Selected, Not Elected
This Game Cannot Be Completed In Regulation. Overtime Commences August 25.
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | 2008 Presidential Campaign | Barack Obama | Great Netroot Betrayal | Hillary Clinton — Comments (48) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Allahpundit looks at an analysis by Chris Bowers of OpenLeft (who is, obviously, no right-winger) admitting that the Democrats, with typical foresight, have created a situation in which it was, even before yesterday's results, essentially impossible for either of their candidates to clinch the nomination by winning primaries and caucuses. Thus, unless either Hillary or Obama concedes a winnable race for the good of the party (shall we take bets on the odds on the Clintons relinquishing power for the greater good? Anyone remember 1998?), the Democratic presidential nominee will not be elected by the voters but will be selected by the "superdelegates" (the party elite) and/or through machinations at the convention (mark your calendars - August 25!):
Read on and glory in the spectacle of our enemies divided and the sound of the lamentations of their women.
Here was Bowers' analysis on Monday - note that the split in delegates last night only exacerbates this:
+With Michigan and Florida removed from the equation, 2,025 delegates are required to win the nomination, and there are 3,253 pledged delegates.
+To date, four states with a combined 137 pledged delegates have held nominating contests.
+Currently, Barack Obama is projected with 63 pledged delegates, and Hillary Clinton is projected with 48 (source).
On Super Tuesday, 22 states and a couple territories with a combined 1,688 pledged delegates will hold nominating contests.
From this point, quick math shows that after Super Tuesday, only 1,428 pledged delegates will still be available. Now, here is where the problem shows up. According to current polling averages, the largest possible victory for either candidate on Super Tuesday will be Clinton 889 pledged delegates, to 799 pledged delegates for Obama. (In all likelihood, the winning margin will be lower than this, but using these numbers helps emphasize the seriousness of the situation.) As such, the largest possible pledged delegate margin Clinton can have after Super Tuesday is 937 to 862. (While it is possible Obama will lead in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday, it does not currently seem possible for Obama to have a larger lead than 75). That leaves Clinton 1,088 pledged delegates from clinching the nomination, with only 1,428 pledged delegates remaining. Thus, in order to win the nomination without the aid of super delegates, in her best-case scenario after Super Tuesday, Clinton would need to win 76.2% of all remaining pledged delegates. Given our proportional delegate system, there is simply no way that is going to happen unless Obama drops out.
Note: Hillary's actual lead, according to RCP, is now 900-824 (including pledged superdelegates), so this still holds, and of course the numbers are even starker for Obama. And it gets better:
Given that Michigan and Florida combine for 313 pledged delegates, it is likely that this situation won't be resolved without severe bureaucratic fighting on the DNC rules and by-laws committee, or even a credential fight at the convention itself.
And why should either candidate drop out? Clinton has a large lead in super delegates, and can make a real argument over the Michigan and Florida delegations. Obama, by contrast, will probably lead in pledged delegates at the end of February, and will be able to raise significantly more money than Clinton. And so, we are at an impasse.
Allahpundit:
I think [Bowers is] right about how the Democrats are going to handle this. Call it a party version of the "national popular vote" initiative. If the super delegates won't bind themselves to vote as a bloc, the pressure on whoever trails next month to drop out and avoid a convention fight will be enormous, thus raising the tantalizing prospect of a melodrama where Hillary has to commit hara kiri because the party establishment, of all things, simply doesn't love her anymore. Dude. Dude.
Popcorn. Stock up on it.
H/T Patterico. The Politico's Roger Simon has more here.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | What we need. Can John McCain excite us? — Comments (94) »
Selected, Not Elected 48 Comments (0 topical, 48 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
that as soon a Democratic nominee is settled on, it's going to be tough for him or her to move back toward the center, after spending so much time going left further than other side. That's a big bonus, but only if on Republican, a nominee is quickly settled on. Maybe, it's high time for Huckabee to drop out and pledge all of his delegates to McCain.
So, even if Obama somehow wins the nomination, how is he going to talk his way out of the mess both Clinton and he made during the primary season? That'll be interesting to watch.
In any case, bring it on, baby! ;)
------------
Daniel 2:20 And he [God] changeth the times and seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding.
If we didn't have worse intramural problems on our side.
What a squandered opportunity. Who wants to lose more? We do, it seems.
The Ds can avoid the bad scenario. The bad scenario is when one candidate wins the pledged delegates but losing the overall delegates.
There are myriad ways that superdelegates matter but are not decisive. We are to the point that superdelegates will matter. But whether they change the outcome is not clear at all.
For example, if Hillary wins the majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates, there is no bad situation.
If Obama wins a majority of pledged delegates and a minority of superdelegates but still wins, there is no bad situation.
It's really the chance that Obama wins the pledged, Hillary wins the super AND Hillary wins the overall. That's the bad situation that will possible create a "Insiders Deny First Black Candidate Nomination" headline.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
Insiders change rules, hand nomination to Clinton
Florida and Michigan delegates seated and vote overwhelmingly for Clinton.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I'm not sure if that's their bad scenario or their even worse scenario. It could sure get ugly on the Democrat side.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
...SO her trained seals will go forth to peddle the fiction that "the people" of those states (including Mr. Uncommitted) were really for Hillary).
See, no ball, no foul! She wins, Obama loses.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
is for a catastrophe to envelop the Democrats strikes me as a sign that the Republican party is in serious trouble.
The pendulum had swung to the Republican party for a while
Now the pendulum is swinging back for a number of reasons, and it's looking like the Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul is coming.
When Georgia has more Democrat Primary voters than Republicans, you know there's an issue: 952K for the republicans v 1,028K for the Democrats.
In 2000: 643K Republican versus 284K Democrat (which bush won by 8 percent)
in 1992: 454K Republican versus 455K Democrat (which clinton won by less than 1 percent)
I know it's a small sample, but it implies that Georgia would be 'in play' in the 2008 election, which is ... troubling if you're Republican.
---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
It appears there are no hopes left, so a "best" hope is somewhat of a misnomer. the only thing we're fighting over is the type of loss that occurs.
We're uniting, they're dividing. Plus, the war's going just how McCain needs it to be. The overall Republican strategy for the War on Terror is still working well, plus McCain can claim his calls for change in Iraq led to greater success there.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
but Conservatives in good shape? Not a chance. They've already lost. the only thing in dispute now is the magnitude of the loss and who delivers it to them.
And I think you're a bit optimistic about that 'uniting' thing.
You can't lose something you didn't have. Conservatives haven't had the White House since January 20, 1989.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
The last few years of that second term weren't so hot.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
But for 12 of those years we didn't have someone in the White House who treated us with contempt, and for all 20, there was at least an option to vote for that wouldn't.
But if you don't understand that already, you probably never will.
I expect McCain to be very comparable to Bush 41... hopefully with fewer "Read my lips" sort of mistakes and better foreign policy.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
And don't try to tell me "compassionate conservative" was anything but a slam on conservatives, by implying we're not compassionate.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
If you don't support Harriet Miers, it's probably just because you are an elitist snob. Or you hate women. Or both.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
one who took offense at that moniker. Shoulda listened to my head in the primaries in 2000 when it said "compassionate conservative = lots of government spending."
Live and learn.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I looked at everything else he said through that prism. And boy was I right about him.
Of course, I now think I was wrong to vote Browne in 2000, but I trust my judgement of the candidate, heh.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
"Of course, I now think I was wrong to vote Browne in 2000"
before I had the chance to chide you on your 'pre-RHINO' days.
That'll teach me to try to
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
And has been out there since before Reagan was president.
"Compassionate conservative" was GWB's way of attacking that implication.
And since he hasn't governed a whole lot like a conservative would, I like my theory.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Gore was the sitting VP... there was no credible challenger in 2000. The GOP side had no incumbent so we actually had a real contest. Not really comparable to 2008.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Clinton won Georgia with 43.6% to Bush's 43.0% and Perot's 13.4%.
Four years later he lost with 45.8% to Dole's 47.0% and Perot's 6.4%.
Four years later the R won again with 54.9% to Gore's 43.2%.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I don't make that assumption. A lot of Obama's support is among people who are voting "not Hillary." Independents and even Republicans attracted to his style and repelled by Hillary. And more interested in voting in that race in the primary than in the blah race on the Republican side. But come general election time - especially if Hillary is their nominee - a lot of those Obama voters will pull McCain levers.
Exit polls last night (to the extent the dastardly things can be trusted) showed that 70%/71% of Obama/Clinton voters would be 'satisfied' (or words to that extent) if the other person won the nomination.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
This conclusion depends on how the subsequent states break down. I think it is more likely than not that the stalemate will be avoided, and either Obama or Clinton will start to win a series of states by comfortable margins.
But if it remains close going into the convention either (1) Obama's supporters will feel (rightly?) cheated by the Clinton machine, OR (2) the Clinton machine will take their ball and go home. Neither result will necessarily radically improve Republicans' chances, but might be worth a few percentage points in November.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Hillary doesn't have friendly territory until Pennsylvania, perhaps Ohio, and perhaps Washington state.
I'm pretty sure Obama will comfortably win Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
is that with the existing divisions and proportional voting, one of the candidates needs to basically start winning 3/4 or more of the vote in every single state. That seems vanishingly unlikely.
Granted, if, say, Obama starts winning 60% in state after state, the pressure on Hillary to drop out will be tremendous. But how likely is it that she will?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
...at this point.
Obama is likely to win the majority of the delegates from here on out. Hillary is likely to stay in, but how is she going to get the superdelegates to back her if Obama keeps winning and winning? I find it hard to believe that she will. The pressure will be on them to back Obama at that point, and there's your nominee.
Mitt Romney might have a more clear path to the nomination than HRC does at this point.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
The scenario under which Clinton drops out is pretty simple: she runs out of money. Her fundraising has no chance of keeping up with Obama's, so it's just a question of whether she can land a knockout blow on Obama before the money is gone.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
The logical states would be Texas and Ohio on 3/4. The problem is maintaining cash flow through then, although I just learned that she loaned her campaign $5 million.
There is absolutely no possible way for her to win the nomination if she can't raise more money. She's already fighting against the clock as it is.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
She would still win at least 1/3 of the votes in most primaries.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Bottom line, she needs to AT LEAST break even in the primaries from here on out to maintain a slim lead or keep it close. Barack is going to win several of these upcoming states BIG.
I don't see a scenario where HRC can win. There is no possible way whatsoever at this point, IMO. The so-called superdelegates aren't going to break for Hillary when she loses the next several primaries.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
The dems won't have any problems. Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton (which is more unlikely, seeing Clinton's age and ego)
That team will be HARD to beat because all the idiots in the US that will vote for them solely because its "historic."
"Its time we had a black man for President" - millions of dummies who have never voted in their lives.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
Politics and common sense aren't dungs of the same cow.
If for nothing more, their actions have led us to see how the inner workings of government and elections operate.
However, Oh Lord, please deliver upon Hillary the desire to leave public office forever. We can't take it any more.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
She did win in delegates in most counts (NBC NEWS is in the tank for Obama) and popular vote last night. She won all of the major states minus GA and MO (which she basically got a tie in delegates in). She will be the faviorite in OH and TX because of the strong union and latino voters in the respective states. I know the next few contest favor Obama, but he will get no bounce because he is expected to win. The longer this thing goes on its good for her because he might say something dumb or some incident will happen overseas that will swing undecids and soft Obama supporters to her side.
McCain '08
Lots of older voters, lots of union folks, and lots of ethnic voters (Hispanics, Italians, etc) than favor HRC. Plus Gov Ed Rendell is in HRC's camp and he will lend his political machine to her.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Should make for delicious entertainment. The party that prides itself on fairness and equality will end up having to appear to be unfair to a black man or a woman. Let the wailing begin!