This is why the nomination race really and truly is over, barring a complete meltdown by Barack Obama:
Top Democratic officials said privately that Congressional leaders were content to have the race play out as long as it did not take on a negative tone. Attacks on Mr. Obama by the Clinton campaign or its surrogates could lead to a leadership push for superdelegates to show their hand and bring the race to a close, said aides, who did not want be identified discussing internal strategy.The closest that Clinton can come to a plausible scenario for winning the nomination is for a number of things to occur for her at once. She wins the rules fight over Florida and Michigan and she finds a new line of attack against Barack Obama that proves effective in Kentucky and Oregon and she is able to persuade enough superdelegates to endorse her (or at least hold off on endorsing Obama) to give herself a fighting chance.
The problem is that, as the New York Times piece points out, these things do not behave independently from one another. If Clinton goes too negative on Barack Obama, or advances arguments that are perceived as undermining his legitimacy, she might lose two superdelegates for every elected delegate that she would gain. Thus, while she can continue to campaign to her heart's content, she is handcuffed in terms of her strategic options.
Likewise, if Clinton goes "nuclear" on Florida and Michigan and is perceived as having run an end-around through the Rules Committee, the superdelegates will not be pleased, and may move toward Obama in enough numbers to offset many of her gains. Thus, the role of the superdelegates has become that of a thermostat, ensuring the campaign ends neither too hot nor too cold.
28 comments
yeah, well i'd argue she's already gone over the line less then 24 hours:
""I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said. "
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm
Supposedly, there are enough superdelegates who are already nominally for Obama and await only their declaration to essentially bring him to 2025 by June 3.
Which, in a way, annoys me. If they've already decided, say so. We already know that superdelegates are going to be deciding the outcome, for better or worse...playing coy is pointless. Even if their state hasn't voted yet, there really aren't any competitive surprises left...Indiana was the last.
Right you are, Anon.
And where better to prove her point than to stake out in Dogpatch for the next week or two. She'll have her own little Sadie Hawkins day wooing the Yokums and their kin. An Al Capp revival meeting.
(No offense to my KY and WV friends, but she's imposing this stereotype not only on hill and "holler" people but on pretty much everybody who wasn't lucky enough to be born with a silver spoon in her mouth.)
Without tht one precinct in Indiana, here is the result for the PA, IN and NC primaries combined:
Clinton 49,83%
Obama 49,72%
No Preferecene 0,45%
Clinton gains 5380 votes from these three primaries.
marathon:
It seems likely that there are enough undeclared superdelegates for Obama that if they just declared he would be past the post, but there's still the problem of information. That is, few of them who haven't declared feel they can do so, even in private, without negative political ramifications, especially while Clinton is still flailing around so wildly (see the reactions to Richardson et al). It is likely they are waiting until there are enough undeclareds who have privately declared a preference such that Obama can secure the nomination, depriving Clinton of any more wiggle room.
Once there has been enough backroom coordination this can come to an end, but even then superdelegates are wary of the perception of Clinton's supporters and they desperately don't want to offend their sensibilities. As such they will likely still wait until Oregon polling closes to announce, letting clinton know beforehand that it will happen, so that Obama can take the pledged delegate majority, Clinton can concede gracefully, Clinton can endorse Obama followed by the endorsements of the more influential supers, and then Obama can give a nice speech which will turn the ire of Clinton's supporters into optimistic acceptance.
Hillary has disappointed and shamed us all.
I wrote earlier today:
Does the Democratic Party really want to select a nominee based on the fear that there might be some racist Americans who won't vote for the nominee? Does Bobby Kennedy need to come back to life and give them some spine? Did we let racists dictate what happened in school desegregation and the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
As RFK said, "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope..."
It's time for the Democratic Party to stand up and do the right thing.
Here here. Good thinking.
This could be added to the list of things that we don't seem to be able to address directly, whether out of a lack of courage or a lack of conviction.
This then begs the question: Does Hillary's renewed insistence on pointing out her leads among White Voters border on negativity?
Over the line, IMO.
I think the compromise on FL and MI should be to seat the pledged delegates as is, giving the undecideds in MI to Obama.
And then punish the two states by not seating any of their superdelegates. After all, it was the powers that be in these two states, not the voters, that got them into this mess.
This would appeal to the voters in FL and MI, and pretty much everyone (except for a handful of the powerful).
Dan
I agree on the solution regarding delegates. But I think you have to seat the Supers in both cases, too. In FL in any case the malfeasance was mainly imposed by the GOP governor and GOP majority in the state legislature.
Wow, Poblano, just wow. You get the credits for your great work.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20080507_8254.php
Poblano-
Just for curiosity's sake, could you run a regression of Florida and Michigan according to your model to see what the delegate breakdown might have been? (Obviously, it is still not what would have happened due to the lack of campaigning on both sides)
Perhaps you should wait until the nomination fight is settled, as I would hate to hear your research twisted into a talking point by one side.
Still, it would be fascinating to see what your model would show.
Bravo Poblano ... !
Your diaries are a Labyrinth of Minos yet without the ... bull.
You say:
"The closest that Clinton can come to a plausible scenario for winning the nomination is for a number of things to occur for her at once. She wins the rules fight over Florida and Michigan . . ."
But how can she win the rules fight?
In fact the ultimate decision on seating FL and MI delegates is by vote of the delegates at the convention. Is there any possibility that these delegates - a majority of them Obama supporters - would vote to seat HRC's phoney "delegates" from MI and FL?
No way, not if it mattered.
Your view seems to imply that there is some INDEPENDENT OTHER body with the power to decide HRC's appeal.
If you think this is true, then please explain who that body is.
I second PReader's sentiment.
I would love to see what your model comes up with for MI and Florida, heck with your accuracy maybe half delegates should be seated according to your results. It would be cheaper than a revote
Why does ARG seem to have a vendetta against you? I just saw another critical post against your projection because turnout was higher than expected even though the margin was accurate.
But he makes one interesting point, even if I think turnout is less important then the margin:
"The model underestimated the actual turnout by over 37% (it was off by over 38% in Pennsylvania)"
Hm. 37% vs. 38%- this seems to me too close to be random. Or bad luck. It seems there is a relation between the actual turnout and your prediction. Maybe you should add 37,5% to your turnout prediction the next time.
Three points.
(1) ARG is "bitter" because 538 is critical of its accuracy. This kind of criticism from a credible source probably hurts ARG's business (i.e., $$$ income).
(2) ARG can't criticize the accuracy of 538's predictions of share of votes won in the primaries.
(3) ARG is trying to deflect attention from its own inaccurate predictions by focusing on turnout, something that (a) nobody has done right (including ARG), and (b) few people even notice or care about.
In short, ARG is expressing "sour grapes." They should focus on improving their operation.
Congrats on the National Journal mention.
Unfortunately the same analysis that has worked in the primaries cannot really be applied to the general election. Since the primaries evolved over a series of time, Poblano was able to capture the suprisingly resilent trends among demographic groups and apply that to the NC and IN contests. However we won't really get a "pre-indication" of the general election seeing as it occurs at a single point in time. It's a shame such an accurate model can't be used in the general.
Maybe there is some way you can do it that I am missing.
Using the percentages from this site, and the electoral calculator at www.270towin.com/ , it becomes evident the general election is going to be very, very close (based on the current numbers).
When you plug in the states that either McCain or Obama has a lead in (percentage-wise) the result is 270 EV for Obama to 268 for Obama. The overwhelming majority of the states simply aren’t competitive – in fact only 8 states that are within 15% (from even) towards either candidate. They are (by candidate and their win %) –
Favoring McCain –
Ohio – 60%
Indiana – 64%
Favoring Obama –
New Mexico – 55%
Pennsylvania – 55%
Michigan – 56%
Colorado – 56%
Nevada – 59%
Wisconsin – 63%
As evidenced by how close this really is, a loss by Obama in a single one of those states listed will cost him the election. And the odds say he won’t take them all.
Which I guess is reflected in the slight edge for McCain in the EC.
Unless, as they say, one of these candidates is caught with “A dead girl or a live boy”, this campaign is going to be razor thin.
1) All these general election polls include Clinton supporters, 25%-30% of whom claim they would vote for McCain over Obama. If we assume that half those supporters come back around, the map changes dramatically. Poblano made a post about this last month.
2) We are six months away from the election and anything can happen. Dukakis and Kerry were leading Bush Sr and Jr, respectively, at the same time during their runs. Bill Clinton was in 3rd place to Perot and Bush Sr at the same point in 1992. Clinton had a 30 pt national lead over Obama six months ago.
Basically, it's unpredictable what will happen. On one hand, it's good that Obama is running neck and neck with McCain in the middle of a brutal primary. On the other hand, it's sad that neither Dem candidate is trouncing the Republican in a "change" year.
I think it's far too early to state with certainty that this election will be "really close" and only a small number of states are up for grabs. Obama and McCain have yet to directly campaign against each other, they don’t have their VP’s selection, and they probably don’t even have fully fleshed on GE strategies. Polls this far out from November 5 are certainly going to be way off.
I believe that McCain looks great now because he’s essentially had zero competition for 2-3 months. All of his blunders, associations, and unpopular policy proposals have yet to be given the spotlight that they soon will. Furthermore, I personally don’t buy that the Democratic Party has been weakened by this primary, but that it has been immensely strengthened. The Democrats have built up huge political machines in every single state and have had record turnout, which is an underrated factor in the coming election.
Based on that and acknowledging that I have no data to support this, I think Obama is a vastly superior politician and his views and message is much more in tune with the current public climate. I think that McCain has already reached his peak and once Obama moves on from Hillary and focuses on McCain, Obama will win rather easily. I think he has a good chance at grabbing some states where he’s currently trailing by double digits and will grab most states where he trailing by less than that. Basically, I think that Poblano’s 50/50 EV split is Obama baseline and he has much more areas to move past that than McCain does. If I were to predict, I think Obama blows past 300 electoral votes.
I second bedir than average's seconding of PReader. It would be very interesting to see.
Assuming Obama knows he has enough S-dels in his pocket to still get the nomination, and assuming it's part of a deal where Hillary endorses and everyone is happy, I think Obama should agree to a deal where:
1) All the MI/FL superdelegates are stripped. This should not be controversial, particularly in the case of Michigan where they can't even blame the GOP.
2) The votes of the pledged delegates are cut in half. This was the MINIMUM penalty these states expected when they jumped in line, so they can hardly cry foul about it.
3) Florida's proportions are left alone; Michigan's undecideds are given to Obama.
It's not really complicated, and it ends any legitimate complaints. And the whole sordid affair has been messy enough that I think the DNC will be able to keep the states in line in 2012.
Again, Obama's people will only do a deal like this if they know they still have the delegates to win, so that's not the issue.
Allowing the MI and FL delegates to be seated as per the January primaries, as Clinton wants, would be a disaster for the DNC. They would end up looking like spineless idiots, an organization that establishes rules and then completely tosses them out at the end of the game... "oh, never mind". 2012 would be mayhem, with 50 states racing to set their primaries in January. The DNC would be powerless to do anything about it, after capitulating in 2008.
I prefer the proposal to seat both MI and FL with simple 50:50 splits. But Clinton supporters would likely feel cheated, and some kind of compromise is needed for the sake of unity.
MI and FL should be stripped of all their superdelegates. These are the people who created this mess for their states. They should receive the biggest punishment.
The January MI primary is flat out an illegitimate election, from which nothing fair or meaningful can be deduced. The DNC asked the candidates to take their names off the ballot. Obama did as he was asked, and Clinton defied the DNC and left hers on. Everybody agreed the election wouldn't count. Now we are told we should reward Clinton by giving her more MI delegates than Obama? Many who would have voted for Obama voted in the Republican primary instead (which did "count") or else stayed home because Obama wasn't on the ballot. There is no way to slice or dice the MI primary results to make them fair to the MI voters. MI should be seated 50:50, with each delegate getting 1/2 a vote.
FL should be seated as per the Jan primary, with each delegate getting 1/2 a vote.
Clinton would net more delegates out of this deal, though fewer than she wants. And the DNC would demonstrate that they will punish those who defy their rules, thus preventing mayhem in future elections.
Instead of running MI/FL, how about running the model on the United States of America?
Then we know who won the Popular vote!
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment