home

JFK, West Virginia, Obama And TX, OH And PA

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:02:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Barack Obama is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. He is likely to be the pledged delegate leader at the end of the process. What else does Obama need? To me, one of two thing. He needs to be the clear popular vote winner (which means larger than the Florida spread) and/or he has to win one of the big contested primaries remaining - Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania. Why?

To my way of thinking, Obama has yet to prove he can win some of the key states' primaries, states Dems need in a general election. And this is not an unprecedented criteria for a potential nominee. Many like to compare Obama to JFK. And this episode in JFK's fight for the Presidency is instructive:

By May 1960, John F. Kennedy seemed to be the early favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination, but Lyndon B. Johnson, Hubert H. Humphrey, and Adlai Stevenson all remained strong potential rivals. The West Virginia primary, held on May 10, 1960, proved to be a decisive battleground in the race. Kennedy, who had not faced serious opposition in the other primaries, suddenly faced a serious challenge from Hubert Humphrey, the junior senator from Minnesota. In order to secure his party's nomination, Kennedy had to win West Virginia's delegates. Losing would effectively take the decision off the convention floor and throw it into the hands of the Democratic Party's powerful urban bosses, a development JFK was anxious to avoid because they would favor more seasoned party elders. . . .

I believe Obama is in a somewhat analogous situation. He has lost every contested big state primary except his home state - California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey particularly.

And yes, he lost Florida's vote. Winning one of Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania seems a fair test for Obama's chances in a general election. I believe it is the last barrier to cross. Can Obama do it?

Update (TL): Comments over 200, this thread is closing, there's a new open thread here.

< Delegate Count After Tonight | Wednesday Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    JFK, West Virginia, Obama And TX, OH And PA | 196 comments (196 topical)
    If Obama loses (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:47:36 AM EST
    TX, Oh and PA, then Obama's electability argument becomes practically nonexistent.

    Well (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:59:22 AM EST
    This faring will take a hit, the polls will reflect it, if he loses all 3.

    I think it should NOT be much to ask, if Obama can not win any of them, would NONE of you be at all concerned?

    [ Parent ]

    Ok (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:06:58 AM EST
    I would be, but that's just me I guess.

    [ Parent ]
    I should have added this below (none / 0) (#137)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:44:57 AM EST
    to a comment I had about how this post is a bad electability question.

    But yes, there is the fact that the "times favor the Democrats", which makes this narrow electability question not so useful.

    [ Parent ]

    Can't use primary info for the GE (none / 0) (#146)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:17:09 AM EST
    Again, the high turnout is due to the youth vote, which has history proved never show up for the GE.

    This is like watching the finals of the "American Idol" 8 months in advance.

    Independent votes will depend on who'll finally get the nomination. Depending on what they're voting upon (i.e., "change" or "experience") it'll reflect on their vote in November.

    Right now they're trying to decide the Dem nominee. Once that's decided, if their choice (or anything ugly is revealed within the following months to persuade them from their candidate) is who they like/dislike, can mean if they'll vote for the Dem nominee or McCain or third party.

    As for this independent conservative swing voter, if Obama is the Dem nominee, I'll have to take my vote elsewhere (won't vote for McInsane). This will be the same for the slice of the "indie" pie. So don't count on them to stay if their choice nominee won't get the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    Because (none / 0) (#151)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:47:37 AM EST
    I'm a moderate Traditional conservative, and not a GOPer. We do exist in the world!

    I argue over Rush and crew all the time, as I don't agree with them as much as I don't agree with Dem agendas. Hate partisan politics (and it should show here too!). Plus, not all on the right are the Religious Right or for corporations.

    Between electing an empire builder wanting to go to war with Russia next, and Hillary, I'll take Hillary. Not that I'll agree with half of her policies, but stability is more important to me -- especially preserving the Constitution.

    But if there's any whiff of appointing radical judges (on either side) to SCOTUS, I'm bolting (and I'll say most moderates and independents will too).

    It's the "less of two evils" vote you're hearing about. Party loyalists won't crossover, but those not tied to the Neo-Con hijacked GOP, can and will. But you'll have to keep us here, any radical talk, and we're gone.

    [ Parent ]

    Inexperience (none / 0) (#156)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:06:14 AM EST
    Hands down.

    He's too green to hold the keys to the kingdom. In ten years, he'll be viable, but not today.

    Hillary can be elected tomorrow, and be ready to form a government; voters have a clue on who her cabinet will be; she has international respect so international relations won't be tried.

    It's about stability and experience. Not throwing everything away for "change", and trying to teach a junior senator how to be presidential (and the international community to get to know him).

    [ Parent ]

    Since so much is riding on the poll (none / 0) (#194)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:20:54 AM EST
    that says Obama beats McCain, if the numbers change, does that mean that Obama drops out?

    Y'all need to work on a better reason for him to get the nomination than a dated poll from an unreliable pollster.  

    If his electability hinges on a poll that gives him a three point advantage over Clinton, then we are all screwed.  There needs to be a better reason to give him the nomination than a poll.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you discounting (none / 0) (#161)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:36:43 AM EST
    us Independents? Cause we aren't a part of your party. And many of us vote our consciences because we don't want any party telling us how to vote. Since it is beginning to look as if the candidate will be Obama, a lot of us are looking to the Green Party. Especially given another betrayal by the Democrats in the Senate yesterday.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Steve M on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:47:20 AM EST
    Clinton didn't get a dime from facilitating that deal.  He got a big donation to his charitable foundation, which fights AIDS around the world and funds other good causes.  Implying that he personally scored a big payday is just typical Internet sleaze.

    Texas shouldn't be enough (3.00 / 2) (#157)
    by lily15 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:13:41 AM EST
    First, I would draw your attention to Eriposte at
    theleftcoaster.com   He has an excellent analyss of the caucus results.  Also, read the Jay Cost analysis at realclearpolitics.com   Both are instructive in terms of what can be drawn from these results.  Does Texas allow independents?  It seems to me if Clinton wins Penn. and Ohio, Obama should not get the nod...
    One other note...Karl Rove was smirking over at Fox..and while there are many many Democrats convinced of the waning power of Republicans...FISA /telecom immunity passed effortlessly.  If this is waning power, then I am confused.  There is a reason for this...and Democrats appear to be distracted by confusing polls, the meaning of caucuses, etc.  Meanwhile, the Republicans still seem to be accomplishing quite a bit in the minority...on important issues like FISA...

    Progressives are ignoring some big problems...read Joe Wilson's latest...giddy as they are with Obama and fake momentum.  This has been manufactured by the media and aided by the tremendous wealth of Obama's campaign.  Yes, Clinton has made big mistakes...but under the barrage of fire she is facing and virtually no support in the media or progressive blogs, she is holding up well.  Something doesn't  feel right..and the idea that Obama is gliding to the Presidency makes me even more uneasy.  It's too quiet out there.  And Rezko starts Feb 25.  And foreign policy?  Manufactured events? Why do I think something is brewing.

    Big State Primaries (none / 0) (#1)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:09:05 AM EST
    I would assume that NC counts as a Big State Primary (if we're counting California, Texas and Mass, then obviously demographics arent an issue, given that they all are stack against Obama-- seriously, Cali is stacked against Obama to the same degree that GA or SC is stacked for him, MA has little more than 50% of the AA population that the US in general has).

    Why would you think that? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:13:37 AM EST
    North Carolina, with a projected A-A vote of 36% will prove nothing regarding whether Obama can win the big key states.

    [ Parent ]
    why include MA in your list (none / 0) (#51)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:35:01 AM EST
    VA and GA are bigger than MA.
    And WA, though a caucus, is also bigger.

    [ Parent ]
    Oversized A-A vote (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:47:25 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I wish (none / 0) (#132)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:31:43 AM EST
    the Asian American vote was oversized! lol

    Not marginalized as non-important by even using the same abbreviation of the Asian voting block (which covers many ethnic groups under one name). Thus, why folks use, Blacks, instead of AA/A-A.

    Short hand can be disingenious.

    [ Parent ]

    Nobody talks about oversized A-A vote (none / 0) (#152)
    by Prabhata on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 02:48:15 AM EST
    Why is that a non-issue?  It is to me.  I'm sure they would vote 99 percent for Obama in November if he wins the nomination, but would that bring the Southern states to the Democratic column?

    [ Parent ]
    Overall? (none / 0) (#158)
    by SandyK on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:25:00 AM EST
    No.

    And it's because of the radical elements in the Democrat party.

    Even Blacks are weary of radical change of their own values. The reason issues like the bill in GA to limit marriage between men and women passed overwhelmingly, is because over 70% of the Black community voted for it along with the Republicans.

    What works in California and New York, won't work for the more conservative South -- that includes it's Black population.

    [ Parent ]

    A good point -- (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:40:25 AM EST
    portions of the AA vote are very evangelical.  Obama is appealing to them when he gets into his Southern preacher style and with his churchiness -- but when the Repubs remind some of those voters of the liberal principles of the party, they might go McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    75% of the latino population is concentrated... (none / 0) (#192)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:16:50 AM EST
    ...in 5 states: New York, Texas, California, Florida and Illinois.  
    If Obama's wins in big states with "oversize" AA populations are discounted, why aren't Clinton's wins in big states with "oversize" latino populations?


    [ Parent ]
    Because dems have to (none / 0) (#202)
    by herb the verb on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:34:11 AM EST
    win those states in November to win the presidency. We don't need to win SC, NC, GA, AL, or MS and probably won't.

    This is obvious, right?

    [ Parent ]

    look at those 5 states... (none / 0) (#231)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:30:33 AM EST
    ....Obama wins Illinois, which we will win and need to win in November.  Cali and NY are solid blue states who will vote for whomever the Dem nominee is.  Florida was not an official, properly contested primary, ergo drawing conclusions from the results there will lead you astray.  That leaves Texas, which hasn't voted yet, and in which he was only down by 10 in the last poll.  I'd also note that he won his home state by a bigger margin than Clinton won NY.  She barely cracked 50% of the vote in Cali and Florida.  I don't see an unambiguous distinction there.
    Obama won VA handily, it's a fairly populous state that we need to win in November.  He won WA too.  The turnout at many of those red state caucuses far exceeded the turnout at the Republican caucuses, suggesting that he can make them more competitive(and thereby force McCain to expend resources protecting his "base" states.)  Part of the reason these red states are so red in November is that we don't even bother trying to win there.  
    If we nominate Clinton we'll see a 35 state strategy.  If we nominate Obama we'll see a 50 state strategy.  We may only win one or two more states, but our margin in the popular vote will be a lot bigger because the margins in the red states will be tighter.  It will also immensely help our congressional candidates in those red states.

    [ Parent ]
    If NC doesn't count then why do MA and CA? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:43:37 AM EST
    Seriously if you're not going to count NC then why should CA count it had a 30% Hispanic vote (and only 7% AA), and in MA there is only a 6% AA population.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you proposing (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:53:51 AM EST
    that California be excluded from consideration? Are  you REALLY comparing it, on all criteria to N. Ca?

    You really think a Dem has a chance if they do not win Cali?

    Come now.

    [ Parent ]

    No not at all (none / 0) (#105)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:06:42 AM EST
    I am however pointing out that given Hillary's reasons for winning California (massive overrepresentation of the Hispanic Vote) its a bit odd to exclude North Carolina for those same reasons win they favor Barck Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    There's no reason to think someone couldn't (none / 0) (#195)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    win GE if they lost a Democratic primary in CA.  You have two strong candidates here, but one has to "lose" in each state primary.

    You really think CA is not going Democratic in the fall?

    Come now.

    [ Parent ]

    North Carolina???? (none / 0) (#230)
    by zyx on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:25:47 AM EST
    went 56-44 Bush in 2004.

    Whatchoo smoking?

    This is a good resource.

    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

    [ Parent ]

    I partially agree (none / 0) (#2)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:10:06 AM EST
    He needs to one of those things to have a clear claim to the nomination.  But if he does neither -- but has a lead in pledged delegates -- Hillary's claim is not clear.  Rather, it will be the nightmare scenario: backroom wheeling and dealing will determine the nomination, and the supporters of the losing candidate will feel robbed.  

    We're coming to that (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:12:03 AM EST
    And I have to say: I would feel quite uncomfortable nominating a candidate who couldn't win Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Texas, or California in a primary.

    [ Parent ]
    Most likely not (none / 0) (#28)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:21:54 AM EST
    The way things are going, Obama has a good shot of achieving one of BTD's two criteria and having an undisputable claim on the nomination.  On the other hand, if he doesn't -- ie, if he lose OH, TX, and PA -- that will probably mean Hillary has turned the race around and is also cleaning up in places like IN, WV, KY, PR, etc.  Which would give her the lead in delegates and give her an undisputable claim.  The nightmare scenario is if Hillary comes back, but only part way.  Which is possible, but thankfully unlikely.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (none / 0) (#3)
    by doordiedem0crat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:10:37 AM EST
    has now taken the lead in the count for total democratic voters, INCLUDING MI & FL.

    At this point unless Clinton wins by significant margin in OH and TX or at least take the delegate lead, she should step aside.

    Do You Agree (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:12:25 AM EST
    that if she does that in Texas and Ohio, wins by let's say 7-10%, that Obama should step aside?

    [ Parent ]
    I also (none / 0) (#4)
    by doordiedem0crat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:12:03 AM EST
    think money will now become far bigger issue in the weeks ahead, especially for Clinton.

    Obama will probably take another 30 million in this month.

    [ Parent ]

    Another Reason (none / 0) (#9)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:13:26 AM EST
    Why Clinton has pulled back to Texas and Ohio.  She can be the nominee without the other states.  She cannot be the nominee without these.  Media will be cheaper there than New York and California, so that will help.  

    [ Parent ]
    Both should have enough money (none / 0) (#26)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:20:03 AM EST
    To soldier on, given the attention being paid to the campaign, which attracts lots of dollars to both sides.

    [ Parent ]
    oh come on..... (none / 0) (#128)
    by thereyougo on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:24:46 AM EST
    I should think the little people can only buy so many mugs and caps.

    I'm beginning to think this is bluster.
    The fund raising reports are not coming in fast enough and it might be a little bravado of the O camp. 30 mil in one month?  got a link?

    I agree March will decide what the 4th quarter strategy will be.  I'm sure she didn't expect all the upsets.

    and I agree with BTD that the test will be one of those 3.

    Obama is repeating himself too much and seems tired. Its grueling.


    [ Parent ]

    You miss my point (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:12:38 AM EST
    I am discussing the calculus of SDs.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe you mean your projection of SD calculus (none / 0) (#16)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:15:57 AM EST
    If Obama is ahead in the pop. vote (proportionality calculations for caucus states), ahead in the final count by 100-300, the SD calculus will be quite simple.  They will go for Obama quite readily.

    [ Parent ]
    Not Necessarily (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:18:56 AM EST
    SDs are seated as part of their state delegations and the bigger and bluer the state, the more SDs it has.  If Obama fails to win any of the big states, they may decide to back Clinton.  The pledged delegate count is meaningless, it's nowhere near a proxy for the popular vote.  Thanks to caucuses, it's almost impossible to even know the popular vote for sure.  

    [ Parent ]
    If he loses all three (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:34:40 AM EST
    your assumptions seem extremely unlikely to me.

    [ Parent ]
    If this is in reference to delegates (none / 0) (#87)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:55:22 AM EST
    (And I think it is, in this particular thread) it is very likely that Obama can narrowly lose all three contests, and still be far ahead in delegates (or even narrowly lose TX, and then lose by 10-15 in PA and OH).

    [ Parent ]
    No Popular vote (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:04:38 AM EST
    is my reference.

    [ Parent ]
    Popular votes (none / 0) (#33)
    by tsackton on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:26:43 AM EST
    I can understand the idea that the popular vote leader has moral currency with superdelegates, regardless of the pledged delegate count. And I agree that Clinton's best path to the nomination right now seems to be winning Texas and Ohio by enough to take and hold the popular vote lead and narrow the pledged delegate lead to something pretty small.

    But what I don't get is the idea that somehow if, at the end of the process, Obama has an unambiguous lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote (i.e., leads even when counting MI and FL in both), why does it matter how he achieved those leads? What difference does it make if he achieved those leads by winning huge in mid-Atlantic states and the Carolinas and losing in Ohio, Texas, PA, CA?

    [ Parent ]

    My surmise is (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:33:51 AM EST
    that Obama must win some of the big states to retain a popular vote lead.

    And of course if he wins one of them, he passes my criteria.

    [ Parent ]

    okay, that is fair (none / 0) (#67)
    by tsackton on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:43:59 AM EST
    I don't necessarily think that it is true, though. It depends on the size of Clinton's victory. If she wins Ohio and Texas by < 5 points, she almost certainly isn't going to retake the popular vote lead, especially if Obama wins WI by a substantial margin.

    Obama's strategy of huge wins in mid-sized states ends up adding up to a pretty large number of votes. For example, Obama's margins in total votes from VA and MD tonight are roughly the same as Clinton's margins in total votes from CA.

    [ Parent ]

    5 point wins in Ohio will be (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:52:20 AM EST
    how much in the popular vote.

    At least 70K.

    TX? The same.

    PA, the same.

    Clinton will lead the popular vote if she wins those three.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama currently (none / 0) (#95)
    by tsackton on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:01:30 AM EST
    has an approximately 150K lead in the popular vote in primaries only (with 50% of the MD vote in), if you apportion the MI results according to exit polls. If you just exclude MI, the lead goes up to 200K, which will only grow as the rest of the MD results come in.

    So Clinton has to tie WI (not very likely), and then win TX and OH by 100K each in order to be tied in the popular vote in primaries only on March 5th. And she has to win TX and OH by considerably more than 100K in order to catch Obama in the overall popular vote (including caucuses).

    That is more than a 5 point spread -- it is probably more like a 55- 45 win. That is certainly within reach for Clinton. I'm just saying that even going by the most generous popular vote calculation for Clinton (ignoring caucuses), she has to win by reasonable margins in both OH and TX to retake the popular vote lead on March 5th.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:04:12 AM EST
    there are few states that Clinto will win, i.e RI and the Commonwealth of Puerot Rico will go her way.

    But should we count their popular vote? I say no.

    [ Parent ]

    PR is far from a done deal (none / 0) (#110)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:08:31 AM EST
    I'm not convinced she would carry PR, its hispanic population is completely different from the ones in which she enjoys major edges (African origin hispanic as opposed to European origin hispanic).

    [ Parent ]
    Trust me (none / 0) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:16:25 AM EST
    I know Puerto Rico well, the Dem leaders in PR will dictate the votes and they are EXTREMELY close to the Clintons.

    IT will be a blowout.

    [ Parent ]

    FALN pardons (none / 0) (#164)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:16:03 AM EST

    Is this closeness related to some extent to the FALN pardons?

    [ Parent ]
    The FALN pardon would be a turn off (none / 0) (#183)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:03:13 AM EST
    to those who participate in the primaries in PR.  One problem in PR is that there all the primary voters are independents since the electoral registration there is not done according to National Parties but by Local Parties.  ie PNP a mix of Republicans and Democrats who are for statehood, PPD if they vote in the primary count them for Clinton they believe in the Status Quo, and the PIP and others who are pro-independence do not partake in the primaries.  Chances are that Local Democratic leaders will swing democratic voters to Clinton so it depends if Republican leaders push their voters and toward the Democratic primary and then who they decide they want McCain to face.  Another thing interest in national politics in PR is very limited not much turnout historically in primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    SeanD (none / 0) (#166)
    by seand on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:58:32 AM EST
    Ah... letting the machine decide who should vote how... doesn't it just warm your heart?

    [ Parent ]
    And that goes for Both the PNP (none / 0) (#205)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:38:42 AM EST
    and PPD Dem leaders.

    [ Parent ]
    Please explain what African Hispanic (none / 0) (#186)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:06:22 AM EST
    as opposed to European Hispanic means.

    [ Parent ]
    How are you accounting for popular votes (none / 0) (#102)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:05:33 AM EST
    In caucus states?

    Your argument by popular vote has to include that, otherwise you are picking and choosing which populations count in your popular vote.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll take estimates (none / 0) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:15:33 AM EST
    but even better are hard counts, you can do that for Nevada, which Clinton probably won by 8-10 points.

    [ Parent ]
    caucus states (none / 0) (#134)
    by tsackton on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:33:19 AM EST
    Only 4 caucus states so far (Iowa, Nevada, Washington, and Maine) have not reported the number of caucus attendees supporting each candidate (after viability and redistribution, unfortunately, but in a two person race that is less of a concern).

    Nevada and Maine report turnout on the respect Dem state parties, allowing an estimate of caucus attendee support for each candidate. Washington and Iowa, as far as I know, have not reported exact turnout numbers, but estimates of turnout are available from state Dem party press releases or statements, which can then be used to estimate caucus attendee support for each candidate.

    So it actually isn't that difficult.

    In Nevada, for example, I estimated that Clinton won 59,782 - 53,047.

    [ Parent ]

    Because Most SD Are Tied to the Big Blue States (none / 0) (#59)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:39:35 AM EST
    And I'm not sure they are going to feel comfortable going against their constituents and nominating a guy who couldn't win any one of these states:  NY, NJ, MA, MI, OH, PA, TX, FL, MI, CA.    

    First, that list has democratic hot button states, OH and FL.  Second, running primaries in these big states is much more similar to running a GE than winning the Nebraska caucuses.  And that's what Dems care most about, winning.

    If I'm a California Congresswoman whose district went 3-1 for Clinton, the safest thing I can do is vote for Clinton.  You might not like it in Peoria, but I don't need your vote when I'm up for re-election.  

    Now, a large popular vote lead without the big states might be enough, but realistically that's not going to happen without a big state win.  Otherwise we're looking at a very small Obama popular vote lead - if he's lucky - and many of those votes will be coming from caucus states, which are nothing like running in the GE.  At that point, if I'm a Super from a Clinton big state it's going to start getting pretty hard for me to put the guy who lost my state/district over the top.  Not impossible, maybe, but hard.

    But I think that's unlikely.  If Clinton sweeps the big states, I think she'll be ahead in the popular vote.  Look how many smaller state wins it took for Obama to catch her this time.

    [ Parent ]

    okay (none / 0) (#69)
    by tsackton on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:46:22 AM EST
    But doesn't it then make more sense to say that the important thing is not winning the big states, it is the popular vote count?

    It is perfectly fine to then surmise that the only way Obama can maintain his popular vote lead is by holding on in at least one big state. But that isn't the same thing as saying that Obama must win one of OH/PA/TX, regardless of the popular vote outcome.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll say it (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:51:12 AM EST
    I just do not understand the math that has Obama losing TX, OH and PA and still holding the popular vote lead.

    [ Parent ]
    51-49 (none / 0) (#113)
    by AF on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:09:19 AM EST
    That is the math.  If Hillary wins one or two of those states by that margin, and the others by less than 10 points, Obama could retain the popular vote lead if he does well in WI and NC.

    The fundamental point of disconnect seems to be that you are talking about "winning" TX, OH, and PA as if they were winner-take-all and there were some large significance to winning by a vote rather than losing by a vote. I, and some other commenters, disagree.  The bench marks are delegates and votes, not states.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:14:42 AM EST
    We'll see but most primaries have had decisive winner. Certainly the big states.

    [ Parent ]
    Here is the math (none / 0) (#126)
    by tsackton on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:20:43 AM EST
    Let's take two sets of numbers - the estimated popular vote in primaries and caucuses (that uses caucus turnout to infer the number of caucusgoers that supported each candidate, and "corrects" the MI vote based on exit polls), and the total popular vote in primaries excluding MI. The current numbers are:

    count 1: 9,842,880 Clinton / 10,281,041 Obama (Obama +438K)
    count 2: 9,199,888 Clinton / 9,402,341 Obama (Obama +200K).

    Let's further say that Obama can add 50K to his margin next Tuesday (probably a pretty conservative estimate), and another 80K in Mississippi (approximately the margin he won Alabama by, which seems reasonable for Mississippi; they have approximately the same number of delegates, suggesting roughly equal numbers of Dems). So that means Clinton needs to get between 330K and 568K more votes than Obama in OH, TX, and PA to tie the popular vote.

    Turnout has averaged ~10,000 voters per delegate for the 4 biggest contests. If we assume the same for TX, OH, and PA, that means turnout of approx 5.8 million for those three states. If Clinton wins by 5 points (52.5-47.5) in all three, she only gains ~290K votes. Obviously, she doesn't have to win by much more than 5 points to take a narrow popular vote lead based on this math, and 5 point losses across the board would leave Obama with a rather narrow lead, depending on how you count the popular vote.

    But the math is perfectly possible. I have no idea how likely this kind of scenario is, I just want to point out that winning OH, TX, and PA is not some sort of automatic guarantee that Clinton will retake the popular vote lead.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes and No (none / 0) (#85)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:54:17 AM EST
    I think he may still have a problem if his popular vote lead is very small.  Whether it's right or not, I don't think folks find winning Georgia as impressive as Ohio because Georgia is not a swing state.  I think his lack of a big state win outside of Illinois and a state with a large AA population is going to raise electability concerns.  I could be wrong, of course.

    But I think it's very unlikely if Clinton sweeps the big states that the popular vote won't follow, so this is arguing over predictions of something that probably has very little chance of happening.

    Although in this nominating process, it seems like the implausible happens daily.

    [ Parent ]

    Popular vote count (none / 0) (#121)
    by PennProgressive on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:15:10 AM EST
    I am not sure why popular vote count is important besides its symbolic value. It is difficult to get a hard count for popular votes in a caucus state anyway. Also, the idea is to nominate the strongest possible candidate for the GE, where the margin of victory in a state does not matter. However, it becomes important to see how many states  a candidate can win during the primary. That  may send a signal as to the perceived strength of the  candidate. And here is a problem for Obama. Many States in his win column are red states. I am not sure if we can be competitive there during GE. But winning big staes, such as CA, TX, OH, PA, NJ, FL, MI are critical for a victory in November. As BTD has pointed  out, Obama must demonstrate that he can win at least one of the remaining big 3, OH, TX and PA. But if he does not win any or wins  one and has  a narrow lead in popular vote and/or pledged delegates then we are in a mess. I guess that many SDs will look at their own state results as well as the performance of  the candidates in the big states.

    [ Parent ]
    Weird (none / 0) (#163)
    by chrisvee on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:02:42 AM EST
    I just can't believe we'd nominate someone who couldn't win a primary in NY, NJ, MA, MI, OH, PA, TX, FL, MI, CA.  Or someone who won only one of those states.

    [ Parent ]
    He can win the nomination with no big state (none / 0) (#7)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:12:32 AM EST
    Sure, it would be better if he could win WITH a big state - but it's a false condition to assert he MUST do so.   A criteria chosen by you, in this case.
    Suggested by me (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:14:22 AM EST
    and one I feel confident that SDs will consider seriously.

    [ Parent ]
    Take your point (none / 0) (#21)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:17:13 AM EST
    But I think the SD's will take more seriously that Clinton is behind 100-200 pledged delegates.

    Of course, that is projection on both of our parts, in any case.

    [ Parent ]

    Why Should They Care About Pledged Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:20:07 AM EST
    They clearly don't reflect the popular vote -see Iowa where Clinton got one more than Edwards or Nevada where Obama got one more than Clinton.

    To me, they are the useless unless they get you to the magic number.

    [ Parent ]

    And the super delegates get to decide (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:24:16 AM EST
    on their own criteria. I'm actually fine with that, frankly. There are enough seasoned politicians in the bunch to come up with a standard that won't piss too many people off.

    Frankly, I wish they would get together and produce something along the lines of what BTD outlines here, and that they would do it now. That way, the contest is guaranteed to be over by April.

    [ Parent ]

    Because they are democrats (none / 0) (#40)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:28:15 AM EST
    Who remember with bitterness the betrayal of Gore in Florida.

    And they are democrats.

    And, they also know that the big states - Cali, NJ, NY - will go for Obama or Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    It seems to me the argument (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:30:30 AM EST
    would be used against Obama, not in his favor.

    First, as for counting the votes in Florida, that is an argument for SEATING the FL delegation.

    Second, if Obama loses TX, OH and PA, it seems very unlikely he will lead in the popular vote.

    IT seems to me the argument you make works AGAINST Obama in this construct.

    [ Parent ]

    Seat Florida, won't make a difference (none / 0) (#61)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:40:11 AM EST
    As far as final count, as long as proportionality is observed for caucus states (you can't count populations without including those populations), again Obama is ahead.

    [ Parent ]
    TX and OH (none / 0) (#62)
    by tsackton on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:40:29 AM EST
    If Obama loses Texas and Ohio, there is quite a good chance that he will maintain his popular vote lead. If he is blow out (by 60-40 margins), obviously Clinton will retake the popular vote lead, and possibly the pledged delegate lead as well.

    But narrow wins (~5 points) in Ohio and Texas are not going to be enough to overcome Obama's ~500K lead in the popular vote.

    Obviously we don't know what is going to happen, and a number of scenarios are possible with regard to OH/TX that range from Obama more-or-less clinching the nomination to Clinton staging a major comeback and making things tough for Obama. But plenty of the possible scenarios include Obama narrow loses in both states without losing either the popular vote lead or the pledged delegate lead.

    [ Parent ]

    That 500k lead (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:49:58 AM EST
    excludes Florida and you exclude PA for some reason.

    When you include Florida and assume a 300k swing for Clinton, modest imo, from supposed TX, OH and PA wins, then Clinton would lead the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]

    However (none / 0) (#99)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:04:27 AM EST
    BTD you're leaving out Wisconsin, Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oregon, all states that Obama could win by decent margins.  Add that to the current 500,000 vote lead and if he stays within 8-9% or so in OH, TX, and PA it would seem he'll still be on top total vote wise.

    [ Parent ]
    I do not see it (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:06:00 AM EST
    But hey, show me the math.

    [ Parent ]
    Numbers (none / 0) (#138)
    by dwightkschrute on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:45:26 AM EST
    Turnout from 2004 Dem primaries (rounded off)-

    WI 830,000
    OR 370,000
    IN 317,000

    1,517,000 55%-834,350 45%-682,650 dif: 151,700

    TX 840,000
    OH 1,222,000
    PA 790,000

    2,852,000 55%-1,568,600 45%-1,283,400 dif: 285,200

    So even going conservative with a 10% margin of victory for Obama in WI, OR, IN, and the same for Clinton in TX, OH, and PA she'd only gain 133,500 in total votes. So factoring in the 500,000 lead plus whatever HI and others would bring it's entirely plausible he stays ahead in total votes.

    [ Parent ]

    500K lead includes Florida (none / 0) (#127)
    by tsackton on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:24:20 AM EST
    it excludes MI, which is complicated to deal with. But it does include Florida.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow! You're really confident that HRC will win (none / 0) (#188)
    by Angel on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:07:41 AM EST
    big in TX and OH.  I like it, but I'm sort of scared after the losses last night.

    [ Parent ]
    Why keep saying the silliness that (none / 0) (#204)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:37:53 AM EST
    states will go for Obama or Clinton?

    Well, duh.

    [ Parent ]

    She won't be if she wins (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:26:57 AM EST
    OH, TX and PA.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, she will be - work out the math (none / 0) (#44)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:30:32 AM EST
    The most likely scenario are 10-15% delegate wins in PA, OH, and a narrower win of 5-10% in Texas.  That simply won't be enough to offset Obama elsewhere.

    By the way, you are now arguing circularly.  You've already acknowledged Obama as most likely ahead in pledged delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    You have (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:39:08 AM EST
    apparently, a failure to understand the term "popular vote."

    [ Parent ]
    The different threads are being messed up (none / 0) (#65)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:42:46 AM EST
    But hey, if you want your zinger, enjoy.

    [ Parent ]
    In terms of the popular vote? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:39:21 AM EST
    Of course it will.

    That would likely produce at least a 300,000 vote advantage for Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    Not if you (none / 0) (#75)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:48:50 AM EST
    include proportional caucus to population wins.

    [ Parent ]
    You're Assuming (none / 0) (#13)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:14:29 AM EST
    Super Delegates, most of whom come from those big blue states will back Obama if he does not win one of the big states.

    I don't think they will.  

    [ Parent ]

    Not true (none / 0) (#29)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:24:02 AM EST
    Most superdelegates do not come from the biggest states.  There are more than enough super-delegates from smaller states to overwhelm larger state totals.


    [ Parent ]
    Seems counterintuitive (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:28:47 AM EST
    and even troubling.

    One would HOPE the big states would have more superdelegates.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh really? (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:27:10 AM EST
    add up the numbers. The big states have an advantage.

    [ Parent ]
    A better link (none / 0) (#49)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:34:37 AM EST
    Is right here.

    As I quickly start to add OH, CA, NJ, NY, and oppose with

    IL, MI, VA, WA, CT, CO, GA, SC, NC, all the small states -

    the numbers of all the smaller AND large midsized states - such as VA - are larger than just the largest states.

    [ Parent ]

    MI as in Michigan? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:38:35 AM EST
    You leave out also MA and FL and OH and PA AND TX.

    Just an oversight I am sure.

    [ Parent ]

    If you are counting MA as a large state (none / 0) (#68)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:45:27 AM EST
    Then you have to count Georgia as a large state.  In which case, your argument that Obama hasn't won a large state, doesn't hold.

    [ Parent ]
    Oversized A-A vote (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:02:29 AM EST
    Sorry, I thought that was understood.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, just an oversight (none / 0) (#70)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:47:07 AM EST
    However, it seems as if you are defining "larger" state.  GA by pop is nearly the size of MA.

    [ Parent ]
    Super Delegates Aren't Based on Population (none / 0) (#104)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 01:06:15 AM EST
    They are mostly democratic members of Congress.  So Georgia has 14 SDs, which I presume includes Jimmy Carter, and Massachusetts has 28.

    There are 794 SDs total, including MI & FL.  The large states we're talking about: NY, NJ, CA, TX, PA, OH, MI, FL, and MA control 282 of the 794 SDs, that's 9 states (18%) controlling 35% of the super delegates.  Of course this doesn't include Obama's home state of Illinois, which is also a large SD state with 29 (which is about the same as MA, for comparison purposes California has 66, NY has 45 and Texas has 32).   Now, these states may not have enough in and of themselves to put Clinton over the top, but it's a formidable block of delegates (some of which, of course, have already "pledged" to Obama) and, of course, she's won other states.  Tennessee, for example, has 15 SDs only three less than NJ.

    I'm not saying all of the SDs from these states will vote as a block, it just seems to me it gives these bigger states a disproportionate amount of influence, it's not 1 state, 1 vote.

    [ Parent ]

    if it were up to me (none / 0) (#170)
    by sancho on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 08:25:47 AM EST
    i'd give it to the one who wins the most votes in the most states that went for gore or kerry in the last two elections. that could still be either candidate. dont the republicans give bonus delegates for winning a reliably republican state? dont they also usually win?

     

    [ Parent ]

    And if (none / 0) (#216)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:55:50 AM EST
    And if Obama one one big state, as defined by BTD, then he'd have to win two big states. Pulleeze!

    Truth is, one rationale for not having states set up their primaries too early is so that candidates can do some campaigning. You know, get their message out. As every Clinton support now knows and never says, if there were primaries in Michigan and Florida now the results would be much different. Many of the states where Clinton was supposed to win at the beginning of the year Obama is winning by 20% now.

    Clinton supporters don't want do-overs in MI and FL because they know the results will be way different, maybe even wins in the Obama column.

    The sad thing is, no matter what criteria that Big Tent wants to use, Obama is not going to pay any attention to it if he wins the nomination.

    [ Parent ]

    As you say, he will be the delegate leader (none / 0) (#11)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:13:45 AM EST
    And probably by over 100 -200 delegate leader.

    That is what counts, in this contest.

    Not Unless (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:15:52 AM EST
    He can get to the magic number without Super Delegates, which he can't.  The Super Delegates are going to decide this thing.  The question is who will have the better argument, who will win the needed number over.  

    The argument is that Obama must win Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania to do that.   Otherwise they'll stick with Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    But t isn't the only thing that counts (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:16:26 AM EST
    if he doesn't have enough to secure the nomination with them alone. That is the point of this post.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, the royal "they" (none / 0) (#22)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:18:37 AM EST
    Is a projection for your own thoughts, again.  That's fine, we all are projecting ahead, but something more would be a better argument.

    [ Parent ]
    The question is: what will (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:20:02 AM EST
    the super delegates consider in the likely scenario that BTD proposes (Obama strikes out in the big states)?

    [ Parent ]
    Correct (none / 0) (#32)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:26:00 AM EST
    And again, I say that 100-200 pledged delegate lead will be more than enough to sway the super-delegates.

    Especially considering that the larger states in question - New Jersey, New York, California, all will go for Obama or for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    It is hard to see (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:28:05 AM EST
    how Obama will retain such a lead if he loses TX,OH and PA.

    [ Parent ]
    No it isn't (none / 0) (#53)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:35:40 AM EST
    The numbers are pretty clear.  

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed they are (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:37:15 AM EST
    I do not understand your populat vote math.

    You do understand the popular vote is separate from the delegate count don't you?

    [ Parent ]

    This is where a previous post should have gone (none / 0) (#80)
    by jcsf on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:52:03 AM EST
    "hard to retain such a lead" referring to delegate math.

    It isn't.  She can only take about 70-80  delegates from those states, barring some unforeseen incident.  And that is unlikely.

    [ Parent ]

    If the popular vote (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 12:29:08 AM EST
    doesn't follow the pledged delegate lead, then Obama is done, IMO.

    The only thing that gives the pledged delegate lead any moral weight is the argument that it substitutes for the popular vote.  We all know that it doesn't.

    Then there's the question of which popular vote wins.  Should California super delegates vote for Obama in a close race?  If he can't convince the SDs from big states to break from those states, he's got big problems, too.

    [ Parent ]

    What will count in this cont