Super Tuesday becomes Super Stalemate

February 6, 2008

Several months ago, the political world put a big, red-ink circle around Feb. 5, 2008, on their calendars. It wouldn’t just be Super Tuesday, it would be the biggest day in the history of the presidential primary process. This de facto national primary would answer lingering questions, establish a clear frontrunner, and let the party shift its focus away from the primaries and onto the general election.

Or not. In order for Super Tuesday to resolve anything, there had to be a clear winner. Instead, we have two powerful, well-funded candidates who can both claim, credibly, that they had very good days. As Walter Shapiro put it, “Never before in the long history of presidential politics have so many voters in so many states gone to the polls and their caucus sites on the same day — and decided so little.”

Looking at the landscape the morning after, who won what? As of right now:

Obama won Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, and Utah.

Clinton won Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

New Mexico, for reasons that I don’t quite understand, is still too close to call, and with 92% of the precincts reporting, Obama leads Clinton by a few hundred votes.

Any way you slice it, Super Tuesday was effectively a tie. Obama won more states (13 to 8), but Clinton won bigger states (four of the five biggest contests). Clinton narrowly won the day’s popular vote (49% to 48%), but Obama narrowly won total state populations (49% to 48%).

As for the metric that really matters — the delegate count — it couldn’t have been much closer. According to NBC News’ Chuck Todd, Obama apparently edged Clinton in Super Tuesday delegates, 841 to 837. That number may swing within 10 delegates in either direction, depending on final results in California, but either way, it’s a split decision.

With this in mind, it comes down to bragging rights, and Clinton and Obama each have compelling pitches, bolstered by the results.

From the Obama campaign’s perspective…

Obama far exceeded expectations. If you had told the campaign a month ago that on Feb. 5, the senator would walk away with more states won and an edge in delegates, staffers would have been delirious with joy. For that matter, even two weeks ago, no one seriously believed Obama would win 13 or 14 Super Tuesday states — but he did.

What’s more, some had begun to suggest Obama could only win in states with large African-American Minnesota, populations. Yesterday, however, Obama won in states like Alaska, Connecticut, Idaho, North Dakota, and Utah — all of which are overwhelmingly white.

Feb. 5 was supposed to be Clinton’s big day — she even claimed publicly a couple of weeks ago that she’d nail down the nomination on Super Tuesday — and it wasn’t. Advantage: Obama.

…and from the Clinton campaign’s perspective.

Obama entered Super Tuesday with all the momentum, and he was poised to score huge wins in competitive states. That didn’t happen — Clinton won four of the top five biggest contests, and the other was Obama’s home state. Clinton won California by double-digits, and even won Massachusetts, despite support from the party establishment (Kennedy, Kerry, Patrick) for Obama. With that, Obama’s momentum comes to a screeching halt.

Obama may have won more individual contests, but six of those wins were in caucus states, which minimizes their significance.

As for the delegate count, yesterday was effectively a tie, but for the year thus far, it’s Clinton who’s ahead by about 100 delegates, not Obama. Advantage: Clinton.

Which of these spins is right? They both are.

Indeed, yesterday reinforced suspicions that this competition may very well go all the way to the convention. Neither can put away the other, both have lots of money, and both have demonstrated an ability to score unexpected victories.

Clinton and Obama aren’t going anywhere. Super Tuesday only made that more obvious.

Part of the response to Clinton’s claims about delegates is that Obama has more elected delegates. That is, the will of the people is still slightly on Obama’s side, which means that Clinton’s lead all hinges on the superdelegates spiting the will of their constituents and deciding this thing on their own.

  • The real question is can the keep this race clean without inflicting some mortal wounds as the approach the General??

    On the GOP side, it could not have gone worse for Romney (and his new found neo-con backers). He looks like a lost lamb now as true conservatives led Huckabee to wins in the South and McCain whipped him in the more moderate big northern states + California.

    Needless to say, with the football season over, this primary season is a really good substitute.

  • The thing that strikes me most about the results is that Clinton won big in states where Democrats are likely to win in any general election (NY, CA, MA). (A couple exceptions, of course, like TN).

    Obama is winning in states like GA, KS, MO…..states you’d think of as red. On the one hand, I don’t think that’s means he could win them in the general, necessarily. On the other hand, it means he’d be competitive enough to force Republicans to campaign more heavily there.

    I don’t have a dog in this fight yet — I was an Edwards guy and still am. Haven’t figured out who to vote for in PA. So I’m looking.

    Just strikes me that Obama would win NY, CA and MA in a general election, even though he couldn’t beat Clinton in the primary.

  • I have to wonder if this year is going to be the election which kills the primary process. For example, it looks very likely that superdelegates may determine the outcome. With the current split of elected delegates being almost 50-50, unless this splits one way or the other, and soon, the non-elected superdelegates determining the Candidate could undermine the process entirely.

    Couple that with the weird primary math rules, where one person can win the state, and lose the delegate count, and we are running a 2000-type situation all over…

    Maybe I am wrong, but I think, particularly in light of 2000, that a candidate selected by non-elected superdelegates would be severely hampered going into the election.

    Anyone else share my fears, or am I totally off base here?

  • Um, Georgia is larger than Massachusetts by population. If I could cut and paste on my iPod, I’d include a link to Wikipedia — but if you look at the list of states by population there, Georgia comes in about five slots and 2.5 million people ahead.

  • I’m inclined to think that the advantage is really Clinton’s, even after the overwhelmingly positive media coverage for Obama, the allegedly huge fundraising advantage he claimed, the celebrity endorsements and those from “lions” of the Democratic party, she still prevailed in the biggest and most traditionally Democratic strongholds, in states that held elections as oppposed to caucuses, won Arizona – whose governor endorsed Obama – handily, lost by a sliver in another governor-endorsed state – Missouri – and was competitive in states where Obama was predicted to cruise to victory.

    I think that’s a victory no matter how you spin it.

  • “As for the delegate count, yesterday was effectively a tie, but for the year thus far, it’s Clinton who’s ahead by about 100 delegates, not Obama. Advantage: Clinton.”

    You have this listed under the Clinton perspective, but I wish we could all agree not to count super delegates at this point. First they have no obligation to vote for the person they endorsed. Second, if after all states have voted, either candidate wins both the popular vote (most individual votes) and the national delegate votes, and then the super delegates reverse the results, the headline will be “VOTERS BETRAYED”. In a year with such hyper attention to the elections, I can’t imagine being a congressman or governor on the wrong end of that result.

    One other thing I find interesting in this primary is that GA, ND, TN, and OK all seem to have drawn more voters to the Dem primary than the Rep one, even though they are all quite red. SC fits this theme as well.

  • This is what I take from yesterday.

    Can Obama win in the Red states he carried yesterday in the General Election?

    Can McCain win in the Blue states he carried yesterday in the General Election?

    An Obama vs McCain election might be the most contested we have seen in our lifetimes.

    A Clinton vs Huckabee election would be the most predictable we have seen in our lifetimes.

    Well, congradulations to everybody (except Romney) who did so well yesterday.

    I listened to Romney’s victory speech yesterday. He’s attacking Washington, but ignores the fact it’s his party that controlled it for 6 of the last 7 years and is responsible for most of the ills (deficit spending, earmarks, etc.) that he complains about.

    If he’d only admit that Bush’s tax cuts are NOT going to restore the revenue the country needs to engage in a war against Islamic Extremism (not to mention just inspect our food) then he’d actually be a viable candidate in my mind. But the man is far too much of a panderer.

  • Two quick points.

    I think that a heated contest for the Democratic nomination is a good thing–so long as it doesn’t get ugly (and it looks like both Clinton and Obama are trying to find ways of drawing blood without making it look personal). I do believe that ‘too many debates’ could lead to candidate fatigue, but so long as this race looks like a real contest, more and more people will be interested in its outcome and may learn more about Democratic priorities and values–which will help the eventual nominee in November.

    Second, I can’t help but believe that last night was a significant win for Obama. Yes, Clinton did well… but the veil of inevitability is now completely gone and she doesn’t have momentum. I thought her victory speech was interesting too… her pitch about special interests seems like she’s tacking left and trying to steal some of Obama’s appeal. That said, long-time Clinton-watchers won’t buy it.

    Best.

  • I feel pretty good about the election this year. I’m going to abstain from the Democratic primary in Vermont and cast a ballot for Ron Paul- but in the general I’ll vote for the Democrat whoever it is.

    I know I’m not alone in saying Clinton and Obama are both great. I’m happy with either one. Either one can take out Crazy McLame, although it would be a closer general election with Clinton as the nominee. Obama beats McCain in a landslide.

    The Republicans are idiots. Romney has obviously been their best shot from the start and they are teaming up to destroy him. McCain will be a weak nominee.

  • I was struck by the fact that the nobody at my polling place had any campain signs for any of the candidates. (the kid with the Ron Paul sign doesn’t count) No Hillary or Barak or Romney for that matter (I’m in MA) I figured the Mittster would have his fans out. I almost voted republican, because I wanted to vote against Mitt one last time, but I voted for history instead.

  • Rio Rancho is a large bedroom community(70,000) on the west side of Albuquerque; they had only one place to vote, super long lines, 4 hours standing in line, and they ran out of ballots—go figure! cleve

  • I’ll repeat JRS Jr’s comment, let’s hope they “keep this race clean without inflicting some mortal wounds.”

    My favorite result yesterday was the Dem turnout. Numbers are just starting to be reported, but look at this, from Scarecrow at FDL: “Last night, according to CNN, about 18 million Americans participated in selecting the next President: 11 million voted for Democrats.” Thats with highly contested races on both sides. That has to be good for the good guys.

    And d-day at Hullabaloo found this from CNN: “There’s no doubt Democrats are torn between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But the early exit polls show they are not bitterly divided: 72 percent of Democrats said they would be satisfied if Clinton won the party’s nomination, while 71 percent say the same about Obama.”

    It’s all good. Kevin Drum summed it up this way: Kevin comes the key quote: “Forget the gaseous platitudes: in Dem terms, their choice on Super Duper Tuesday was deciding which candidate was Super Duper and which was merely Super. Over on the GOP side, it was a choice between Weak & Divisive or Weaker & Unacceptable. Doesn’t bode well for November.”

    So, let’s all keep pressure on the campaigns to keep it clean and run on the issues and against the reThugs.

  • Anne: Missouri’s governor (a Republican) endorsed Mitt Romney (I think), so Clinton narrowly lost a red state where neither had a governor’s endorsement (I believe congressional and senatorial endorsements were split between the two). You may be thinking of Kansas, where the governor did endorse Obama, where he trounced Clinton. Endorsements probably don’t matter all that much, especially when they fly in at the last minute — on the other hand, Clinton has been quite proud of her endorsements and had them secured (and working to get her message out) for some time. I think an extended primary process favors an unknown candidate like Obama – the more folks see of him the more they like him.

    Lance: Any election with a Clinton in it will be a bloodbath – even if Huck is the nominee. The 527s alone will drag out everything that was ever said in the 90s and magnify it. Huck may play above the fray, but the base will be slinging (not to mention Clinton’s ‘win at all costs’ mentality). It’s not really a question of Obama winning red states or McCain winning blue states, it’s being competitive in those areas. I fear that with a Clinton candidacy the map in November will resemble the 2004 contest – big blue states overwhelmed by a mass of red everywhere else…

  • “I’m inclined to think that the advantage is really Clinton’s…”

    Despite the fact it looks like Obama actually beat her by a few delegates last night and has come from NO WHERE these last 4 months.

    All that spin certainly makes you dizzy, Anne!

  • “Never before in the long history of presidential politics have so many voters in so many states gone to the polls and their caucus sites on the same day — and decided so little.”

    A little cynical if you ask me. If voters had NOT gone to polls for candidate A, then candidate B would have swept.

    Yes, the decision has been prolonged, but so what? In fact the quote above is like saying, “Never before in the long history of super bowls have so many touchdowns and field goals ended up simply taking the game into overtime. What a waste of effort!”

  • Gotta to give Ol’Huck some props.

    He must be giving limbaugh, mitt and the other assorted nutcases serious fits.

  • According to the link the actual line is: “As a result, Todd said, Clinton could end up with the most votes at the end of the evening, but the delegate count could be nearly even, with Obama winning 841 to Clinton’s 837.”

    That’s “could”. Not is.

    I don’t particularly think it matters that much, but for accuracies sake…

  • Anne –

    I disagree. I think this is a blow to Clinton. She was the powerhouse. She had all of the advantages at the start of this campaign season – money, name recogntion, the ground network – everything. And Obama basically pulled into a tie with her over the last few months and is forcing this whole thing down to the wire. They’re essentially tied in delegates now, and the longer the campaign goes, the more it goes in Obama’s favor (barring, of course, any serious screw-ups by him).

    (I’m still sticking by my prediction that we end up with a Clinton/Obama ticket at the convention, though the chances of a flame-out by Clinton have substantially increased in my mind.)

  • As far as the big MO I agree with JRS Jr. It goes with Obama for all the ground he made up in the last month.

    But there is also some more big MO for:

    McCain for being up in the delegates; and

    Huck for not being dead yet.

  • I posted this over at Balloon Juice and it seems (To me anyway) worth repeating here:

    At 1:32 AM MSNBC reported that the Super Tuesday delegate count was 841 for Clinton, 837 for Obama. Neither candidate can claim inevitability. I would say that Obama is picking up some momentum and that Clinton is losing some. My feeling is that Obama may well come into the convention with a slight (2%-5%) edge in delegates.

    This brings up my greatest concern. If the Super Delegates vote for Clinton, giving her the nomination in the face of even the slightest Obama majority, the headlines will scream: “Democratic Party Defies Voters!” The winner in that scenario is John McCain. The losers are the Democratic Party and every Democratic candidate for the House and Senate.

  • This is an outstanding showing for Obama. Clinton’s wins can be chalked up to her being the former first lady and inheriting her husband’s political and fundraising machines. Bill was a two-term president, so WHY wouldn’t Hillary win NY (her home state) and CA (where they have cultivated relationships for 20 years)? Obama didn’t have that advantage, developed a well-funded grass roots organization in a year and won 5 more states and more delegates than Clinton on Super Tuesday, even if he had to do it by piecing wins smaller states together. He wasn’t going to overcome her name recognition and big-state advantage in two weeks, but he also knew she wasn’t focusing on the small states. Brilliant strategy.

    When you think of it, he had to spend the last several months (in money and time) focusing on the first four states – IA, NH, NV, and MI. He only started really advertising in the Super Tuesday states over the last few weeks and dramatically reduced Clinton’s lead in many of those states in a matter of days. Two weeks ago, Hillary was leading in MA by 37 points, Obama lost to her by 15 points. He erased a 22% deficit in less than two weeks. In NY, she was ahead by 28% on January 26th, but she ended up beating him by 14%, cutting her lead in half. The Kennedy endorsements only happened ONE week ago. They weren’t able to work a miracle in 8 days, but they did help him cut his deficit by double digits in a very short time frame.

    For a man who was virtually unknown in many of the states he won until the last few weeks to win more states than Hillary and exceed her in the delegate count is outstanding. It isn’t over, but Obama should not be denied his bragging rights.

  • Nony – the blow for Clinton would have been losing Massachusetts, where a long list of political endorsements could not propel Obama to victory – and it wasn’t even close. A blow would have been losing California, where the buzz was all Obama.

    Obama’s had the wind at his back for weeks now, with the media giving overwhelmingly positive coverage to him and his campaign, while Clinton has endured the media prettty much allowing Obama to say and do whatever he chose with little real analysis on their part, she’s the one who got the negative headlines, and withering coverage about Bill – so while she cruised along in frontrunner status for what seemed like forever, I can’t imagine anyone seriously thought the media were going to allow that to continue.

    I know there’s a large contingent here who will say that, of course she got all that negative media – she deserved it – but what does it mean that she survived it – even prevailed in spite of it?

    The spin I’m hearing from last night is not one that screams momentum for either candidate – words like “stalemate: and “tie” and “deadlock” don’t give an advantage to either candidate, so what I think we have is a media which no longer wants this to be over now – they want this to go all the way to the convention. So, what does that mean for Clinton and Obama? Can you have momentum if the media doesn’t confirm that you have it?

    No, I think the media just pressed on the brake a little – and it’s anyone’s guess how that affects things going forward.

  • It’s clear that if you look was supposed to happen just a month ago (or less in some instances) in most of these states that Obama did quite well last night. Despite what the Clinton campaign says you know they’re very concerned.

  • Wow! What an evening! People came out in record numbers to vote for Dems. Both Obama and Clinton did well. The deligate count (excluding super deligates) is a virtual tie.

    My take is that by virtue of this tie Obama has proven he is for real. And the pace of the rest of the contests will allow him to spend a little more time in each state. Where he has had a chance to do that kind of campaigning he has done very well.

    Hold on to your hats folks. This is going to be a wild ride to the finish. Could go either way.

  • New Mexico, for reasons that I don’t quite understand, is still too close to call, and with 92% of the precincts reporting, Obama leads Clinton by a few hundred votes.

    Hillary leads Obama in NM by only 110 votes this morning, with 20-30 THOUSAND provisional ballots to be counted. Turnout overwhelmed the system. There were four-hour waits, in cold, sometimes snowy weather.Ballots ran out. People voted on paper napkins, or used envelopes.

  • Betagreg wrote: “Lance: Any election with a Clinton in it will be a bloodbath – even if Huck is the nominee. “

    And that would not be predictable how?

    I’m not commenting on the process so much as the possible results.

    Obama did well yesterday, and Clinton’s achievement suffers in comparison with the polls from a month ago. But this hardly ends the campaign.

    Is Obama going to keep his momentum? Or is he hitting some real limitations in the scope of his possible support?

  • There’s two different views of last night.

    1) Last night in a vacuum: Tie. Stalemate. No clear victor. All of the key indicators balanced each other out, and the delegates are probably going to be just about dead even.

    2) Last night in the context of the last few weeks: Obama like crazy. For all the reasons people have pointed out above, Obama’s made huge inroads.

    What’s more, the states where he lost to Clinton are not states that he would subsequently lose in the general election. But his big wins in traditionally red states seem to me to indicate some potential for coattail Congressional wins if he’s the nominee.

    Basically, last night wasn’t a decisive win for Obama, but when you average a tie with huge gains over a relatively short period of time, coming up with any conclusion but that the wind is still at Obama’s back is nothing but desperate spin. Anne, I’m looking at you here, and your attempted management of expectations.

  • #25 Anne

    Your post has a little ‘stabbed in the back’ quality to it. If the MSM has the ability to fine tune election results in the way you suggest, between that and election fraud, our democracy is dead. Imho, Obamamania is not being generated by the ghost of Brian Epstein. It’s source may not be as analytical or dispassionate as some might like, but that doesnt make it any less genuine. After 7 years of deceit, corruption, waste, and criminality, America wants a buzz. Bush’s morass makes Carter’s malaise seem like Mardi Gras. The younger generation has not had an opportunity to see the positive side of politics and democracy, for different reasons, but in both the Clinton and Dumbya admins. We fill them with all these ideals and then dont come close to living up to them. No wonder they are taking the bull by the horns.

  • Lance: I was only responding to the fact that you seem to think that Clinton vs Huckabee would be less contentious that Obama vs McCain and I totally disagree.

  • I believe that the winning ticket would be Obama/Clinton. She is the perfect VP — she can attack on policy; he can inspire with leadership that is “transformational” as it was described in the caucus I attended last night. That arrangement fits their personalities better than the reverse. They may have to align to avoid a destructive brokered convention.

  • Michael – you said:

    Your post has a little ’stabbed in the back’ quality to it. If the MSM has the ability to fine tune election results in the way you suggest, between that and election fraud, our democracy is dead. Imho, Obamamania is not being generated by the ghost of Brian Epstein. It’s source may not be as analytical or dispassionate as some might like, but that doesnt make it any less genuine. After 7 years of deceit, corruption, waste, and criminality, America wants a buzz. Bush’s morass makes Carter’s malaise seem like Mardi Gras. The younger generation has not had an opportunity to see the positive side of politics and democracy, for different reasons, but in both the Clinton and Dumbya admins. We fill them with all these ideals and then dont come close to living up to them. No wonder they are taking the bull by the horns.

    Michael – nothing happens in a vacuum, and I think the media’s virtual blackout on Edwards coverage is a case in point.

    Is momentum helped or hurt by media coverage of the “huge” crowds for Obama and the passing mention of “oh, yeah, and Clinton had an event in State X?” Is momentum helped or hurt by live cable coverage of Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama at a huge rally, followed by live coverage of the Obama speech? What happens to momentum when there is no coverage? What happens to the Obama surge without the coverage?

    Hillary Clinton was deemed the frontrunner long before even she was officially in the race. What if her name had not been mentioned until just before she announced her candidacy? Would she be where she is today? Maybe not – but really, who the hell knows?

    It’s true that Obama and Clinton started from two different positions, and I would submit that that was a function of the media – I think it’s denial to think otherwise.

    America, in my opinion, does not want a “buzz;” what it wants is competence, commitment to the rule of law, adherence to constitutional imperatives and protection of civil liberties. It wants changes in health care, help with education. It wants accountability and consequence. What Bush has done these last 8 years would not have gone down better if it had come with a buzz – it’s bad enough that we are suffering an excruciating hangover without ever having the buzz.

    If America can have those things, work to have those things – that will be much more fulfilling than buzz.

    Headline after headline, story after story calls the events of yesterday some variation of a tie. Words matter. Perceptions matter, and the media has the power to affect those perceptions. Do you think George Bush would be where he is today if the media hadn’t given him the kid-gloves, great-to-have-a-beer-with treatment, while portraying both Al Gore and John Kerry as effete, privileged intellectuals who could not possibly relate to the American people?

    Come on – I will give you the fact that Obama has people’s interest – he’s new, new is exciting and fun – but please at least live in the real world where what people see on their TVs and read in their newspapers and magazines makes a difference. How else do you explain the insane things that people who watch Fox News think?

  • Tell me again how many PRIMARIES exactly did Obama win. Come on 400 people voted in Alaska that shouls help in the general, MO he won by 400 votes and had the support of their most popular Senator. I heard people saying he had 20,000 people at an event in Boise, ID his total vote count 16K. Obama won Caucuses in AK, ID, KA, ND, MINN and UT and Hillary never even campaigned in those states. From IA he sent his supporters to all the caucus states. So by so many ways Clinton won and won big.

  • I’m not sure the momentum or good news picture is as clear as “Obama wins because Clinton’s lead evaporated.” He has had a stellar past two weeks – I’m not sure it could get any better in terms of big name endorsements, positive free media, major momentum, cash to put into TV – and he couldn’t take her out.

    I would also bet that her overall negatives are dropping (I haven’t seen a poll on that lately), and I find interesting that in the exit polls she is (nominally) ahead of him in acceptability.

    My pro-Clinton spin is that after 15 years of the media, the right wing, and even some in her own party sliming her in often the most unfair yet unrelenting ways, of being ovreshadowed by Bill, of allegedly having these huge, election-killing negatives, of having two bad weeks on the trail, she still can hold off the hot new guy. I think in a lot of ways it shows her chops and puts the lie to some of the electability concerns. Despite her time “on the scene,” it always seems that many people wonder if she is “for real” as a candidate almost as much as they do Obama. I think it is pretty clear they are both very real, very good at this, and very electable. Last night’s turnout and results show both have large, broad support.

  • The spin I’m hearing from last night is not one that screams momentum for either candidate – words like “stalemate: and “tie” and “deadlock” don’t give an advantage to either candidate, so what I think we have is a media which no longer wants this to be over now – they want this to go all the way to the convention.

    Anne – Perhaps the reason the media is covering it that way is because that’s what happened. If anything, it looks like you’re the one trying to put the spin on here. You’ve suggested repeatedly that Hillary won because Barack didn’t cruise to victory. But Hillary was the one who kept leading in the polls the whole time, while he keeps slowly catching up with her. And as has been suggested before, this was just a matter of time, but that time wasn’t on Barack’s side. The more people see him, the more they like. And the idea is that, going into the upcoming primaries, he’ll have more time to establish himself better, which is a bigger advantage to him. Despite your spin, she’s the better known establishment candidate and was supposed to have moped him up by now. But in any case, there was no decisive victory last night, no matter how you try to spin it.

    And as I’ve said before, one of the biggest reasons why I lean against Hillary is because, as you insist, the media hates her and is willing to help him to spite her. Now, maybe that will change if he gets the nomination, but we know it won’t change if she wins.

  • JRS: The real question is can the keep this race clean without inflicting some mortal wounds as the approach the General??

    Agreed.
    The answer is no.
    Today’s NYT editorial carries a couple of interesting points:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/opinion/06wed1.html?hp

    Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will face the gargantuan task of winning over the other’s voters. While Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have few policy disputes, voter polls showed gulfs between their core supporters: men for Mr. Obama and women for Mrs. Clinton, and so on with black voters and Hispanic voters, more educated voters and less educated voters, richer and poorer, those driven by the idea of change and those looking for a candidate who cares about their problems.

    This gets it exactly right.
    The inter-partisan fights seen on comment threads is spreading.
    What went on here and at other blogs is seeping into the greater body politic.
    It is inevitable.
    In fact I agrue: The Democrat party is coming apart at the seams.
    To wit, the editor of the Times admits he has had a ton of emails proclaiming:

    Many of those readers said they would not bother to vote if Mr. Obama lost the nomination. That is not the way democracy is supposed to work.

    Of course that is wrong. .
    We can vote for whom we want.
    We can vote against someone.
    We can even choose not to vote, which is of course, a kind of vote in itself.
    The grand old party loyalty crap that the NYT is peddling doesn’t matter to a whole lot of folks.
    Like it or not: That is exactly how democracy is suppose to work

    Here is a most vital point for political junkies to ponder:
    Barack Obama is the charisma candidate. Should he lose, the air is going to come out of the party. Lots of people are going to be sad and angry and disillusioned.
    The same will be true, but to a lesser extent, should the queen go uncrowned.
    Because of this internecine attrition,
    Right now… I do not think either of these Dems can beat a McCain-Huck ticket.

    However, because Barack is showing strength in the vast ocean of space between the two coasts, rural America, which is really the red/blue divide, I think he has the best chance to win the popular vote. And perhaps, the electoral college.

  • I’m not sure it could get any better in terms of big name endorsements, positive free media, major momentum, cash to put into TV – and he couldn’t take her out.

    Zeit – But the problem for Obama is just that he didn’t have enough time. The momentum is on his side, but he still had too far to go for this many states. You guys are acting as if Obama and Hillary were on an even field, and that Barack’s advantages couldn’t help him knock her out. But the truth is that Hillary is still coasting on her huge name recognition advantage, yet Barack continues to chip away at her support. All that happened is that Obama’s momentum and endorsements weren’t enough to overcome Hillary’s long-running advantages, but that he did very well. Perhaps she can keep that up and win, but I believe that the upcoming primaries will be even better for him.

    And remember, he’s supposed to be the lightweight newbie, going against a longtime politico with the help of the most popular Democrat in modern history. Now you guys are acting like she’s the scrappy underdog who is staying even against a superior opponent. And the reason you feel that way is because you sense that the momentum is on his side and that he has stronger advantages. And I agree with that completely. Otherwise, you have to admit that he’s the underdog, and this stalemate shows that he can compete with someone who was supposedly “invincible” just a short time ago.

  • You heard Dean people insisting they would never vote for anybody else, ever, too, but they came behind Kerry. Obama’s folks are passionate. Hillary’s a Panzer. She keeps right on rolling.

    The reason this is such a fight is that for all intents and purposes we’re deciding th next President, barring some amazing turn of events. This IS the election. Second, I do think there is some “heart & soul” being considered — do we turn the page on the very popular and successful Clinton years? Then there was Digby’s very astute analysis — fighter or dreamer? Idealist or realist? Third, we do have two very strong candidates. I can’t think of another time there were two such evenly matched pols whom people wanted to vote for. Usually, it’s about who can win. Fourth, it’s the same thing as why the fights in acedamia are so big: the stakes are so small. I mean that in the sense that, it’s close, and they’re both strong candidates, and both can, (and will, most likely) win. So we have to have HUGE fights over a tiny piece of turf.

    The party isn’t coming apart at the seams. It’s energized, and deeply invested in this election. Having the nation focus on these two candidates while McCain drifts away into obscurity is good for our party.

  • Right now… I do not think either of these Dems can beat a McCain-Huck ticket.

    Sorry, Rolling Floor Liberal, but I think that’s crazy talk. McCain-Huck is a worse and worser ticket, and each one of them drags the other down. The people who hate McCain aren’t going to side with him just because of Huck, and Huck will surely scare many of McCain’s moderates and independents; many of whom hate the religious portion of the party.

    And in a general election, Huck’s past will utterly embarrass McCain. It’ll be the Dan Quayle effect. Even in a Republican primary, Huck was an embarrassment, and I can’t think of anything better than getting that dummy in a general election. McCain has his own problems that many people won’t know about until the general heats up. He at least needs a sane ticket-mate to balance things out. In the end, I think Huck would scare the blue state voters McCain might get and McCain will still scare many of the red state people; making them have to waste more time and money in all fifty states. Rather than this ticket getting both types of voters; they’ll end up getting neither. I do consider that to be a dream ticket, but only for our side.

  • Sooo….

    Obama takes 13 states to Billary’s 9 (NM still undecided). 841 elected delegates to her 837 elected delegates. Some “front runner” she is, eh?

    This past weekend, Harold Myerson wondered if sending Obama to the smaller states was a good payoff. I think we can say it was: 15,000 at the Boise rally – 15,000 Democratic votes for Obama last night; 20,000 in Wilmington Delaware and he takes Delaware; 25,000 at the St. Louis rally Sunday night and he takes Missouri.

    She was only up 15 delegates here in California, and in fact that is a “definite maybe,” no matter what the otherwise-unemployables on cable news are saying. LA City Councilman Eric Garcetti announced last night that the Obama campaign has identified enough “Decline To State” voters in Los Angeles County whose ballots were invalidated for not punching the “Democratic” bubble – my wife being one of them – to cancel Billary’s statewide “victory” margin. The thing with SWMBO happened after I told the precinct workers that they needed to instruct DTS voters on the way to correctly mark the ballot, and them saying there was no problem (contrary to what the Registrar of Voters said about their training, which supposedly stressed this). We are already on the list as a plaintiff and witness on the lawsuit.

    I swear, this ballot – which has been used out here ever since the “apparatchikis” of the “organized” Democratic Party were forced to hold open primaries (make it hard for independents, since they never vote in the party primary for the candidate of the Apparat) – reminds me of the bullshit the “regular” Democrats were pulling on us back in 1968 so they could foist Hubert Humphrey over Robert Kennedy. I’ve watched these types as the Alioto machine played the public to put Dianne Feinstein into the SF Board of Supervisors in 1969 on “she’s a woman, she must be progressive” baloney – all they want is power and they like limiting the “big tent’ to the proven partisans (you listening, Zeitgeist?).

    And Obama has the money to back the legal challenge.

    And now, the rest of the primaries are the kind that Obama has been winning. (See note above about Idaho, Delaware, and Missouri) Not to mention that he is on track for raising another $30+ million in February on top of the $32 million he raised in January. Hillary only raised $15 million in January. Not to mention she lost 15 points of lead over the past three weeks.

    If I was Hillary, I would be re-reading the history of the Greek General Pyrrhus.

    I “won” a campaign in Northern California 30 years ago that lost here in southern California to being outspent. I know the truth of what Jesse Unruh meant when he said “money is the mother’s milk of politics.” Obama is still on the front end of the power curve and accelerating. Hillary’s on the “back side” of the power curve – not a good place to be.

    So….

    Yes! We can!! (In fact, we are.)

  • The phrase that comes to mind with a McCain-Huckabee ticket is:

    “We’ve Got Crazy Covered!”

    And they would be right.

  • Doctor Biobrain # 39 –

    I don’t disagree with any of that, but I think you are making a similar over simplification in saying “but Hillary started out with much more name recognition” — sure she did, but it was far from all positive. Much of that recognition was earned through being bashed repeatedly. So her years in view were a mixed blessing, not an unambiguous head start.

    Right now, she held off a candidate on a meteoric rise, which is good enough for me. I suspect it levels off some of his momentum, although he probably still has more of it than she does.

    And memekiller #40, I hope that is a post that is a memestarter. 🙂

  • the very popular and successful Clinton years

    Memekiller – I wish we’d kill this meme too. I remember the Clinton years, and while the economy was gangbusters, the political wars were HORRRIBLE. My god, Bill Clinton got impeached, for christ’s sake! That’s success? We had basically given up on the idea of controlling Congress and instead were constantly fighting a coup d’etat on a daily basis. And many of our “wins” involved giving Republicans almost everything they asked for.

    And while I continue to believe that Clinton was a big part of the economic success, the internet boom surely helped and Clinton didn’t invent that. While I’m sure that a Republican president would have screwed it up, I’m not at all convinced that a different Democrat would have done much worse than Clinton. But in any case, I don’t see that happening again. And again, while the economy was great, the politics totally sucked. It’s only in hindsight that we might consider it a success, but at the time, we were clearly always struggling.

  • The reason this is such a fight is that for all intents and purposes we’re deciding th next President

    I wouldn’t be so cocky. If Kerry couldn’t beat Bush AFTER the country actually experienced four years of Bush–and after trouncing him in the debates–anything can happen and all bets are off. Believe it.

    And as for the party coming apart at the seams: You didn’t catch the core of the Times editorial.
    You can pretend this is about fighter or dreamer, idealist or realist, or even Krugman-like policy nuances. But this is about people being excited because of identifications along gender and race. That sort of personal investment in a candidate has not happen for quite a few election cycles.

    When one wins and the other loses there is going to be some serious disenchantment.

  • Doc,
    That’s an argument for Hillary, isn’t it? Bill was liked and charismatic — he was the Obama of his time, which resulted in the HORRIBLE political wars. So if those political wars — essentially, the result of Republican partisan hate, with no basis in reality — was effective enough to make you dislike those years, then we definitely should not vote for Obama because they can do the same to him.

    The politics WAS horrible — because Clinton scared the crap out of him, people liked him and liked his policies. The only choice was character assassination. And it works, even on Democrats, as Obamas supporters consistently show. So why go for a guy whom conservatives will like, when they hate anyone who isn’t them?

    I like Obama, and it has nothing to do with this persistant need among Dems to be liked by the Ann Coulters of the world. Clinton was impeached, as you say — with a 70% approval rating, the exact opposite of Bush’s.

  • So her years in view were a mixed blessing, not an unambiguous head start.

    Zeit @ 44 – While I agree that her name recognition isn’t all positive, that doesn’t help your case at all. Remember, you guys are the ones insisting that her negative approval is vastly overstated and that her appeal is much broader than is often suggested. Yet you’re now suggesting that even in a Democratic primary, her name is a mixed blessing; yet we’re to imagine this doesn’t hurt her more in a general election?

    Besides that, I’m sorry, but she was the name recognition candidate, just as Rudy was. For months and months last year, she was ahead mainly because people knew her name and weren’t paying attention to politics much. Fortunately for her, unlike Rudy, people actually liked her once they got to know her; and so her support continued. But she already had the huge headstart which we now mock Rudy for blowing. Barack, on the other hand, was so little known that many people believed he was Muslim. Now he’s proven himself so much that he’s getting key endorsements from people who should have gone to Hillary, if they hadn’t been so impressed with Obama.

    This is like a race where Hillary started off in the pole position, while Obama was stuck back in the pack. He’s now cruising faster than her, and the only question is whether the race will last long enough for him to finally pass her. As was suggested before last night, Super Tuesday had him at a disadvantage as it was too many states too soon, and he didn’t have enough time to sell himself. The upcoming primary schedule is much better for him.

  • ROTFL,

    People have been this jazzed before — over Dean. And Dean has a very high profile position in the party, and the party as a whole is a much better one because of his success, even though he didn’t win.

    I don’t hear any Hillary supporters saying they’ll bolt if it’s not her. If anyone is threatening to tear the party apart, it’s the Clinton haters.

  • Anne said :

    ‘ Do you think George Bush would be where he is today if the media hadn’t given him the kid-gloves, great-to-have-a-beer-with treatment, while portraying both Al Gore and John Kerry as effete, privileged intellectuals who could not possibly relate to the American people?’

    If either Gore or Kerry had fought back, Bush would have lost. They gave credence to the ‘effete privileged intellectual’ stereotype by not fighting back. By his speeches and writings, you can tell that the ‘new’ Gore knows this.

    Sure the media has a biased impact(it’s virtually inevitable) and HRC is a victim of it. She is a victim(maybe sometimes ironically a beneficiary) of childish mysogynistic stereotypes. She is portrayed as, and perceived as, a bitch or a weakling. She is in a quandry, no doubt. How do you fight that? It’s a shame that it is that way. Of course, she is neither. Those unfair characterizations of women who dont happily submit to the patriarchy, predate modern media, written history.

    On the bright side, she is in the thick of it and personally speaking, if she is the nominee, I will happily vote for a Clinton for the first time. Whoever wins might as well be a housecleaner in post-Katrina Nawlins.

    BTW, I knew when I used the term buzz, I was going to pay for it,lol.

  • Actually, when I look at the results of Super Tuesday, I am most reminded of another primary election: New Hampshire 1968, where the “inevitable front runner” came out looking not so inevitable, and such a front runner that on March 31, 1968, he said “I will not accept the nomination of my party for another term as your President.”

    From “inevitable winner” to down 4 in three short weeks.

  • The politics WAS horrible — because Clinton scared the crap out of him, people liked him and liked his policies.

    His policies?? You’re telling me that he really wanted welfare reform, taxcuts, medicare/medicaid spending cuts, and continued aggression against Saddam? These weren’t his policies. These were Republican polices which he adopted because he gave up on trying to sell his policies in the first term. Sure, he was popular, but what did he do with that popularity? Where was the liberal agenda we wanted to see? Even at the time, I often complained that he was far too conservative, and I consider myself a moderate liberal.

    He was popular because that’s all he was trying to do. This wasn’t FDR or even Jimmy Carter. This was a president who barely hung on by the skin of his teeth, and almost lost it anyway. They liked the man, not what he did. And again, that’s because he gave up on actually doing stuff, and just wanted to beat the Republicans by passing watered down versions of their platform. If that’s what Hillary’s selling, I’ll pass.

    And BTW, I honestly believe that a lot of our problems with dealing with Republicans are due to Clinton’s short-sighted battle techniques. He won the battles, but only to lose the war; and that the huge rightwing shift we saw was largely due to him surrendering territory in order to remain popular. I’ll say again that I did my part in defending the Clinton’s during the nineties, but I didn’t like it. I think Barack can do better. He not only wins battles, but he keeps his eyes on the prize too. That was something Bill never had. He was a good president, but we should reject the idea that he was successful. Popularity is meaningless if it doesn’t get results.

  • I remember the Clinton years, and while the economy was gangbusters, the political wars were HORRRIBLE.

    Indeed – and right from the start. What, exactly, did he do to cause that at the start? The Republicans had elected a whole new bred-to-fight breed of leaders who came in trashing the place, throwing civility and statesmanship out the window, and they would have done the same to any Dem who was elected in 92. Yes, he gave them something to use that others might not have, but they only got to that through massive abuse by Ken Starr that never should have happened, and even then the general public overwhelmingly disapproved on impeachment – and they did it anyway.

    But to say “enough of Clinton – the fighting was horrible!” is to absolve the people who really changed the climate of politics in this country — completely and inarguably on a unilateral basis — and to reward them by letting them veto whomever they focus their scorn on.

    Clintons didn’t cause the Republicans to catch rabies and foam at the mouth. Indeed, at the height of Gingrich’s power, Clinton stood him down on the government shutdown and from that moment on, Clinton largely owned Gingrich. Given a wholly new and unpredictable set of circumstances (rabid Republicans with no respect for the institutions), he did pretty darned well at fending them off, albeit using some compromises. His results were very good for the country and very good for those totally left out under Bush.

    No, part of why I am for HRC is because much of the distaste for her was so manipulated and manufactured and meanspirited by the Gingrichist bastards. I refuse to let them win by validating their illegitmate efforts.

  • The reason GOP hate tactics work is b/c people think it takes two to fight but one to compromise. Clinton’s biggest failing was his statesmanship – renewing the independant prosecutor statute, thinking he had nothing to fear from whitewater, trying to compromise with people who wanted him dead.

  • but Obama winning in small states almost certainly going Republican doesn’t mean a darn thing. Idaho, Alaska and ND? Please, those should probably be considered null moreso than FLA and MI.

    Super Tuesday has shown that Hillary has the ability to win the General Election. There is no doubt that if Kerry or Gore had taken Arkansas, Tennessee and OK they’d have been President.

    Additionally, does anyone else think it’s highly egotistical for Obama to imply that he’s the reason for the huge crossover. It couldn’t possibly be because we currently have the WORST PRESIDENT EVER and he’s a Republican. All independents and crossovers are reacting to Bush more than Obama.

  • Zeit @ 53 – I wasn’t necessarily trying to argue that this is a reason why we should be against Hillary. I was just arguing against the idea that the 90’s held big political success for us; as Memekiller had suggested this success is part of Hillary’s legacy. I was saying there was little success beyond retaining the Whitehouse, which was mainly used to push a watered down conservative agenda. As much as Bill put up the good fight, it was only to slowdown the Republicans, not to push good policies we wanted. Let’s not forget that the compromising DLC crowd are Clinton people.

    And could we please get out of the mindset that no one could have done better than Clinton? It surely could have been much worse, but it’s foolish to pretend as if we couldn’t have done better. I’m sure you don’t believe that, so let’s not pretend otherwise. Popularity does not equal success.

  • betagreg said: “Lance: I was only responding to the fact that you seem to think that Clinton vs Huckabee would be less contentious that Obama vs McCain and I totally disagree.”

    I can see how you might get that, but I simply meant that the electorial map would look pretty much like 1996 or 2004 in a Clinton vs Huckabee contest.

    Obama vs McCain has the best chance to flip states around to some new and profoundly different alignment. Transformational, as some might like to say.

    Re #53. What Zeitgeist said. I’m not blaming the Clintons for Delay and Gringrich.

  • Additionally, does anyone else think it’s highly egotistical for Obama to imply that he’s the reason for the huge crossover.

    g8grl – Then why are they mostly going to Obama and not Hillary? You’ve explained the crossover, but not why Obama gets them. Perhaps they just don’t like Hillary, which wouldn’t bode well in the general election.

    And Oklahoma? Are you kidding? Bush beat Kerry there 66- 34. You’re telling me Hillary’s going to beat McCain there? And Kerry lost by fourteen points in Tennesse. Methinks someone is cherrypicking these states in order to suggest that Hillary looks better than she does. I grant you that it’s possible she’ll get Arkansas, but I wouldn’t put money on it.

    And btw, for both candidates, the issue isn’t whether the southern states will go Republican, but which ones are considered competitive. The more time, money, and rhetoric McCain has to spend wooing the Southern states, the worse off he’ll be everywhere else. At least Bush could pretend to be a pseudo-moderate during his campaigns because he had the South in his pocket. McCain will have to run as a conservative, or risk losing southern states. Just imagine what he’ll have to say to ensure he doesn’t lose in Alabama, Georgia, or South Carolina; three hardcore southern states where Obama trounced Hillary. I’m not saying McCain will lose in those places; only that Obama will make McCain have to work harder for them.

  • If you want to promote Obama, I’d start by reading last night’s speech. He didn’t go after Hillary’s character. He didn’t try to do an ABC style rewrite of the history of the first Democratic Golden years since Kennedy. He talked about a war that should never have been waged, and never been authorized. He talked about not giving authority to do the same idiotic thing with Iran. I keep coming back to this, but Obama succinctly summarized everything that’s wrong with Clinton’s approach: “I want to change the mindset that got us into the war.” Yepper! That resonates with me! Torture is NOT an American value. (Didn’t Hillary hedge on that? I can’t remember.) He would meet with people we don’t like, which HIllary used to set herself apart as “tough”.

    If Obama’s going to win this primary, it’s not going to be by undermining a very popular, successful Presidency, that people look back at with fondness after seeing how far we’ve sunk. It’s going to be because the political dynamic has changed, and Hillary’s playing like Karl Rove is still running the game, and fear of terror and toughness is all that matters. Obama can win by turning the page on Rove, not Clinton, and making this his game, where everything we do is out of fear of the big, bad, hating Republicans, fear of terror, stubbornness masquerading as toughness.

    This is not the same Republican Party we’re running against. They have no money, no power, no conviction. They’ve give us their worst, and it wasn’t good enough. This is not a Karl Rove election. The first candidate to recognize that will win — and so far, it’s Obama (not his supporters).

  • And could we please get out of the mindset that no one could have done better than Clinton?

    Actually, i dont believe just any Dem would have had as good of results. Having been in the room with Clinton giving speeches and working the crowd numerous times, he is an unusually gifted politician, both at a wholesale and a retail level. No one else who ran in 92 had anything close to his skills. The Rabid Repubs would have eaten the rest of ’em for lunch, and I say that as someone who did not support Bill in the 92 primary.

  • One thing that I’ve not seen mentioned is the margins of victory in Obama’s and Clinton’s respective home states. Obama won Illinois by about 31 points, and Clinton won New York by only about 17. Seems to me to be an indication that he’s making progress in her home turf, but she’s not able to do the same in the opposite direction.

  • I don’t think that there should be any debate about who won the Super Tuesday voting. As of just a few weeks ago, Obama was trailing in multiple states by large margins. A few days ago, some poll had him trailing by 18 points in Super Tuesday states (though only trailing by a few points nationwide). MA was never in play.. it was not an UPSET for Clinton. CA wasn’t in play either .. early voting played a role in that. However, his performances in CT, MO, DE and NM were truly unexpected!!

    What he has achieved in this short span of time is sensational. The Clinton campaign admitted that they were relieved that this vote hadn’t taken place 3 or 4 days later.. as momentum has really shifted to Obama. He has overcome the strongest brand in the Democratic party (and it’s political machine)… and he has done this all in the last few months. I expect that he will have even more success raising funds.. and he has a month to present his case to voters in Ohio and Texas.

    His performance in the swing states.. and more importantly among youth… shows that he has what it takes to deliver the November election to the Democrats.

  • Actually, i dont believe just any Dem would have had as good of results.

    Agreed. But the question is whether it is possible for a Democrat to have done better than Clinton. It’s utterly silly to suggest that no one could have improved on his performance. Even now, Hillary’s supporters continue to suggest that Obama can’t do any better than the Clinton’s did in regards to dealing with the media and Republicans. Perhaps it’s true, but it’s silly to act as if it’s already established fact.

    Could any of Bill’s supporters here please explain to me all the great things Clinton did in his second term? He didn’t have to worry about re-election and was always popular. All I remember of that time is him adopting rightwing policies in order to beat-off further rightwing policies. But I don’t remember many truly liberal policies coming out back then. Again, I’m not saying this necessarily as a knock on the Clintons. I just don’t like this myth where we pretend as if he was some sort of great liberal avenger. He remained popular and didn’t screw up the economy. That’s more than Bush can say, but that’s hardly a success story. Explain to me the parts I’m missing.

  • “Agreed. But the question is whether it is possible for a Democrat to have done better than Clinton. It’s utterly silly to suggest that no one could have improved on his performance.”

    True, I believe that both Gore and Kerry did better.

    Might have been because of the last eight years were so good?

  • With all this over-analysis, we should all remember that the race goes on from here. A lot will be decided in the upcoming primaries– I dare say, I would wager that Chesapeake Tuesday will have a greater impact on the race than so-called “Super” Tuesday did. Nobody won last night. It’s a draw. Move on.

    • Comments are closed.