Obama Won . . . Barely
Posted on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:29:08 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
I understand the notion that the nominee must have the freedom to choose a nominee he is comfortable but there is a certain reality that is just being ignored about this contest. Obama barely won. By any measure. Even by the flawed pledged delegate count, and including the Edwards delegates, Obama won 51.4% of the pledged delegates. Clinton won 47.7% of the pledged delegates. On the popular vote, by the BEST measure for Obama, he won by 0.4%. This was NOT a landslide.
As Jay Cost writes:
Obama has won the Democratic nomination not because his voting coalition is larger than Clinton's. As best we can tell, they are of equal size. Instead, Obama has won because his coalition is more efficient at producing delegates than Clinton's coalition.
Now I know I will be lectured about the rules again, and how Obama could have had a bigger popular vote (I am still waiting for one example of something Obama did not do because of his delegate strategy that cost him popular votes) and the usual litany of reasons why this means nothing. I just do not believe that. This was the closest nomination contest in modern history.
And this has significance for November. People seem to want to pretend it does not matter. they have declared the race over since well, some since Iowa. So to them, this was a blowout. And when they are not telling us it was a blowout, they then like to compare this race to Ronald Reagan versus Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter versus Ted Kennedy in 1980 and Walter Mondale versus Gary Hart in 1984. Let's look at those three races to see of the comparison holds up.
Here is Wikipedia's description of that race:
Although Ford had won more primary delegates than Reagan, as well as plurality in popular vote, he did not have enough to secure the nomination, and as the convention opened both candidates were seen as having a chance to win.
Gerald Ford, a sitting President, won the most votes and the most delegates by 52.6%-47.4%, and yet the race went to the Convention. There is no doubt that Reagan ran incredibly closely to Ford. this is a comparable race to the current. It went to the Convention. Ford eschewed putting Reagan on his ticket. He lost to Jimmy Carter in November in a close race.
Would picking Reagan have helped him? In my view, almost certainly. Reagan's adherents were incredibly committed to him and it seems hard to imagine that it would not have helped him.
Take for example the state of Texas. Carter beat Ford in Texas by 130,000 votes out of 4 million cast. Take away Texas from Carter and he is down to 271 electoral votes. Carter swept the South against Ford. Would Reagan have made a difference in Mississippi? Or how about Southern Ohio? Carter won Ohio by 0.3%. You think Reagan might have helped Ford in Southern Ohio?
There is a lesson there. Ford despised Reagan for challenging him and he let his personal feelings get in the way of what he needed to be thinking about - maximizing his chances of winning.
As for Carter-Kennedy, the comparison is absurd. Kennedy made a spectacle of himself by going to the Convention 600 delegates behind and having lost the popular vote decisively. Now nothing would have saved Carter from defeat that year but having a divided party did not help.
Now how about Walter Mondale-Gary Hart? It actually was not that close delegate wise, especially since Mondale had every super delegate locked up long before the race started. Interestingly, even then the delegate selection process was incredibly flawed. Was the Party divided? I guess on one level but Hart did not inspire passion and once Mondale chose a woman, any controversy was mooted. Of course the campaign got blitzed by Reagan, losing 49 states so there was nothing to be done anyway.
Now which of these three races most resembles this year? 1976 I would say. That was a Democratic year too. But it ended up close.
What's my point? My point is this - you think about winning first. And foremost. You take every advantage offered. You avoid every potential negative you can.
Barack Obama has a problem, imo, in that he did not win a mandate sized victory in the Democratic nomination. He defeated a woman with millions of supporters committed to her and in key states. If there is a reasonable argument ELECTORALLY not to pick her, then do not. But "Michelle does not want it" is not a reason. "Breaks the change narrative" is not a good reason in my opinion if you are going to pick some run of the mill pol.
Now pick a Brian Schweitzer and you can see the argument and the actual follow through. Pick Sebelius or Evan Bayh, then you are just saying you did not want Hillary Clinton. And that is a problem. For Obama.
By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only
Comments closed
| < NY Times: Hillary to Drop Out Friday | Hillary Event to Be Held Saturday in D.C. > |
