Popular Vote

Noting that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be able to present arguments that they have won the "popular vote" (who won depends on how you count), Ed Kilgore observes "The two things no one can deny is that it was, in retrospect, an awfully close race, but one in which Barack Obama will finish with a lead in pledged delegates, and barring some implosion in his general-election standing, the nomination."

All true. But given that the popular vote has no official standing, for an unofficial assessment of how Democratic voters feel about things it is instructive to look at the national polling. Here things are pretty close, but Obama's held a decisive lead for a long time. Roughly speaking, it seems to be the case that some of the states that voted for Clinton on February 5 now prefer Obama. So the person who wins the nomination by delegates will also be the person who most Democrats prefer. And that's as it should be. No doubt, had things gone different earlier in the campaign with Clinton moving out to a decisive lead in delegates, the polling would have coalesced around her, too. But that's what happened, and as things stand now there's a clear majority for Obama.

Comments

With all due respect, the last thing we need is more metrics. There is only one metric that actually matters--delegates--and that is true both practically and morally. And if you don't like that being the case, change the rules for next time, because it was too late to change them for this time once the process started.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 10:44 AM

Noting that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be able to present arguments that they have won the "popular vote" (who won depends on how you count)

Except that the only popular vote counts that Hillary wins are the ones that include Michigan.

Think popular-vote arguments that utilize the Michigan counts are going to convince anyone besides the Hillary faithful? I've dismissed better arguments on behalf of causes I've favored.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | June 2, 2008 10:45 AM

The Clinton campaign can't have it both ways. They can't argue that 1. Caucuses are undemocratic and 2. Caucus states should be put into the popular vote. If you look at where most of the caucus states are--the interior West and the Pacific Northwest--you'll discover that Obama would have won the vast majority along the same lines as Oregon and Utah--probably 60-40. He would have gotten less delegates, but wouldn't be behind in any metric of the popular vote. The delegates are an approximator of the "popular vote" that considers caucuses as well as primaries.

Posted by Robert | June 2, 2008 10:53 AM

Disagree. Check the states that had both primaries and caucuses--Texas, Washington, Nebraska, and a couple of others. Obama did 15-20% better in caucuses than he did in primaries.

Posted by John Petty | June 2, 2008 10:58 AM

If popular vote totals are so important for nominee selection, and if states which select caucuses to choose delegates are to be ignored in that measure, isn't there some contradiction in the DNC allowing caucuses then?

For example, say that in the next nomination battle 25 states choose to run caucuses instead of primaries. Do we now only count the popular vote from the other 25 states and claim that the citizens' participation in all those caucus states is irrelevant if not harmful?

Posted by El Cid | June 2, 2008 11:06 AM

John Petty,

Robert is figuring that he did better in the caucuses than in the primary. Both Utah and Oregon held primaries.

Posted by br | June 2, 2008 11:06 AM

Noting that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be able to present arguments that they have won the "popular vote" (who won depends on how you count

We don't count the popular vote; we count delegates.

Posted by Another Mike | June 2, 2008 11:16 AM

El Cid,

I'd assume no state would hold a caucus if they knew that popular vote tallies were what counted. Which is why you decide the metrics before it all begins, not after.

Posted by Ronnie Pudding | June 2, 2008 11:18 AM

Of course it would be fundamentally unfair for the DNC to tell the various state parties that they could choose their state's delegates by holding caucuses, closed primaries, or any other sort of contest that would not maximize vote count, and then to turn around and decide to choose the nominee on the basis of an estimated popular vote.

That is a large part of why Clinton's "popular vote" arguments have no moral weight, and indeed obviously aren't sufficient to persuade the superdelegates.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 11:20 AM

You cannot reason with children.

Posted by bjd | June 2, 2008 11:22 AM

Oh, I agree that popular vote "doesn't count for anything" except psychologically. The delegate votes are where it's at, and Obama has a slim lead there which will likely sustain him past the finishing line, in which case we will have nominated the candidate who came in second in the popular vote and couldn't win any of the big states.

Posted by John Petty | June 2, 2008 11:23 AM

John Petty,

Yes, just as we should punish states for foolishly holding the sorts of contests the rules allowed, we should also punish small and medium states for foolishly not combining into bigger states so that they could then count.

So, Oregon and Washington? You should have been Pacificnorthwestylvania if you wanted to count.

Wisconsin and Minnesota? Only if you had become Dairyornia.

Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware? We already have a name for you ... Delmarva (and annex DC while you are at it).

And so forth.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 11:35 AM

...we should also punish small and medium states for foolishly not combining into bigger states so that they could then count...

Also, if they could please unite into one giant super-robot, that would count too.

Posted by El Cid | June 2, 2008 11:41 AM

I'll buy New York voting Republican the second that monkeys start flying out of my ass.

Posted by daveNYC | June 2, 2008 11:45 AM

El Cid,

Maybe, provided it was a hard-working, silver-finished giant super-robot, and not one of those latte-sipping or bronze-finished giant super-robots.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 11:46 AM

"in which case we will have nominated the candidate who came in second in the popular vote and couldn't win any of the big states"

This, of course, entails an oddly incomplete method of tallying the "popular vote" while assigning a rather arbitrary definition to "big states." But yeah, that would totally justify overturning a 150+ delegate lead.

Posted by Kevin | June 2, 2008 11:51 AM

I can't speak for California, let alone all states that Clinton won Feb. 5. But I can speak for myself, one Californian who voted for Clinton Feb. 5. I regret that vote and have regretted that vote ever since she took the unforgivable step of saying that McCain is qualified as Commander-in-Chief but Obama is not.

Posted by treetop | June 2, 2008 1:18 PM

What an absurd claim.

Not only have Obama supporters claimed Michigan delegates that they never earned on the basis of exit poll results, but now an Obama supporter is claiming a decisive popular vote victory for Obama based on public opinion surveys.

If Matt followed his argument to its logical conclusion Hillary Clinton would already be the nominee given that she led in opinion surveys by a decisive margin throughout 2007 and into 2008. If elections are not necessary - only opinion research - then Clinton should be given the nomination.

Clearly, that would be foolish.

The only basis that Michigan's delegates should be awarded is based on the January 15th primary. Unfortunately, since Senator Obama voluntarily took his name off the ballot he did not earn the votes he would have if he had made a different strategic choice.

The only way to count the popular vote is by counting votes in elections, not surveys.

After months of the media declaring Obama the inevitable nominee based on "the math" I would be flabbergasted were he not leading in opinion surveys in states where no campaigning is taking place.

Posted by Tim K | June 2, 2008 1:33 PM

Shorter Clinton supporters:
The real winner is the team that gets more yards, not the team that gets more points. And return yards don't count as real yards. And because what really matters is how teams are doing at the end of the game, only yards gained from middle of the third quarter to the end of the game should be counted.

Posted by Seitz | June 2, 2008 2:03 PM

Seitz:

No the winner is the candidate who wins the majority of total delegates at the convention, and automatic delegates can make their independent judgment on whatever basis they wish: electability, popular vote, issues, likability... WHATEVER.

Posted by Tim K | June 2, 2008 2:10 PM

Not really. The winner is the one who gets 50% plus one of the delegates votes. That looks like it's going to be Sen. Obama. Fair enough.

We can't help but point out, though, that half the Democratic Party did not vote for him, and that half seems to be concentrated in states that are essential to victory in November.

Posted by John Petty | June 2, 2008 2:10 PM

Not really. The winner is the one who gets 50% plus one of the delegates votes. That looks like it's going to be Sen. Obama. Fair enough.

We can't help but point out, though, that half the Democratic Party did not vote for him, and that half seems to be concentrated in states that are essential to victory in November.

Posted by John Petty | June 2, 2008 2:14 PM

Tim K: Not only have Obama supporters claimed Michigan delegates that they never earned on the basis of exit poll results,

No, that was the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, voting 19-8, not "Obama supporters".

Posted by fp | June 2, 2008 2:29 PM

That's a distinction without a difference. It's been obvious for a long time that Obama is the candidate of the Democratic Party establishment.

Posted by John Petty | June 2, 2008 2:59 PM

Oh noez! If someone didn't vote for Obama in a primary they kant vot fr him in jenral elekshun! O noez!

Posted by El Cid | June 2, 2008 3:03 PM

The Rules and By-laws Committee took 4 delegates away from Sen. Clinton and 55 away from uncommitted and gave them to Sen. Obama, in a primary he never participated in. If the primary wasn't legitimate then why has Obama willingly accepted those delegates? If he wanted to earn delegates in Michigan he should have kept his name on the ballot and fought for the state's seating.

Posted by Tim K | June 2, 2008 3:09 PM

Well, the DNC and Obama could have kept MI & FL having ZERO delegates, but then they would have kept claiming that they had been disenfranchised.

How about zero? Is zero good enough for you?

Posted by El Cid | June 2, 2008 3:42 PM

The only basis that Michigan's delegates should be awarded is based on the January 15th primary.

Considering that exit polls showed that 35% of voters would have voted for Obama if he'd been on the ballot, how many Michigan delegates do you think Obama should have gotten?

Unfortunately, since Senator Obama voluntarily took his name off the ballot he did not earn the votes he would have if he had made a different strategic choice.

Obama, Biden, Edwards, and Richardson took their names off the ballot becuase they--along with Clinton--signed a pledge saying they wouldn't participate in the Michigan primary. I guess it depends on what the meaning of "participate" is: I'd say leaving your name on the ballot and demanding the votes counts.

Posted by croatoan | June 2, 2008 3:42 PM

I agree that because neither Clinton nor Obama participated in the Michigan and Florida primaries, neither should have gotten any delegates from either contest. And my understanding is that Obama would have accepted that result, but he was also willing to compromise on Michigan and Florida in the name of party unity.

And yes, the superdelegates can vote as they please, and how they please to vote is getting pretty clear. And indeed it was always strange to me that as part of her supposed pitch to superdelegates, Clinton was launching an after-the-fact assault on the DNC rules, and thus by implication on the party officials who made those rules, and also on those states which relied on those rules (e.g., her various attempts to discount states that held caucuses, even though the DNC rules allow state parties to use caucuses as a way of choosing delegates). After all, those same party officials make up a large chunk of superdelegates, and more of them are associated with the states she is discounting, so did she really expect them to agree with her arguments?

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 4:02 PM

croatoan:

Last I checked exit polls were not a legitimate way to allocate votes or delegates in a democratic process. Since Obama's name wasn't on the Michigan ballot - not by accident, by his own free choice - he denied Michigan voters an opportunity to vote or him: he should receive no delegates>

DTM:

Clinton did participate in the Michigan primary by keeping her name on the ballot, giving her supporters a chance to show their support. Obama did not participate at all, excercising his own free choice. Neither candidate campaigned personally there.

Both Florida and Michigan should have been decided in the same way, with the full seating of their delegations with 0.5 votes each. Delegate allocation in Michigan should have been a fair reflection of the primary, as it as in Florida: 73 delegates pledged to Clinton, 55 delegates pledged to Uncommitted. Exit polls, supposition and educated guesswork are not bases for delegate allocation. We have only one formula for allocating delegates, and it's called an election. Obama chose to opt out of that election totally, and should not be awarded with delegates he never earned.

Posted by Tim K | June 2, 2008 5:26 PM

The Michigan compromise delegate allocation apparently came out of the actual Michigan Democratic Party Congressional District Conventions, not the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC. The state party's proposal was then accepted by the RBC vote.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080419/POLITICS01/804190422

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080507/NEWS15/80507111

But, if they would rather have had zero, that certainly could have been sustainedj, and I can certainly see the logic in that.

Posted by El Cid | June 2, 2008 6:38 PM

And, actually, in Michigan's case, there is only one way of allocating delegates, and that is that the results of the Congressional District Conventions are represented to the Michigan Democratic Party's Executive Committee.

Those delegates chose to carry out their serious democratic duties with the responsibilities and leeway that their state party constitution gives them, and it is disrespectful to the utmost that a mere politician's supporters now think they have the undemocratic right to over-rule the hard work of the only group legally empowered to select delegates for Michigan -- the Congressional District Conventions of the Michigan Democratic Party.

Posted by El Cid | June 2, 2008 6:44 PM

Tim K,

You wrote: "Clinton did participate in the Michigan primary . . . ."

In that case she violated her written pledge to not participate in the Michigan primary, and the superdelegates have every right to reject her moral arguments on that basis.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 6:52 PM

DTM:

The pledge you are referring to carries no legal weight and I'm not interested in promises made to Iowa and NH in order to pander, as all the major candidates did. In any event, the word 'participate' is subjective. Clinton kept her name on the ballot, but did not appear, campaign or run ads. Is that participating? Clearly the voters of New Hampshire and Nevada didn't mind.

Posted by Tim K | June 2, 2008 7:04 PM

Tim K translated: Reality is subjective. Facts don't matter. All hail Caesar!

You have no understanding of the system on which you comment. Inform yourself or get a life.

Posted by Reality Man | June 2, 2008 7:14 PM

Reality Man:

I think I have a better understanding of "the system" than you do. At least you haven't demonstrated much of an informed understanding of much of anything. You just rant nonsense non-stop basically and it's quite tiresome.

By the way, looks like Clinton is going to win South Dakota tomorrow.

Posted by Tim K | June 2, 2008 7:45 PM

That's a distinction without a difference. It's been obvious for a long time that Obama is the candidate of the Democratic Party establishment.

Right, that explains why Obama has always had such a big lead in superdelegates,..

Posted by fp | June 2, 2008 7:49 PM

I think I have a better understanding of "the system" than you do

Well, you are the Canadian expert around here!

Posted by Tim K is a HUGE ass | June 2, 2008 7:57 PM

The only basis that Michigan's delegates should be awarded is based on the January 15th primary. Unfortunately, since Senator Obama voluntarily took his name off the ballot he did not earn the votes he would have if he had made a different strategic choice.
The only way to count the popular vote is by counting votes in elections, not surveys.

Then there is no basis to award any of Michigan's delegates, as the primary was illegitimate. Obama took his name off of the baloot with the understanding that Michigan would not count. If he had been told that Michigan would count, after all, he would likely have made a different decision. No fair changing the rules mid-game.

Not only have Obama supporters claimed Michigan delegates that they never earned on the basis of exit poll results, but now an Obama supporter is claiming a decisive popular vote victory for Obama based on public opinion surveys.

Why is this wrong? It is not as if the popular vote counts for anything other than convincing the superdelegates of how popular/unpopular Obama is. If the goal is to see how popular a candidate is, it makes sense to count people in Michigan who would have voted for him if they had had a chance.

The Rules and By-laws Committee took 4 delegates away from Sen. Clinton and 55 away from uncommitted and gave them to Sen. Obama, in a primary he never participated in. If the primary wasn't legitimate then why has Obama willingly accepted those delegates?

He accepted those delegates because Hillary got delegates from that primary as well. It makes no sense for him to refuse those delegates unless he can prevent Hillary from accepting her delegates. You are asking him to unilaterally disarm.

There are two reasonable choices here for Obama; fight to prevent any Michigan delegation form being seated or accept a compromise such as this. If he wanted to contest the legitimacy of the Michigan election, he would not refuse his delegates, he would fight that no delegates from Michigan be awarded but let Clinton keep hers.

The pledge you are referring to carries no legal weight and I'm not interested in promises made to Iowa and NH in order to pander, as all the major candidates did.

It's about more than that. Even if New Hampshire and Iowa did not go first, unless someone sanctions states that hold their primaries before a certain date, there is no way for the party to control primary dates at all and competition will force the primaries back into August ofthe previous year. Someone has to make a stand to keep the system running.

Posted by Glaivester | June 2, 2008 8:12 PM

Glaivester:

Then there is no basis to award any of Michigan's delegates, as the primary was illegitimate.

How was the primary illegitimate, besides the fact it wasn't sequenced in line with DNC rules? Did the Michigan Democratic party ask that Sen. Obama remove his name from the primary ballot?

New Hampshire also violated the sequencing rules, but was granted a waiver which kept it within the DNC rules on a mere technicality. It clearly broke the spirit of the rules by jumping ahead of Nevada.

If Barack Obama's advisors were stupid enough to think Michigan wouldn't be given representatation at the convention in the end then they deserve to reap what they sew.

The Clinton campaign was stupid enough to fail to organize in the caucus states... wait, I have an idea! Why don't we have the news networks commission an exit poll in the states that held caucuses and ask how people would have voted if it had been a primary. Then we can extrapolate how many delegates Clinton would have won there if her campaign hadn't stupidly mismanaged their caucus efforts. Some of those states also held a primary, so why don't we just use those results in those states. On second thought, that sounds a bit complicated and more than a bit unfair. How about this instead... let's just respect the results of every primary and caucus, no matter how flawed the process and no matter what strategic errors were committed by the campaigns in hindsight.

You are asking him to unilaterally disarm.

No I'm asking them to accept the results of a primary they decided not to put Obama's name forward in.

If he wanted to contest the legitimacy of the Michigan election, he would not refuse his delegates, he would fight that no delegates from Michigan be awarded but let Clinton keep hers.

I agree that would have been a valid choice on his part. But if he lost Michigan in the general election that would be, again, reaping what he sowed.

Even if New Hampshire and Iowa did not go first, unless someone sanctions states that hold their primaries before a certain date, there is no way for the party to control primary dates at all and competition will force the primaries back into August of the previous year. Someone has to make a stand to keep the system running.

Iowa and New Hampshire going first is the whole point. The fact that some states have to go first and there have to be rules governing that does not make it fair for Iowa and New Hampshire to always be those two states. They made the wrong stand by not standing up to Iowa and New Hampshire. Or they could have just did what the Republicans did to Michigan and Florida, and taken away half their delegates. That would have been the wiser course of action. Now, the Democrats will have little chance of winning Florida with Obama, and a much diminished chance of winning Michigan.

Posted by Tim K | June 2, 2008 8:42 PM

Tim K,

The fact that you are not interested in whether or not Clinton violated her written pledge to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina doesn't matter. What matters is what the superdelegates think.

And unfortunately for her, Clinton is trying to make moral arguments to the superdelegates, and it turns out that either she violated a written pledge she made to the members of her own Party, and in which case she has no moral standing to claim the nomination of that Party, or she did not participate in the Michigan and Florida primaries, in which case she has no claim to delegates from those contests. So, either way her argument fails, and it has indeed failed.

Because again, it doesn't matter what you think. What matters is what the superdelegates think, and this sort of thing helps explain why they aren't going to save her. In a nutshell, why should they listen to moral arguments from a person who tried to lie her way to the nomination, and then failed to win it anyway?

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 9:28 PM

DTM:

Clinton didn't violate the pledge. The separate point I made was that I don't care about the pledge even if she had violated it. But she didn't.

Clinton's argument to the superdelegates is that 1) She's more electable than Obama, 2) She'd make a better president than Obama, and 3) She's won more votes than Obama.

None of those are "moral" arguments. They are pragmatic arguments based on winning the November election and having a successful Democratic administration. They aren't abstract ethical arguments over pledges to unnamed individuals.

The super delegates are, so far, proving to be useless because don't have the guts to make an independent judgment.

Posted by Tim K | June 2, 2008 9:41 PM

God, Tim K, are you an endlessly pedantic and long winded fool. Will we ever see the day when you just shut the fuck up?

Posted by Kim T | June 2, 2008 9:53 PM

Kim T:

I'm not going to dignify your comments. They are, sadly, not atypical of many Obama partisans found on the internet.

Posted by Tim K | June 2, 2008 10:06 PM

Poblano's popular vote scenario tester.

Ben Smith:

The problem is that Clinton hasn't won the popular vote by any accepted measure, only by the one that tilts further her way. And superdelegates show no sign of accepting her count.

Paul Loeb:

That's why it's so unfortunate that Mrs. Clinton continues to claim that "we are winning the popular vote." Because that statement is a lie - and it undermines every word she has recently spoken about the need for the party to come together.
Look at Mrs. Clinton's math. She leads only if you give her 328,000 votes for the Michigan primary election, while giving Mr. Obama zero for not being on the ballot. But you also have to ignore the caucuses of Iowa, Nevada, Maine and my state of Washington - where a record quarter-million people turned out to participate. Our votes don't count under Mrs. Clinton's math. If the media corrected this, it would be less of a problem, but they haven't, or at least not in the same stories where they repeat her claim. After the Oregon and Kentucky vote, an Associated Press story in my local newspaper reported Mrs. Clinton's claim without question, saying only that it included contested Florida and Michigan votes and excluded the Iowa caucuses. A New York Times story included not even the slightest corrections or caveats. Neither mentioned that polls have Mr. Obama doing marginally better in Michigan than Mrs. Clinton. And no one has explored the impact of the roughly 60,000 Democratic voters who crossed over in Michigan to vote Republican - in part as a response to encouragement by liberal bloggers trying to further the Republican bloodletting by encouraging Democrats to vote for Mitt Romney.
Mrs. Clinton's emphasis on popular vote totals also ignores that this isn't how the party's rules are set up, and that if they had been, Mr. Obama would have made time, after the Iowa victory that made voters take him seriously, to have visited California and New York more than he did, given the size of those states.

Ezra Klein:

There are a couple points to be made here. First, I don't think of this as a particularly pro-Obama argument. If you run the popular vote numbers such that you include Florida, include Puerto Rico, include caucus states, and exclude Michigan (where no one campaigned and only Clinton was on the ballot), Obama is way ahead. If you bend common sense to the degree that you count Michigan, and count uncommitteds for Obama, Obama remains ahead by 46,000 votes. And tonight, he's likely to pick up even more votes. Clinton's last hope was for high turnout in Puerto Rico, but as Bloomberg says, that didn't happen. So this isn't about who won the popular vote. Obama did.

Posted by southpaw | June 2, 2008 10:15 PM

Tim K,

First, if your argument (3) has any relevance at all, it is as a moral argument.

Second, Clinton pledged not to participate in the Michigan and Florida primaries. If she didn't participate in those contests, then she is entitled to no delegates from those contests. So again, either she participated and broke her pledge, or she didn't participate and is entitled to no delegates.

The problem, of course, is that Clinton wants it both ways. And the bigger problem is that the superdelegates aren't letting her have it both ways.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 10:27 PM

Southpaw:

The popular vote is essentially a tie. It's as close to 50/50 you're likely to ever see in a primary process again.

My main argument for Clinton's nomination is electability, not popular vote.

That said, Clinton did do very well in later primaries. Since March 4th she's won the popular vote 52-48%. So, whether or she is the actual popular vote winner overall by whichever count, she did close very strong.

The reality is it's probably been too late. Due to serious strategic blunders early on, Clinton has been playing catch-up since losing Iowa. Despite campaigning strongly to win in New Hampshire, Nevada, the big Super Tuesday contests, Texas and Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, despite being heavily out-spent and coming up against a wall of momentum and favorable press for her opponent, she is probably going to lose. But that doesn't mean she's not the stronger candidate.

Posted by Tim K | June 2, 2008 10:28 PM

Clinton also campaigned hard in states like Iowa, Maine, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and so on. But I guess it comforts the likes of Tim K to think she only lost because of "strategic blunders".

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 10:33 PM

Interesting, Tim. Before we move on to other topics, can I take this as an admission that she is not, in fact, winning the popular vote?

Posted by southpaw | June 2, 2008 10:38 PM

DTM:

As you probably know Clinton committed significantly fewer resources to Iowa than Obama, or Edwards. Maine and Washington were caucuses which are tailor-made for Obama's supporters and the Clinton campaign failed to organize. Virginia's Democratic primary electorate has a huge African American segment, something like 40%+. Once 9 out of 10 were voting for Obama in virtually every contest, how could Clinton ever hope to win there? By winning 90% of the white vote? Then white people would really be called racist here.

Remember, you have your own pile of excuses why Obama couldn't, for example, win Pennsylvania even though he had 6 weeks to do it and out-spent her by 3 to 1.

Posted by Tim K | June 2, 2008 10:42 PM

Tim K,

The difference is that I don't need any excuses for the fact that Clinton did in fact win more delegates than Obama in some contests, which necessarily meant that Obama did not win more delegates than Clinton in every contest. And that is because overall, Obama won enough delegates to win the nomination. So, no excuses on his part are necessary--he did what he needed to do.

But for what it is worth, I have always maintained it is a fundamental mistake to ask why Obama didn't win in states like Pennsylvania. Rather, the more obvious question is why Clinton DID win in Pennsylvania. And she won in Pennsylvania because the Clintons (particular Bill, but also Hillary as his surrogate) are popular in Appalachia.

And again, I see no need for Obama to make excuses for the fact the Clintons have loyal supporters, in Appalachia or otherwise. Again, the relevant fact is that in the aggregate, the Clintons' loyal supporters couldn't win her the nomination.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 11:27 PM

DTM:

And she won in Pennsylvania because the Clintons (particular Bill, but also Hillary as his surrogate) are popular in Appalachia.

What I find fascinating is how an Obama partisan like yourself can say something so dismissive of Hillary Clinton - reducing her to a mere appendage of her husband - and then act shocked when you and your candidate are met with hostility.

Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama in Pennsylvania (particularly by the nearly 10 point margin she did) because she out-campaigned him. What's the excuse for her beating him in Indiana? It was a neighboring state to Illinois, it wasn't in Appalachia, she didn't start out with a big lead and - once again - outspent her considerably. So what went wrong there? The problem for Obama is when a contest isn't a caucus, and when a state isn't dominated by upscale liberals (ie Oregon) or African Americans (basically every other primary he won) he doesn't do well. The one real exception to that is Wisconsin. It was a relatively level playing field, it was a primary, and there wasn't a big African American population, and he trounced her. He just couldn't do it anywhere else.

There are many reasons why the race has turned out the way it has, and it's not all due to Barack Obama's intrinsic greatness.

Posted by Tim K | June 3, 2008 12:08 AM

I'm not "shocked" by anything you write, Tim.

Anyway, there is plenty of polling evidence that much of Hillary Clinton's support is derivative of Bill, but the best evidence is a map: her support is regionally based, and she has done best exactly where one would expect Bill to do best. That isn't just Appalachia, incidentally ... it is also the interior South, which actually explains Indiana (the southern portions gave her the margin she needed to tie Obama).

And to take this full circle, it really doesn't matter if you, Tim K, think black voters and the dreaded "upscale liberals" (oh, and almost everyone in the West) shouldn't count. The bottomline is that argument isn't going to persuade superdelegates, seeing as how they live and work in the real world, not the world you and Clinton would prefer (a world without all those black people, upscale liberals, and Westerners ruining everything).

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 1:04 AM

Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama in Pennsylvania (particularly by the nearly 10 point margin she did) because she out-campaigned him.

This doesn't make a lot of sense when you consider that Obama narrowed a roughly 30 point margin to 10.

What's the excuse for her beating him in Indiana? It was a neighboring state to Illinois, it wasn't in Appalachia, she didn't start out with a big lead and - once again - outspent her considerably. So what went wrong there?

There isn't an excuse. She beat him in Indiana. Narrowly, sure, but it was a win. He campaigned hard and he got edged out. "What went wrong" could be any number of things from Clinton's renown to her institutional support in the state (Bayh) to her dumb but appealing gas tax proposal to Republican crossover votes. There is some solace in the fact that Obama came away with a virtual delegate draw and racked up big gains in the other state that held a contest that day, but I don't think anyone confuses Indiana for a victory.

The problem for Obama is when a contest isn't a caucus, and when a state isn't dominated by upscale liberals (ie Oregon) or African Americans (basically every other primary he won) he doesn't do well. The one real exception to that is Wisconsin. It was a relatively level playing field, it was a primary, and there wasn't a big African American population, and he trounced her. He just couldn't do it anywhere else.

For someone who complains about people being dismissive, this is awfully dismissive of the vast majority of states.

It's also misleading. Oregon is not dominated by upscale liberals (it's dominated by working and middle class liberals), but leave that aside. No state is "dominated" by African Americans (DC--not a state--has 60%; the largest African share of a state population is ~36% in MS), but leave that aside. I'm sure that--in particular--Missouri (~11% African American), Vermont (~0.5%), Connecticut (~9%), and Utah (~0.8%) will be surprised to learn that their primaries were dominated by African Americans. And I can't wait for the belly laughs when you fall back on your alternate explanation that the primaries in Missouri and Utah were dominated by upscale liberals. Even by the most charitable reading, lots of the primaries Obama won don't fit your model. Stop making this shit up.

Posted by southpaw | June 3, 2008 1:09 AM

(DC--not a state--has 60%; the largest African share of a state population is ~36% in MS)

Typo, should say "African American." My apologies.

Posted by southpaw | June 3, 2008 1:11 AM

Tim K: when a state isn't dominated by upscale liberals (ie Oregon)

More evidence that Tim K just makes shit up. Oregon's per capita income is lower than that of Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Posted by fp | June 3, 2008 1:18 AM

By the way, here is one of Nick Beaudrot's maps for Indiana:

http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/05/2008-indiana-de.html

It makes it quite clear that Clinton got the margins she needed out of southern Indiana.

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 1:29 AM

southpaw:

30 Points in Pennsylvania? I've checked the numbers and I can only see a lead that large for Clinton back in August of 2007, when she enjoyed a 20-25 point lead over him nationally. Are you trying to suggest she held that large a lead over him in March? Most of the polls I can find showed a much closer race than that. Although your explanation, even if it were true (which it isn't), doesn't hold for Indiana, where he had the lead and lost it despite the financial advantage.

Obama even called Indiana the "tiebreaker" back in early April, so he certainly thought he could win there. He was just out campaigned.

When I use the word "dominated" I do not mean to say that the majority of the votes cast were from that group. But when a large bloc of voters vote nearly unanimously for one candidate, the other candidate has almost zero chance of winning. When the 30-40% of voters in states like Georgia, Maryland, Virginia, Mississippi and South Carolina vote over 90% for one candidate, they dominate the results. It was like when segregationist whites voted 90%+ Democratic in the post-Reconstruction South... a Republican just had zero chance. Once African Americans began giving Obama a close to unanimous vote how could she win states where African Americans live in disproportionately high numbers and make up a highly disproportionate share of the electorate? It's like trying to say West Virginia was a level playing field between Clinton and Obama.

As for your counter-examples, I will give you Utah, but Missouri was such a razor-thin margin that I'm surprised you'd even mention it. It only highlights Obama's over-dependence on the African American constituency. Vermont is just about the liberal state in the nation, with the exception of perhaps Massachusetts, so the Democratic party there is no doubt DOMINATED by liberals. Connecticut is probably the most affluent state in the nation, tailor-made for his constituency of affluent liberals.

Barack Obama would not be anywhere were it not for three groups: blacks, young whites, and affluent whites. Yes, all of these people count. My point is not about some states and groups counting but not others. My point is this: does anyone think a Democrat being successful in November is going to depend on doing well with African Americans, young whites, and affluent (liberal) whites? Are these going to be the swing constituencies in a presidential election? Did rich liberals not vote for John Kerry? Did not youth? Did not blacks by a nearly 80% margin?

Hillary Clinton would not be where she is without Latinos, white women, and seniors. Does anyone think things groups could provide the margin of victory? You bet your ass. Particularly in key swing states.

Posted by Tim K | June 3, 2008 1:35 AM

Tim K,

Demographic shares in the primaries have very little to do with likely demographic shares in the general election, and indeed the people voting in a primary are almost all not swing voters. Again, that is something most superdelegates understand, which is why that argument also hasn't worked.

By the way, here is pollster's chart for Indiana:

http://www.pollster.com/08-IN-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

They never had Obama trending ahead of Clinton.

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 1:51 AM

DTM:

We don't know the "trend" in the Indiana race early on because there was only one poll before Clinton's March victories in Ohio and Texas. That first survey had Obama leading by 15 points in February.

There is a difference between arguing that a primary will mirror a general election, and saying a primary will bear no ressemblance to the general election. Those are two extreme positions with little support. There is reason to believe that primaries and general elections have some relationship.

The differences between Obama and Clinton are 'relative' in these states. So I assume that Obama would do better among African Americans, young people and affluent liberals than Clinton would. I also assume that Obama would do better in Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Georgia. I think if you're being honest, you'd admit you would assume the same. And most Obama supporters don't have any problem with that logic until we turn to Senator Clinton's strengths. So I assume Hillary would have a more favorable gender gap than Obama due to her strength with white women, she would enjoy a stronger margin over McCain with Hispanics and do better with seniors. I would also assume she would do better in states like New York, Arkansas, Florida, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Not only is this logical, but most of it finds strong empirical support in polls.

Posted by Tim K | June 3, 2008 2:05 AM

Tim K,

I would agree that Obama is likely to do marginally better with the very same people who actually voted for him in the Democratic primaries, and vice-versa for Clinton. The problem is when you then try to make the leap to all the new voters in the general election who didn't vote in the Democratic primary at all, based on nothing more than demographic similarities. That is because the primary voters are not a random sampling of general election voters.

But all this should be quite obvious, and I know it has been pointed out to you before many time. And again in the end it doesn't matter what you think ... the superdelegates aren't buying it.

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 2:27 AM

I will give you Utah, but Missouri was such a razor-thin margin that I'm surprised you'd even mention it.

Then don't bother me about Indiana.

Look, I won't deny that Clinton is stronger in certain groups that Obama is going to want to win. (Incidentally, that's why no one's ignoring her and why we take the tenor of her campaign so seriously. If she wasn't popular in significant demographics, we wouldn't care so much when she stoked her supporters' animosity.) I do think there's lots of evidence that Obama will be the 2nd choice of those important demographic groups if/when Clinton leaves the stage, and there are lots of reasons why they ought to be with Obama and few reasons (other than resentment) why they ought to be with McCain.

But there's another element of your argument that's been irking me for awhile.

You talk a lot, indeed almost exclusively, about electability nowadays. That's one interesting element of the primary process: The (historically unreliable) evaluation of who can get elected. Nevertheless, that is not the purpose of the primary process. We hold primaries to determine who the party--its voters and members--would prefer as its nominee.

If electability were the sole concern, we probably would just pick some wet moderate with high name recognition (someone slightly to the right of the center and slightly to the left of whoever the Republicans picked, maybe Schwarzenegger if he were eligible or Chuck Hagel) and make sure that voters to the left of our nominee had nowhere else to go. To our credit, we do not do this. We try to pick someone who appeals to the Democratic base, shares their values, and inspires their enthusiasm and confidence. We offer that candidate (and not necessarily the safest bet) to the rest of the nation and do our best to get him/her elected.

What's my point? Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both credible, though very different, Democratic nominees. No one is saying that Obama is Secretariat and Clinton is a quarter horse; we're just saying that--for whatever reason--Obama won on race day. Obama has found more support in the party as a whole, so we go with him. Let's get him ready for the Derby.

Posted by southpaw | June 3, 2008 2:38 AM

But all this should be quite obvious, and I know it has been pointed out to you before many time. And again in the end it doesn't matter what you think ... the superdelegates aren't buying it.

It's not only what I think DTM, it's also being demonstrated in independent analyses that are showing Clinton out-performing Obama in the electoral college. I believe many superdelegates are worried about Obama, but they just think it's too late to change course now without tearing the party apart.

Southpaw:

You talk a lot, indeed almost exclusively, about electability nowadays. That's one interesting element of the primary process: The (historically unreliable) evaluation of who can get elected. Nevertheless, that is not the purpose of the primary process. We hold primaries to determine who the party--its voters and members--would prefer as its nominee.

The purpose of the primary process is to choose a nominee who can win. If can't govern if you don't win. Would Democrats have been better nominating Hubert Humphrey or Ed Muskie in 1972 instead of George McGovern. I don't think there's any doubt. But since liberals were too pissed off that Humphrey stayed loyal to Johnson over Vietnam, he couldn't win. The primary process is unfortunately designed to appeal to the most liberal portion of the electorate and party activists, which is exactly the opposite of what it takes to win a general election. That's one of the reasons Democrats win so few elections. Had the Democrats nominated Paul Tsongas or Jerry Brown over Bill Clinton in 1992, they probably wouldn't have won any elections since 1976. It's about winning, and most Democrats aren't any good at winning. That's what's different about the Clintons. And since many liberals have an allergy against winning an election if it means negotiating with some of your principles, there is a hatred for the Clintons and their politics. It's very self-defeating as the party may find out this November, yet again.

Obama has found more support in the party as a whole, so we go with him.

Obama and Clinton have nearly exactly the same number of votes, and his lead in delegates is mostly a creation of eccentricities of the process. So I think that's an exaggeration. They each command roughly half of the party.

Having said that, Obama is almost certainly going to be the nominee and Clinton is going to campaign hard for him in that case. I have no doubt about that.

PS. Watch South Dakota tomorrow, I have a feeling its going to be an upset.

Posted by Tim K | June 3, 2008 3:44 AM

You talk a lot, indeed almost exclusively, about electability nowadays... We hold primaries to determine who the party--its voters and members--would prefer as its nominee.

Precisely. If it were all about electability, why would we even care about what Puerto Rico and the other territories have to say? They have no effect on the general election. But they're part of what makes up the Democratic Party, and so that's why they have a say in the election.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 3, 2008 4:05 AM

Wait -- so now it's taken as a given that the 1968-losing, Hubert Humphrey, centrist hawk, who made Nixon President, would have been a much better choice than McGovern?

Maybe it's the reverse. Maybe McGovern, the leading vote getter of 1968, should have been allowed to represent an anti-war choice in 1968, instead of once again the party insiders deciding that "electability" of an establishment pro-war politician was the best idea.

Because, you know, when a liberal loses an election, it's always because he or she is a liberal, but when a hawkish candidate loses, it's always due to something else.

Posted by El Cid | June 3, 2008 7:12 AM

should have read: "would have been a much better choice than McGovern in 1972?"

Posted by El Cid | June 3, 2008 7:20 AM

Obviously a party wouldn't want to nominate someone they think would lose, but within the range of candidates they think could win, they will then want to pick the one they would most want to be President.

In any event, clearly the primaries aren't designed as an empirical test of who would be most likely to win the general election. So to the extent electability plays a role, it is through the mechanism of voters taking that factor into account on an individual basis when participating in the delegate selection process.

Tim K,

I understand it comforts you to believe Clinton really was the better campaigner, even though she lost the campaign, and that the superdelegates really believe her arguments, even though they are voting for Obama, and so on. If that is what it takes to keep you off a suicide watch, then so be it.

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 9:10 AM

El Cid:

Left-wingers in the party always argue that if Democrats only nominated the more ideologically Leftist alternative, the election would be different. I suppose you also think nominating Howard Dean in 2004, Bill Bradley in 2000 Jesse Jackson in 1984, or, I dunno, maybe Eugene Debs in 1920 would have been a winning strategy.

Unfortunately we don't have many cases to cite, as presidential elections are relatively few in number, but we do know that a Democratic president has never been elected (or come close to being elected) representing the unabashed Left-wing of the party. Neither Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter or Clinton were seen as the most liberal or Left-wing Democratic or other candidate of their eras, and those nominees who came very close (Humphrey, Gore and Kerry) weren't either.

Posted by Tim K | June 3, 2008 9:15 AM

Maybe, but I didn't make the case that nominating the left winger would always win. It was, for example, you who chose to bring up the McGovern 1972 case.

I simply made the point that the 1972 race with McGovern is ritualistically invoked to demonstrate the folly either of (a) nominating the anti-war or liberal candidate or (b) letting the party voters over-rule the wise insiders, whereas the 1968 case in which the more conservative, more establishment, party insider-selected nominee did run and lost.

But 1972 and McGovern are supposed to teach everyone everything forever, whereas 1968 and Humphrey are to teach nothing never.

Posted by El Cid | June 3, 2008 9:21 AM

DTM:

A lot of Democrats want Hillary Clinton to be president, that's why a third have said so since 2002 and over 40% have consistently said so since the very beginning of 2007.

What evidence is there that Obama out-campaigned Hillary Clinton personally? His campaign clearly out-maneuvered her campaign strategically, out-fundraised her with small donors, and out-organized her in the caucuses. What I'm talking about are the debates, townhalls, rallies, editorial board meetings, and personal interactions the candidates had with voters. If you think of every time there was a more or less level playing field in terms of time, resources, endorsements, demographics, etc, she has won. The Texas primary, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Nevada and New Hampshire. I count Wisconsin as Obama's example, even though he refused to debate and had a huge head-wind of momentum coming off 12 consecutive victories.

You don't have any evidence that he, himself, personally is a more effective campaigner. The fact he is winning by a very, very narrow margin is not proof that that. Was Jimmy Carter a better campaigner than Teddy Kennedy in 1980? I think not.

Posted by Tim K | June 3, 2008 9:25 AM

Tim K,

Like I said, whatever keeps you off a suicide watch.

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 9:29 AM

Oh, Tim K, and whatever you do, don't go to places like pollster and check out the graphs for each contest.

Incidentally, I agree it was terribly unfair of Obama to use his personal fortune and long-standing relationships with the Party's big money donors to outspend Clinton, whereas in contrast she had to rely on appealing to large numbers of new donors. It is indeed a testament to her personal appeal as a candidate that she was even able to keep it close with Obama in fundraising, given all his advantages in this area.

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 9:44 AM

Just because a former first lady managed to lose to a guy named Hussein Osama that nobody had ever heard of four years ago doesn't mean she's a bad campaigner.

Posted by fp | June 3, 2008 10:25 AM

Tim K is one persuasive dude. Yessireebob, he sure is.

Posted by Marty The Wonder Dog | June 3, 2008 10:39 AM

DTM:

Right I'd prefer to rely on your stunning analysis of this race, which of course predicted each of Hillary Clinton's victories in NH, on Super Tuesday, since March and how close the popular vote would end up being. I suppose your intuition is better than facts.

Posted by Tim K | June 3, 2008 11:00 AM

How was the primary illegitimate, besides the fact it wasn't sequenced in line with DNC rules?

Look at the numbers. Turnout in Michigan was abysmally low. There are hundreds of thousands of voters, if not millions, of voters, who stayed home because they believed the results would not be counted.

Posted by Peter H | June 3, 2008 3:17 PM

It would be nice if everyone got their facts straight.

Obama ran ads in FLORIDA after he pledged not to champaign in either Florida or Michigan. He broke that pledge and all of the delegates in both states should go to Hillary. In business when you break a contract there is a penalty.

Our system needs changed ASAP. All states must go by a popular vote. Caucuses are unfair to the elderly, those who live to far from the meeting places, those who work and can't take the day off arguing over candidates. This primary has proven what a mess we have with our system and it needs changed now!

Posted by forever for Clinton | June 4, 2008 3:24 PM

It would be nice if everyone got their facts straight.

Obama ran ads in FLORIDA after he pledged not to champaign in either Florida or Michigan. He broke that pledge and all of the delegates in both states should go to Hillary. In business when you break a contract there is a penalty.

Our system needs changed ASAP. All states must go by a popular vote. Caucuses are unfair to the elderly, those who live to far from the meeting places, those who work and can't take the day off arguing over candidates. This primary has proven what a mess we have with our system and it needs changed now!

Posted by forever for Clinton | June 4, 2008 3:27 PM

It would be nice if everyone got their facts straight.

Obama ran ads in FLORIDA after he pledged not to champaign in either Florida or Michigan. He broke that pledge and all of the delegates in both states should go to Hillary. In business when you break a contract there is a penalty.

Our system needs changed ASAP. All states must go by a popular vote. Caucuses are unfair to the elderly, those who live to far from the meeting places, those who work and can't take the day off arguing over candidates. This primary has proven what a mess we have with our system and it needs changed now!

Posted by forever for Clinton | June 4, 2008 3:28 PM