Senator Hillary Clinton's excellent showing in the Mini Super Tuesday balloting yesterday revived her campaign and all but guaranteed the Democratic race will go down to the wire. Clinton makes the case that by winning the big states of Ohio by 10 points and Texas by 4 to go along with an 18-point win in Rhode Island against only a 22-point loss in Vermont to Senator Barack Obama, she now has the momentum and the big state success to carry her to the nomination. There's only one major problem with this argument: the numbers don't add up.
Clinton entered Tuesday's voting trailing Obama by 155 pledged delegates. Those are the ones who have been officially awarded according to voting or caucuses. Because they are awarded proportionally in Democratic races (no winner-take-all contests like many on the Republican side) and because Obama got the majority of delegates chosen in a Texas caucus process after the polls closed, Clinton gained only 12 delegates from the day's results. She went in trailing by 155 and was only able to whittle that down to 143 by the end of the day.
Obama built such a strong cushion in his February winning streak that it will be nearly impossible for Clinton to overtake him. In a March 4 article in Newsweek, Jonathan Alter calculated what would happen if Clinton were to win every primary from here on out. He gave her unlikely close wins in heavily African-American Mississippi and North Carolina and in made-for-Obama states such as Oregon and Montana. He assumed 20-point Hillary landslides in Pennsylvania and Puerto Rico and solid Ohioesque 10-point Clinton wins in nearby Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky. You can read the whole article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240. Even all this would still leave Obama ahead by 56 pledged delegates after Puerto Rico finishes the primary season on June 7.
The Democratic Party may decide to hold do-over elections in previously disqualified Michigan and Florida. But even if so, the chances of her outperforming him by 56 in the two is exceedingly remote. Consider that a 10-point victory in Ohio gave Clinton an advantage of just 9 delegates there. Put another way, she would have to get 61.7% of all the remaining 611 delegates to catch him. She would have to win state after state by 20 points to do this.
So her only viable strategy is to demonstrate her electability in the remaining contests to the convention's 795 super delegates and win the lion's share of them. These are governors and members of congress and the Democratic National Committee who are free to vote for whomever they wish. So far 242 have declared support for Clinton and 207 for Obama. 346 remain uncommitted.
I'd like to pose a question. What do you think the super delegates should do? Should they a) vote freely for either candidate based on their preference or who they feel would be the stronger nominee for the general election; b) vote for the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates; or c) vote for the candidate who won their state or district?
5 comments:
What is the criteria upon which the superdelegates base the vote that they cast?
Thanks, Lee
"Should they a) vote freely for either candidate based on their preference or who they feel would be the stronger nominee for the general election; b) vote for the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates; or c) vote for the candidate who won their state or district?"
Unfortunately, you left off an option:
/d/ the candidate who will set them up for the best position in the new administration.
I feel that the "right" thing would be /a/: who they feel would be the stronger nominee. If the will of the Democratic party's electorate was clear, there wouldn't be any conversation about unpledged delegates. The party leaders want to win the election as much as -- no, strike that. They want to win the presidency more than anyone except the candidate. They are also fully engaged, informed, and (we hope) savvy. The point of having unpledged delegates is that if no clear decision has been reached before the convention, the unpledged delegates can use their judgement.
Sadly, I think what will happen is /d/: there will be intense closed-door deal-making and politicking, and in the end it will come down to the best diplomat. Perhaps that's not so bad, but I really wish it would be /a/.
I can't remember how 1984 played out, but I do know the super delegates were involved in the process then to pick Walter Mondale. Mondale didn't have the nomination sewn up, but I'm pretty sure he either pulled some strings or made promises to some super delegates to put him over the top.
I have to concur with Don, in that scenario D could be the likely outcome, unless Hillary takes Rosa Brooks advice in an Op-Ed piece that appeared in the Los Angeles Times this morning, urging her to withdraw now.
Ms. Brooks states, that by taking pot shots at Barrack Obama and making him look bad just adds fuel to the Republican cause. I, for one, hope that she will follow that advice, but I know that as long Obama hasn't sewn it up, she'll continue to throw that "kitchen sink" at him and in the long run hurt the entire party.
Sorry I haven't gotten back sooner; I've been at a conference since Thursday.
Lee, that's just the thing: there are no criteria for the superdelegates. At the convention they can vote for womever they wish.
Don, I didn't include your "d" as an option because, well, I didn't relly expect anyone would opt for that as what they preferred! You make a good case for the "a" option. One would indeed think party officials and office holders would be extremely concerned about choosing they nominee they felt could win in November.
Paul, yes Mondale needed the superdelegates to put him over the top in 1984. If memory serves I believe he did go into the convention with the pledged delegate lead, though.
Post a Comment