History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
This, from the tenth paragraph of Jeff Zeleny's article in the Times today:"If hopes are diminishing among some supporters of Mrs. Clinton — privately, many concede they do not see a clear mathematical path to winning the nomination — that word has yet to reach the voters here who filled gymnasium after gymnasium on her two-day trip through Indiana."
If Clinton advisors are conceding the daunting math, doesn't it require the press to start asking some hard questions of what the campaign's real motives are in continuing forth? And might it be that one reason this word"has yet to reach the voters here who filled gymnasium after gymnasium on her two-day trip through Indiana" is that the press has done a poor job of explaining the Democratic nominating process?
As Jonathan Chait recently wrote in the New Republic (after Ralph Nader supported Clinton remaining in the race),"Clinton's chancing of winning the presidency, while not zero, are much closer to Nader's than to Obama or McCain's . . . Her rationales for continuing have the same flavor, all full of grandiose rhetoric about the rights of the voters combined with a stubborn refusal to examine the practical consequences in any realistic way."
Perhaps not. But there might be that many very angry voters in Fla and MI.
Andrew D. Todd -
3/31/2008
Well, I assume that the Democratic Party's ban on Florida and Michigan will hold. But if it doesn't, Clinton is not going to be allowed to claim the benefit of a "Russian-style" election, in which she was effectively the only candidate, and got 56% of the vote. In a Russian-style election, a respectable score is up in the 80-90% range. If Michigan re-votes, the results are likely to be more or less like Ohio or Wisconsin. Clinton lost Wisconsin, and only won Ohio by a margin of 9 delegates out of 141.
As for Florida, Clinton scored just a touch over half of the votes. At most, she might pick up 40 delegates, but more likely, there would be a re-vote, with her getting 55% against 45% for Obama, now that Edwards and all the minor candidates are out of the way. ten percent of 185 delegates, or 19 delegates.
Thirty to fifty delegates are not enough to change the net result.
Andrew D. Todd -
3/31/2008
Ah, some bloopers. I had patched the tabulation to incorporate the latest polling data, and failed to fix everything. The tables are correct, but the sums in the text got mangled. Ignore the figure of 135 delegates in the second paragraph, and in the third paragraph, what I meant to say was that Clinton would have to get 25% more than the polls expect her to. There just aren't that many highly suggestible voters.
judith weingarten -
3/31/2008
Hey, that makes 48 states. What ever happened to (and what will happen to) Florida and Michigan? :-)
Andrew D. Todd -
3/31/2008
The Democratic primary is proportional representation by states, not winner-take-all. Small differences in votes do not translate into large differences in delegates. To catch up with Obama in pledged delegates, Hillary Clinton would have to win all of the remaining primary contests with about a twenty-five percent margin. Clinton is currently about 162 delegates down. Based on current polling results:
state, C-O, %, tot_del C-O, net Clinton position,
-162
PA 51-39 158 90-68 -141
IN 25 -40 72 28 -44 -158
NC 34-49 115 47-68 -178
WV 55-27 28 19-9 -169
That will leave 189 delegates in states for which polling data is not yet available. However, it is a fairly safe bet that Kentucky will behave pretty much like Tennessee, giving Clinton a 15 delegate margin; that Oregon will behave pretty much like Washington, giving Obama a 15 delegate margin; and that Montana and South Dakota will behave pretty much like adjacent western states, giving Obama another 10 delegate margin. The practical effect is that Clinton should wind up about 135 delegates behind, exclusive of Puerto Rico which has 55 delegates. Assume that Clinton wins Puerto Rico with a margin of about 15 delegates.
state, tot_del, C_advantage, net Clinton position,
KY 51 15 -154
OR 52 -15 -169
PR 55 15 -154
MT 16 -5 -159
SD 15 -5 -164
That puts her total at 164 delegates behind, pretty much where she is now, based on 566 pledged delegates still "in suspense." This is another way of saying that the states which have not yet voted are a more or less random sample of the country. The estimated results of the various primaries would all have to be 25% off in Clinton's favor for her to win the popular vote. We are talking about the difference between a landslide one way and a landslide the other.
With about 450 superdelegates declared out of nearly 800, Clinton's margin in superdelegates is presently 30-40, depending on whose estimate you take. The 350 undeclared superdelegates will probably divide up more or less evenly-- that's why they are undeclared. That works out to Obama winning the nomination by 120-130 delegates. That is based on a total of about 900 delegates still "in suspense." That works out to a fairly comfortable margin of error.
In both cases, this seems incorrect to me, Jon. Both parties participate in the electoral process, knowing full well that the electoral college is ultimately the mechanism by which elected leaders will decide who is to be the next President. I don't see that there's a peaceful means of setting that process aside in a critical moment and opting for some other process. Maybe there ought to be a different process, but during the midst of a campaign or general election isn't when that decision ought to be made.
On the current situation, the provisions for "super-delegates", it seems to me, has been the Democratic Party's agreed upon means of placing some ultimate responsibility in the hands of the very kinds of people you call "leaders" to do the very thing that you're talking about. Many of them have already exercised their option of declaring for one candidate or another. But I can't see any mandate for them as a group to take the decision-making process out of the hands of the voters prior to the completion of the voting process. If the process yields no mandate for one candidate or another, the previously agreed on process does what you want to jump-start two months before it's called for.
Jonathan Dresner -
3/31/2008
Clinton may not be able to catch up to exact parity, but neither is Obama able to "clinch" the nomination. A difference in delegate count, total vote, etc., of a few percent does not translate into a mandate -- I said it when Bush won, and I still believe it for my own party.
It is time for the party leaders to actually make a decision. To lead, not follow. Apparently this scares the living daylights out of them, because they keep looking for a way out of it....
Kevin C. Murphy -
3/31/2008
Well, it took 'em a month (longer if you go back to Wisconsin, when the math really became clear to those of us watching carefully), but -- after perusing the Sunday shows this morning -- I'm pretty content that the press has it figured out. Now that Sen. Obama has bounced back from his Wright week, the MSM is pretty much calling it over. For all intent and purposes, Sen. Clinton has now been Huckabeed.
judith weingarten -
3/30/2008
There is this:
"...though Clinton’s path to the nomination has narrowed to a cliff walk, it hasn’t been barricaded. If she beats Obama in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Indiana, it may widen again, should the superdelegates start questioning his durability and the potency of his electoral coalition. Or Obama’s candidacy could suddenly blow up in a more spectacular fashion—over further revelations about Wright or some other political IED planted on the roadside ahead."
And this: "[Some senior advisors] are also deeply convinced—beyond spin, beyond talking points, to their core—that Obama would be doomed against McCain. And Clinton believes this, too, which is one important reason why she persists despite odds that grow longer each passing day."
