March 5, 2008
Updated: The race goes on
In the spirit of my previous post, I’m not much interested for now in the elected-delegate count. I’m trying to keep tabs on the popular vote, on the theory that this will carry great weight with the superdelegates. As I write, only two-thirds of the Texas votes are in, but it looks as though Obama might eke out a narrow win there, to set against Hillary’s comfortable–though not crushing–win in Ohio. In terms of the popular vote, Vermont and Rhode Island will roughly cancel out. My back of the envelope (please don’t hold me to this) says that Hillary is on course to win a little over 53 percent of the votes cast on Tuesday, trimming Obama’s overall lead on that measure from roughly 900,000 to around 600,000. If she performs this well in the remaining primaries taken together, she would just fail to win a majority of the popular vote–excluding Florida. Add Florida back in, and she is almost exactly on schedule to tie the popular vote.
Whatever happens, she is not going to have a majority of elected delegates by the convention. But if she does as well as she did tonight or better for the rest of the nomination race, and if you count Florida (but not Michigan), she will have a case to put to the superdelegates. So the race goes on–and without a doubt it will be an increasingly bitter one.
All in all, a good night for Republicans.
Update:
Hillary is projected to win Texas narrowly. Let’s say 53.5 percent of the popular vote, reducing Obama’s lead to a little under 600,000. A further boost to morale and momentum, of course. But I think the rest of what I said stands.
Further update:
As I retire for the night I notice that the popular vote tally now puts Hillary ahead of Obama, so long as you add both Florida and Michigan (where, you recall, Obama was not on the ballot). Including Florida but not Michigan, Obama is about 300,000 votes ahead. Excluding both Florida and Michigan, he is a little less than 600,000 votes ahead.
Better sharpen your pencil–Hillary took Texas, in addition to Ohio and Rhode Island. In view of the fact that Hillary is also winning the most populous states in the US, you might also want to look at the electoral college implications. As we know all too well (unfortunately), a candidate can win the popular vote and still lose the election.
Posted by: Ann H | March 5th, 2008 at 6:23 am | Report this commentThanks Ann H. Quite right: I added an update.
Posted by: Clive Crook | March 5th, 2008 at 6:39 am | Report this commentClinton’s final popular vote tally will be about 100,000 more in Texas, and about 250,000 more in Ohio. To put it in perspective, in terms of electability, George W. Bush is still popular in Texas. As far as electoral votes go, Clinton’s crucial win so far (all campaign) has been Ohio. Texas will likely go for McCain in November regardless of who is nominated. Obama would likely take all the other states that Clinton won. The same can’t be said about Clinton and Obama’s states. Of course, it’s unlikely that Obama or Clinton would win in North Dakota or Idaho, but Missouri is a key swing state Obama won. Wisconsin is another crucial swing state, as are Minnesota and Iowa. Gore and Kerry won Wisconsin and Minnesota by very small margins in 2000 and 2004. Iowa voted for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004. Of course, Clinton won New Hampshire, which narrowly gave Bush his victory in 2000 (without it, Florida would have been irrelevant) but was unnecessary for Bush in 2004. The Democrats have a tough choice.
Posted by: KPO\'M | March 5th, 2008 at 7:20 am | Report this commentKPO\’M–I’m not sure where you get your ideas, but clearly they are opinions, not facts, particularly with regard to the following: “Obama would likely take all the other states that Clinton won. The same can’t be said about Clinton and Obama’s states.”
As to Ohio, I think Hillary said it best tonight: “No candidate in recent history, Democratic or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary.” That does rather leave Obama in a pickle, don’t you think?
Posted by: Ann H | March 5th, 2008 at 7:35 am | Report this commentMr Obama has during the build up of his momentum managed to convert certain groups and individual voters to his side - a larger amount than the ones changing sporadically in such events, I would say. I would even go as far as to say that the Obama campaign, or the Democratic race, whatever you want to call it, has motivated not only young people to vote for Obama but also managed to bring up the older and perhaps more passive Hilary supporters from their chairs to go and vote for Hilary.
The other thought that comes up is how the “converted” and motivated Obama-voters would vote in the general election would Mrs Clinton represent the Democrats…
I would rather go for an individual runner like Mr. Bloomberg.
Posted by: Fernando B | March 5th, 2008 at 8:57 am | Report this commentMr Crook. I do not agree that the race goes on for Mr Obama. I do agree that it was a good night for Republicans. It was a decisive victory for those who feared the change and power shifts that Mr Obama represented. The US seems condemned for at least another decade to be mired in the mistakes of the past two decades.
The media ran a campaign for two weeks that appeared to boost Mr Obama. Then in the 48 hours going into the vote, it portrayed Hillary like a sad, maternal victim while she spun out trade and Muslim fears. Brilliant strategy. Thank Paul Begala. Thank AIPAC.
Anticipating the Clinton’s comeback game, I had pondered whether Mr Obama might be able to run as an Independent with key Republicans representing a Coalition. Voter demographics in the US suggest that such a race from Obama would result in helping Clinton. The McCain campaign would quickly fail; the Clintons would moibilise their underclass support base and women. The Obama movement would be insufficient to withstand their media attacks, as attacking has not been and cannot be his style.
So, it is best that he prepare to step back and let the election play to a smaller, less engaged audience. McCain could then win and spare the country 8 years of convent-school politics.
More disturbing than the Democratic primaries noise/outcome may have been Paul Bernanke’s comments yesterday. After watching US institutions syndicate their worst risks to foreign banks and funds for more than a decade, the Fed now encourages US banks to discount those mortgages on their books in order to save US institutions and their consumer economy. I understand the thinking, but when did we reinvent the contract? What about our institutions and economies which are paying dearly for poor judgment, policies and raw opportunism in the US?
The smart money which had held back in the hope of political change will firmly and quietly decouple now.
I will leave the Clintons to the mendacious venom of the FT’s prodigal British son, Mr Hitchens, and Mr McCain’s brigades of SUV-driving media girls. It is time to move on.
Posted by: WCM | March 5th, 2008 at 10:56 am | Report this commentIt seeems to me the Democrats have 2 outstanding candidates - in fact too good as it’s still too close to call.
But it hardly matters which one wins, as I sense McCain will go the BoB Dole way. Trying to make this election about national security won’t work - I feel most americans have enough of living in fear and at war. They are starting to realise (about time!!!) that the whole war on terror is no Pearl Harbor.
But more importantly, this is going to be about the economy stupid. And in the current mood of the country, a pro-trader and fiscal conservative has no chance, regardless of the merits of the approach. Clinton and Obama are both free traders (def by European and international standards) yet, they can both play the economic populism card - which would look utterly ridiculous if endorsed by McCain.
And while I deplore it, this is what will win the election in November. If one take a look a academic studies on GDP growth and repartition in the US, (I can’t remember the exact figure) something like 3/4 of GDP growth went to the pocket of the 5% wealthiest Americans over the last decade. While it’s more unequal than in other countries, it is very consistent with many European countries and the facts of globalisation - mainly that with extra labour force in the world, the returns from capital must necessarily go up - and as capital is owned by relatively few people, those few people benefit disproportionately.
This hasn’t mattered before - because ordinary americans could just use a bigger mortgage or the credit card to keep spending away. Now that is gone, millions are losing or going to lose their homes, and suddenly things like wages, food price inflation, petrol etc… become front of mind. When you just received a foreclosure letter through the door and will have to take the kids back to your parents, who cares about a man in cave on dialysis planning an attack on the best military in the world?
And for those not convinced, just do a quick search in Google News or ft.com with the words “job cuts”, see the number of hits, see the actual numbers. For now, it’s mostly reassuring words for companies with small figures (a few hundreds or thousands), but as we go on, and the slowdown is clear, it will get worse. Don’t be fooled - companies will tell you they will keep hiring thousands - and that’s true, but that will be in Asia and other emerging markets - they will cut in the US/Europe as the economy there slowdown.
So don’t get me wrong, the US economy does need a fiscal conservative to sort out the mess that Bush has done with the finances. (for those interested, do a search on “budget surplus” - year 98-00, and all those articles and punters worried about the surplus, the fact that some types of govt might disappear and be a problem fr pension funds - no, that wasn’t 50yrs ago, just 8…)
Posted by: fxtrader | March 5th, 2008 at 11:34 am | Report this commentAnd free trade has lifted billions out of poverty. But this is not what will matter to US voters this time around. The good news is that all candidates, McCain included, seem to me to be competent and trustworthy (relatively speaking, as they are all politicians obviously!)
It’s also reassuring that none of them have an MBA. As you know the first president of the US to hold an MBA is G. W. Bush - what does that say about management training?
Ann H, it was Clinton Spin all the way. Remember, she was “supposed” to win Ohio. It has favorable demographics (a large blue collar population, older voters, and fewer college educated). As expected, these wins barely dented his delegate lead. Say what you want about fairness or history, but this has been a historic election process like none before it, so I wouldn’t write Obama off just yet. His strategy has been geared to the way the primary voting system works. It’s about delegates. Both systems are about ensuring that candidates can’t win by just winning big states. Guess what. Clinton wins most big states, and loses most small states. Obama does the reverse. This November, it won’t be possible to win with just big states. Wisconsin WILL matter, as will many of the other states that Clinton’s “big state” approach ignored.
Posted by: KPO'M | March 5th, 2008 at 12:44 pm | Report this commentI respect fxtrader’s antidote to my own despondency over Clinton’s prospects. Good points.
Nonetheless, I think it unlikely Obama will shake the Clintons’ hold on the Democratic party now. He had to sustain the momentum and win big states with Hispanic and labour votes. That didn’t happen.
The Clintons media strategy worked on plan, beginning with the Somali garb photo, continuing with her disingenuous complaints that the media prefered her, and right into the election with poor-Hillary pics and the Nafta story. Obama got sucked up in his own wind, and people like Gideon Rachman helped burst any illusions, and thus undermined his strength with the “wired” class.
McCain as Dole. Reasonable. The Clintons–likely to be just one after they enter the White House as Bill really doesn’t need to play this game again–will not deserve anything that looks like a mandate.
Re: surplus: Look back to March 2000. The party was then over, and where did the Clintons spend them money? Certainly not on infrastructure or schools. It was a good time for the banks and defence suppliers.
Posted by: WCM | March 5th, 2008 at 1:02 pm | Report this commentHaven’t seen much comment on the breakdown of the states that they’ve each won. My impression, but only that, is that Obama has a disproportionate number of wins in states like Iowa that Dems almost never win in general elections. She’s been racking the big industrial states that you need to carry an election. Election delegates go winner take all, unlike the dem primaries. Comment?
Posted by: CR Morris | March 5th, 2008 at 1:03 pm | Report this commentCR Morris - this is also my impression. She thought she would win easily as poll predicted and seems to have geared her strategy to win those swing states that will matter in November. Ohio in that respect is likely to influence super delegates - kerry lost in Ohio. Also, while it’s technically been disqualified, I think Florida does matter too - nobody needs reminding the recount of 2000. Winning New York, California etc.. is clearly much more important than southern states that are likely to be Republican anyway. For all the evangelicals’ dislike of McCain, surely he would be preferable to either Clinton or Obama to them.
Posted by: fxtrader | March 5th, 2008 at 3:08 pm | Report this commentPennsylvania will also be a key state. And she seems more adept at using economic populism than him - which in my view is a message that will increase in effectiveness as economic recession bites.
Two facts (not opinions) that support a Clinton candidacy:
1. If you don?t win Ohio, you don?t win at all.
2. Catholics, the largest group of swing voters in the last 50 years supporting all presidential winners whether they were Republican or Democrat, are breaking for Clinton in a big way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/nyregion/09about.html?_r=1&scp=17&sq=Catholic&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Posted by: Ann H | March 5th, 2008 at 5:35 pm | Report this commentWhat about Missouri, Ann H.? Isn’t that also a crucial swing state that Obama (if I remember correctly) won? And is this campaign already not quite a bit different from those of the past? How many women or African-American men have been serious major party presidential contenders before?
There is, however, something about this campaign that very much belongs to the past way of doing things. That is Hillary Clinton’s negative campaigning (see Edward Luce’s excellent article posted today), which goes on, not just at 3:00 am, but around the clock. It certainly made a difference for her in Texas and Ohio.
My prediction, for whatever it is worth: Obama will defend himself more vigorously than he has done so far and will seize the “momentum” back from Hillary. He is a far more attractive, compelling and electable candidate than Hillary, with her persona changes, high priced consultants, machine support, baggage from the past and ruthless Clintonian ego. Barack Obama is not about to roll over and play dead. He can still make it to the nomination, despite having been dealt a big blow on Tuesday.
Posted by: algasema | March 5th, 2008 at 6:04 pm | Report this commentThose are nice opinions about Obama–unfortunately they are just that.
Posted by: Ann H | March 5th, 2008 at 6:14 pm | Report this commentMissouri is 11 delegates, Ohio 20.
As for negative campaigning, no matter what McCain might be saying, it will be dirty. And that’s because politicians want to win at all costs.
Moreover, if there’s any skeletons in the closets of Obama or Clinton, better get that out of the way now than on the week before the election.
And I think you’ll agree that the media in general has gone soft on Obama. Overall he hasn’t got his fair share of attacks. If he wins, that will happen, but for now, it probably makes sense to be more critical of him, he needs that pressure - maybe he’ll crumble, maybe he’ll thrive.
Posted by: fxtrader | March 5th, 2008 at 6:50 pm | Report this commentAnn H. are you a plant for the Billary Clinton campaign?
fxtrader, Missouri matters. Historically, Missouri has gone for the winning candidate in a general election every election except once over the past 100 years. It’s the bellweather state, not Ohio.
Ohio was a partially open primary, so it hasn’t proven anything about whether Hillary could authentically take the state during a general election.
The reason why the democratic party has a difficult time winning national elections is because they can _only_ win in big states with large latino populations, but they can’t win in the interior of the country.
Obama could conceivably take Kansas because his grandparents and his mother are from that state and he already has offices set up there.
Posted by: Missy | March 5th, 2008 at 8:06 pm | Report this commentAfter a day of travel since my last post and having now caught up with the media reports, I remain dismayed by the results and now by the air of denial of the damage done within the Obama team. Watching John Kerry’s dismissal of Hillary’s win was not reassuring. The question for me is whether Ted Kennedy’s recall of Los Angeles in 1960 means anything when you are up against today’s Democratic Party where complex rules have replaced Cuban cigars.
In my gut, I still think Hillary won where it counts. Yesterday’s voters in Ohio and Texas better represent the November electorate than most of the previous primaries. Rhode Island, with Proividence and southern Boston suburbs, is more representative than Vermont.
Mr Obama lost his surefootedness during the past two weeks. He made mistakes. In the theatre of this game, it is only his role that will be held accountable for mistakes. Hillary has made many and displayed more serious errors of judgment. That is not what the vote is about.
I believe most of the international community would like to see an Obama presidency. Please do not let the Democratic Party’s failings kill the momentum that has been built. If any campaign can think and succeed out of the box, it is the Obama effort. Don’t think Ross Perot; that is not where the US is at.
It may be time to go indie in a 21st Century way. At least think about it.
Posted by: WCM | March 5th, 2008 at 11:35 pm | Report this commentClive,
You are right: It’s the Popular Vote.
What we know:
Neither Hillary nor Obama will accept the VP spot except under compulsion.
What is probable:
There will be no “knock out” blow to either candidate; and, the original Obama memo on elected delegates leaves him with most likely an eighty-ish elected delegate lead; but, what if Puerto Rico leaves Clinton with a popular vote lead – and THE NARRATIVE. (Jacques Derrida lives! )
What is left is the Democratic Party Super Duper Delegate Nightmare: Coercing Obama into the VP slot will alienate enough of his supporters to abandon the ticket; and post - OH/TX, coercing Clinton off the ticket will alienate enough over 60 voters to guarantee a McCain victory.
Thus, the issue becomes:
How does an Al Gore type present a pseudo -Prisoner’s Dilemma to either Clinton or Obama to get them to forgo pursuing their best option and accepting the VP slot. They don’t call it “behind closed doors” for naught. ( Help me Johnnie Von Neumann !)
The Solution:
Clinton should be offered a VP slot which is tantamount to a Hamiltonian Co-Presidency. Truly, a Presidency of the Senate. Obama accepts this because Gore tells him there is a Coalition of SuperDs waiting to take him out.
Obama would also accept a VP slot if coupled with a one-term Clinton commitment. Another James Knox Polk. Clinton would have to accept this if told by Gore that the looming coalition of SuperDs promises to not only take her off the ticket period but to permanently ostracize her in the Senate.
Either way a willing Co-Ticket guarantees a combined momentum and a Press Holiday to boot: to wit, poor old John McCain gets swamped in November – Hollywood style. Done Deal.
Maybe it’s time to force a Co-Presidency.
Posted by: Jay B | March 6th, 2008 at 12:31 pm | Report this commentA thoughtful comment from WCM. I am not sure that I agree entirely, but WCM is onto something in pointing out says that Hillary has won the more important states. Not good news for Obama.
What can Obama do about this? Now he is under great pressure (mainly from Republicans, who are enjoying this cockfight the most) to go negative against Hillary, thereby losing much of what he stands for. He might be better off staying on the high ground and slamming her campaign for getting down into the rat hole, which is where it is, at least whenever the clock strikes 3:00 am.
As for a Hillary-Obama “Dream ticket”? Certainly it’s a dream - for the Republicans.
Posted by: algasema | March 6th, 2008 at 12:35 pm | Report this commentSticking to my thinking about an indie run for Obama, even after thinking through Jay’s scenario. Here are a couple of reasons:
– Obama is not the Left of the two Democratic candidates; he will remain vulnerable with traditional Democratic constituencies. Hillary’s support keys on 1980s-90s groupings, which will not find themselves at odds with Obama on any hot issues, i.e., choice, healthcare, jobs, or social security. Nonetheless, they will not leave Hillary so long as she is standing and they control most of the Party apparatus.
– Hillary is a problem for Obama supporters. Her presence on the ticket will not work for them. It will reduce Obama to a card-carryikng Democrat and promise that she will forever be in a struggle to outman him if he is number one. If he is number two, he will be wasting his time.
– Obama appeals to many Republicans. He can undermine McCain’s hold by playing new pragmatic ground on foreign policy and advancing sound economic plans (free of concessions to special interest groups).
– Thus, a three-way race could prove successful: Obama will retain his existing Dem strength, which is largely free of binding local and Congressional party ties AND he will expand his strength in the centre, a segment that has opted out of participation in recent elections, especially with Bill Clinton, who had record low turn outs and won less than 36 percent even then in the 1992 3-way with Ross Perot. Hillary would be left with feminists and “mommies”, Latino underclasses, and seniors. McCain will have reluctant Christians, Likudite Jews, and Bush Republicans.
Obama would create a new buzz with 1) a “smart”/”wired” middle, and 2) a sense of energy from a post-two-Party hold. It will take a bold move, and he will need a short vacation to recharge his magic and focus.
He will also need commitments from the Republicans rumoured to be in his camp already: Lugar, Hagel, et al.
Sorry, Jay, but I do not see Obama ever winning against Bill and Hillary’s hold on the Democratic Party, which will probably reengage Pelosi, Jackson and others to talk their story. I also think Gore is simply not the powerbroker. He wasn’t when he ws a candidate and he has openly stated he lost his faith in US party politics. He won’t find it unless he is the one empowered to show the Clintons the door. They are not friends.
Posted by: WCM | March 6th, 2008 at 6:07 pm | Report this commentcontrary to what many posters have written, it’s not the big states that matter most. and contrary to what mr. crook has written, it’s not all about the popular vote.
delegates are awarded by districts. if a superdelegate (an elected official) votes against the will of his constituents, he will leave himself vulnerable in the next election. and don’t think elected officials aren’t fully aware of this. there’s a reason why over half have remained uncommitted.
secondly, i should add. obama won the delegate count for texas by 5 delegates.
mathematically speaking, neither obama nor clinton will able to reach the magic 2000 plus number needed to clinch the nomination. so both of them will need to jocky for position with the superdelegates.
in 1984, gary hart won the last 11 primaries and had a lead with the popular vote. but neither he nor walter mondale reached the magic number. mondale already had all the superdelegates in his pocket. so basically the 1984 primary was won via telephone. he won a lot of the big states too and the vote of the union workers.
gary hart was a compelling candidate –charismatic, forceful and so. mondale was infinitely less so. he played the ‘weak on experience’ theme. and basically put the best politician of that generation out of business. then mondale went on to lose every state in the union except his home state to ronald reagan (aka, the great communicator).
ronald reagan was a great orator who when he became president had zero foreign policy experience. abraham lincoln, whom historians consider to have been the best american president (or among the top 4), had only served one two year term in congress. he too was a great orator. so was john f. kennedy, franklin d. roosevelt, and george washington. speaking skills in a polician are considered a _necessity_ and those who don’t have them (jimmy carter, george w. bush, george h.w. bush) tend to have big problems.
hillary clinton couldn’t inspire anyone to do anything. and with a country of 300M you need the force of personality to get people to accept the painful cuts and tax increases that will be necessary to get the u.s. back on track.
the u.s. doesn’t need someone who will cry during G8 meetings.
back to the winning big states theme. george w. bush and the republican party have proved that you can win a presidential election without winning most of the big states.
obama has a clear shot at winning states like kansas, missouri, iowa and wisconsin. the democrats keep losing national elections because of their bone-headed big state strategies.
Posted by: Missy | March 6th, 2008 at 8:51 pm | Report this commentIt is quite misleading to discuss the electoral outcomes of the previous contests in Florida and Michigan. Florida’s Turnout was approximately 1 Million Democrats short of what would have been expected for a vote that counted. In essence, the 1.7 Million Florida Democrats that voted in January are more representative of the core party constituency that wouldn’t miss an opportunity to make a statement - even in a beauty contest. Attempting to legitimise those results represents punditry at peril.
Michigan’s results are even more nefarious with Obama not even being a ballot choice. Whilst the Democratic Party made a tremendous blunder in how they handled these two wayward states, the previous results cannot be reviewed with any serious muster. Conversely, the reasonable repair (if needed, it appears possibly so) would be to re-stage and organise a legitimate second primary or caucus for each state.
Posted by: Hans Pauley | March 7th, 2008 at 3:56 am | Report this commentWCM,
Posted by: Jay B | March 7th, 2008 at 6:22 am | Report this commentJust to clarify. It is not Gore but a “Gore-type” who will present the horrible ( oh yes, Clive, I hear Marlon Brando now, the horror, the horror )alternatives to the two Dems. The dilemma has not been fully digested yet: the party can no longer take it away from Obama; and, the Party can no longer take it away from Hillary. Bolting seniors or blacks/co-eds depending on the shaft GUARANTEES a Republican victory. It is not that this is a Dem guarantee just the only hope left ( silly early polling notwithstanding ) . So what to do? Your third party run assumes the Obama shaft. This won’t happen; the SuperDs are not statesman or brave. The dilemma is a rigid one;thus, the need for a strange deal. I agree the real task is on getting Hillary to accept the VP because the Obamans hate the establishment,and without the Chicago Prophets’s full participation his people will gripe. Thus, the need for either Von Neumann or the Prince - take your pick. By the way, to me the usage “Gore-type” is a place-holder for the role not a literal Al. I say Hillary VP as a Clinton partisan who doesn’t want Santa killed on XMAS in front of the kids. Too much Leo Strauss I guess. Ciao
>>Jay B. Good response, but I don’t think the kids still believe in Santa.
If it takes a “shaft” to put Obama on a third rail, this would be a defeat in itself.
For me, a keen Obama observer with some insights as to who is on his staff and where the change agenda is based, I see the old Democratic Party as baggage. It is his political home and it is where he should’ve been until now. Nonetheless, I would hope that someone would’ve prepared for a “Wired” generation breakaway with style.
My observations from what I can and see and hear is that such preparations have not been considered seriously except by the most cynical amongst his brain trust. It seems that Obama himself may have more invested in his self image as a grass-roots Democrat loved by all dysfunctional wings than may seem wise in a few weeks.
If so, a tremendous opportunity will have been lost to a Clinton machine that seems most ill prepared to rethink 1) the US role in the world or 2) its passage through these dark days of being a failing consumer economy.
Posted by: WCM | March 7th, 2008 at 7:45 am | Report this comment>>Jay B. You say you are a Clinton partican and that you think Hillary may be coaxed into an Obama VP slot. Hillary has already served as VP (ask Al Gore) and she is not about to play second fiddle to “less experienced” first.
Posted by: WCM | March 7th, 2008 at 8:22 am | Report this comment1. WCM,
Posted by: Jay B | March 8th, 2008 at 3:32 am | Report this commentThanks for your patience. I have not been able (apparently) to clearly express my perception that the dilemma facing the SuperDs is rigid. Specifically, since OH, Clinton’s hard core ( over 55 women ) will vote for McCain unless Clinton agressively accepts - at least publicly - Obama on top or better yet is given the top ( their obvious first choice). However, simply “giving” the nomination to Clinton when Obama will CERTAINLY have the lead in elected delegates in June will cause his supporters to abandon the Party or WORSE ( ‘68 ). In other words, if either Clinton or Obama is not nominated as Pres it will take extreme activism on the part of the one shafted to stop the hemorrhaging of their supporters to McCain. In this case, if Clinton’s supporters don’t vote at all; then, McCain probably wins. If Obama’s supporters don’t vote for Clinton, then surely McCain wins. The party leaders will NOT factor in an independent run by Obama or Clinton before considering some type of “coercion” on one or the other of the candidates. Prosecutors get guilty pleas out of possibly innocent people by threatening harsh penalties; and, the SuperDs think like lawyers. Clinton can be coerced to accept the VP if threatened by a sufficient majority of the Party with not only ostracism now but ostracism later during the Obama Presidency. Recall that after this election, Bill C. is done - effectively speaking. How could he continue to influence any Dem if Hillary gives the election to McCain? The question is obviously: what could Hillary be offered which would prevent her from (in true passive-aggressive mode) leading her base away from the party even if she could not entirely predict the outcome? Her powers as a sore loser are currently being under-estimated. Indirect general election sabotage of Obama will be the consequence of not corralling her disaffected base. We should grasp the full import of her implying that McCain -but not Obama -is Commander-in-Chief material. She is giving us sub-textual hints, I am afraid. What could Hillary be offered as a VP? Quite simply: truly extra-VP powers. Unconstitutional you say? Not when we recall that agreements would be binding by continued influence of the Party throughout the Presidency of a Pres Obama. What realistically could Obama do as Pres without extensive cooperation from party leaders? Not much. My claim is that the Party can’t shaft Obama - he will win at least the elected delegate count. More than that, he is as beloved as Santa Claus to many grass roots Dems. Shafting Obama without giving him something very real in terms of Power will cause his followers to flee the Party. The Party will not kill Santa in front of the kids ( his followers ) on Xmas ( the Convention. ) I just think the Dem Party leaders WILL NOT do this. Why? They are cowards and/or politicians. Your choice, the result is the same. To me, the Party is past offending irreversibly Obama or Clinton. They must cooperate. This reminds me of analysis of MAD. Harsh but real – and it did stop Khrushchev even though it scared the hell out of McNamara.
Jay B
By the time you finished your last post and read at least today’s FT, I’m certain doubts have been gaining ground. Obama will not win the Democratic nomination. Clinton will never be his VP. He may be hers, but it will add little value in the end.
Obama was never the candidate to lead the Democratic Party. His calling was to deliver change to the US and its friends. He did not exactly, fail but Dame Clinton pulled him off the stage. It is her Party, not his.
At a dinner earlier this evening here in Paris, it was said that Obama has signalled a willingness to serve as VP to Hillary in the interest of Party unity. If so, and even if it is possible enough to start such a rumour, then it seems he misunderstood what was expected of him. I doubt a They ticket would win, unless the US descends into an economic hell or is at the root of an international catastrophe.
While I have had questions about Sam Powers’ depth and experience, I was nonetheless dismayed to see her dismissed for the “monster” word. I expected sharper insights from her, and some balls from him. Obama as VP or not, his support will simply lament where we are and be otherwise engaged when November rolls around.
Bill is irrelevant and fears most the days when McCain and his likely-to-be-smart VP begin to force revelations about the couple’s business and tax dealings. He knows Hillary will put any dirt on him.
The Paris dinner tonight also echoed 1) resignation that the US will become ever more problematic; and 2) that Sarkozy–a Neocon succes story–may be the only good news Washington can look forward to. At present, he is targeting the independence of the ECB, and doing a good job of risking the EU’s success.
Posted by: WCM | March 8th, 2008 at 9:49 pm | Report this commentIs Obama confirming or denying Samantha Powers’ remarks on Iraq to the British press? It’s an important question and the answer could turn an election.
Posted by: Daedalus | March 8th, 2008 at 10:23 pm | Report this commentActually, if the truth be told, what causes the most fear in me is the growing spread between corporate bonds and short term U.S Treasuries - evidence that lowering the US fed funds is no longer liguidity magic.
WCM
Posted by: Jay B | March 9th, 2008 at 1:52 am | Report this commentI guess we just disagree on 1968 and how easy a McCain victory could be; or, just how in love the Dem party already is with the Prophet. Factually speaking, almost as you were writing, Obama was denying in Wyoming he would EVER accept the VP; and, Bill Clinton was saying in Miss. that Hillary WAS interested. Perhaps Hillary, like Robert Rubin an old mentor, is a probabilistic statistician who thinks that a Pres Obama might not safely serve out his term? That, is too cynical - even for me. A VP Johnson to a Pres Kennedy or a VP GHW Bush to a Reagan reminds me such swear offs by Obama are empty. Remember it is the job no one wants and no one turns down! Anyway thanks for the great exchange.
Despite a good sound byte for Obama this morning and sense that Hillary’s gloating may be hurting her, we are not at all in disagreement about the ease with which McCain may win in November.
The US in 2008 has little to be compared with 1968. Contemporary demographics must be viewed in a new context. Bush is not Lyndon Johnson. Clinton is not Humphrey, and should not be permitted for a second to stand as such. Lloyd Bentson would knock her off that line. Iraq is not Vietnam. Obama supporters are not the students of four decades ago. Immigration is not the same moral dilemma as civil rights. The US was on its economic ascendency in 1968 and the question was who would be left behind as the first trains were well out of the station and not returning.
The very fact that Obama needs to address the VP question acknowledges how likely deadlocked the Convention could be. If Hillary is forced to stand only as VP or walk, I would suggest it better to withdraw the first option from her. She will expose the Obama team to the McCain attacks which have plenty of credible material to work with.
If you are a Superdelegate you will likely need to consider the fact the Obama’s popularity will unlikely have proven itself in the segments that will count in November. The US is unlikely to be more secure in November and Hillary will be able to spin the myth of Bill’s economic genius behind her after your decaying suburbs have endured a long, hot summer.
The Sam Power mess revealed some unpleasant truths about the Obama organisation. When I watched her on the BBC Hardtalk before the bruhaha, I questioned why she was representing the best foreign policy team in the campaign. The subsequent stumbling over “monster” showed that Obama can do more than stub a toe; he can squirm and fumble.
In the past, the US electoral process has been a marvel to watch in the same order as the Olympics or the World Cup. While both the IOC and FIFA are at wits ends to restore lost credibility to their respective games, the Democratic Party faces an even tougher challenge. Sadly, I think the US two-party system has run a season too long. This year’s environment may render situations that even Mr Bernanke cannot manage. (Or Mr Rubin, if you prefer.)
Posted by: WCM | March 9th, 2008 at 8:08 am | Report this commentWCM,
More prescient insights. Amazing for a “sports” spectator, however informed, on “inside soccer” US election style.
My background is that of a Clinton partisan active in multiple precincts. However, I am as a-typical a Clintonite as possible. The “grass-roots” pulse taken at this level tells me that NOW, Clinton supporters – many of them –will vote for McCain if she is jilted. I will vote for either Obama or Clinton. I will just go back to Church if Obama wins. He makes me nervous just less so than McCain. With a bad economy ahead, whoever is on the Dem ticket will dump mounds of offal on John McCain’s judgment. He recently stood on stage while a fanatically, fanatic Fundamentalist as he endorsed him. I can’t wait for this to get spread thick. The fact, whether I approve or not is that Clinton can spoil this thing for Obama, and vice-versa. Actually, just a fact.
Here is the real issue: do YOU think the other can spoil this thing for the Dems, AND if you were a Dem, how would YOU stop that? We obviously need all the intelligent advice out there.
“Meet the Press”, the Sunday TV show, spent 15 minutes on – what a surprise – the “rigidity” of the dilemma facing the Dems. Excepting a tidal break by either candidate, this will be what is faced in Aug by the Dem party.
In terms of the “68” analogy: Aristotle reminds us that all analogies limp. There is something that makes the two cases dissimilar and something that makes them similar. You are clear on the dissimilarities. Everyone in the United States is really clear on the similarities. I for one don’t want one more pundit to bring it up – but they do every hour of every news cycle over here. Why? Because of the similarities, not the dissimilarities.
The question becomes: if YOU were to write down all the similarities to ’68 (maybe just chaos) does that add up to a “spoiled” ticket for the Dems?
It is strange to me that in the US news the Powers stuff gets sound bit into the “Monster” stuff. My position on Hillary has always been the SNL take: she’s a B——, B—– get things done. Deal with it. Ironically, she is a very nice person up close. The real problem for Obama is that Powers made more references to Obama’s war position which imply a Leo Strauss like approach to public discourse: tell the kiddies what they want to hear, then “Do the Right Thing” (a great movie by the way).
Lastly, although for a European, this might be too “inside baseball” the following website shows the tick by tick movement of SuperDs to their candidate. What a gas.
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html
Posted by: Jay B | March 9th, 2008 at 11:31 pm | Report this comment