richard's comment "This isn't going to the convention. Gore, Carter, and now Howard Dean have signaled this is going to end by June. The party elders are going to pressure the superdelegates to commit early and end this."
--------------
Yes.

And in case Hillary didn't get the message, Nancy Pelosi said the same thing just the other day.

Nancy didn't think much of the idea of a joint Obama-Hillary ticket either.

See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080425/ap_on_el_pr/pelosi_campaign_2

Posted by Don Williams | April 28, 2008 8:20 PM