Risky Scenarios

Barack Obama won the Wyoming caucus today. He'll likely get 7 delegates to Hillary Clinton's 5. He'll probably win the Mississippi primary on Tuesday, too. Neither of these will deliver a "knockout," but both will further extend Obama's lead and make it all the more improbable for Clinton to catch him in pledged delegates once all the primaries and caucuses are over. After Mississippi there's no contest on the calendar until Pennsylvania on April 22, which Clinton will probably win.

How does all this play out for the Democratic Party's chances? Well, first I feel there ought to be primaries in Michigan and Florida. It's very much in the Democratic Party's interest to include those state's voters in the process. Both states are crucial to a general election strategy, and allowing Democrats and Independents there to vote for a Democrat in a primary will make it all the easier for them to do so again in November. Neither state's vote will probably change the overall dynamics of the primary race. Clinton could pull a bit closer, but as my last post demonstrates, nothing short of a series of Clinton landslides will overcome Obama's lead in the pledged delegates. Landslides for him in both races might get him closer to getting to the 2025 he needs to get the nomination without the votes of superdelegates, but that is also a remote possibility. Re-voting mainly serves the purpose of engaging the voters of two important states rather than making them angry with the Democrats when it comes time to vote in the big contest at the end of the year. Florida's votes don't count because of Republican officials' political machinations in jumping the primary calendar. Michigan's don't count because of Democratic officials doing the same thing. It's dumb politics to punish the voters for this.

Second, ideally Clinton should drop out of the race, considering she is not going to be able to win more delegates than Obama in the remaining primaries and caucuses. The superdelegates are indeed part of the rules of the game, and she can try to persuade them to her cause by convention time and win the nomination that way. She has every right to do that. But one has to think of what that would do to the party's prospects.

Third, my reading of the voters is that most of Clinton's supporters are also favorable to Obama. If he is the nominee by far the greater part of them will go to the polls in the general election and vote for him. I find that fewer of Obama's supporters are as well disposed to Sen. Clinton, and quite a few are downright angry at her. If she were able to gain the nomination because of the superdelegates many would feel cheated and a fair number might sit out in November. He has also engaged a lot of new voters: particularly young people who are otherwise apathetic and even some Republicans. Many of both groups would not bother to vote for Clinton if she is the standard-bearer. Most of such Republicans would likely vote against her. The one group where Obama might suffer is the Hispanic vote. But I feel the party would suffer more if Clinton gets the nod by the superdelegate scenario. Loyal Democrats and those who are aghast at the Bush administration and see McCain as more of the same will vote for either Democrat no matter what. But I predict it will be costly if Clinton gets a nomination where she trailed in elected delegates. She might win the general against McCain anyway, but she would face a more serious handicap than would Obama over this. It could well be enough to throw the election to McCain.