Fuzzy Math and the Superdelegates: Clinton, Obama, and the Final Stages of the Democratic Primary

The Obama campaign and its many surrogates in the media are all squawking about the “math” of Democratic nomination and how insoluble it is for Hillary Clinton. Never mind that most of these blockheads wouldn’t know an integer from a fraction, what is most disturbing is that the writers and pundits are going along, yet again, with Obama’s framing of the issue, just as they did when they aped his admonishment that the superdelegates must follow the will of the people (which apparently means who is ahead in pledged delegates and states won). Sound familiar? These are the same folks who gave up any pretense of journalistic integrity when they acted as the Bush Administration’s public relations team for the disastrous and wrong-headed Iraq War.

While all hope is lost with the media which is far too busy gazing at their navels, watching the spittle fly from Chris Mathew’s mouth, and cheering on Keith Olbermann as he shamelessly maneuvers to be Obama’s Press Secretary, perhaps the superdelegates not tainted by the media buffoonery will consider a few things concerning the matter of electability. In this spirit, then, I offer some information that has less to do with hype, viewer ratings, and profit margins than, if not trigonometry exactly, the facts that have emerged over the course of the Democratic campaign.

White Democrats. Is it possible that a Democratic nominee can win the presidency when he has won white Democrats in only three primaries? Obama is certainly on the verge of being the nominee and has won white Democrats in only his home state of Illinois, Vermont, and New Mexico. In the key swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia Clinton won white Democrats in these states by the ridiculous margins of 70/27, 65/35, and 74/21, respectively. Even in Virginia, a state Obama supporters evoke as proof of his wide appeal, Obama lost white Democrats 56/44, and this was before the Wright fiasco, Bittergate, or the nonsense about William Ayers, the former Weather Underground member.

Independents. If Obama can’t win white Democrats he will need to get a large number of white independent voters, as he did in Virginia with 66 percent to 33 percent for Clinton (remember, he lost white Democrats in the state), in most states to have a chance at winning the general election. Although Obma’s supposed appeal to independents is a primary reason his candidacy was supposed to be bulletproof, his performance with white independents has steadily declined since Virginia. In fact, Hillary Clinton has bested him in this demographic in every primary since Ohio. That means not only has she won the white Democratic vote in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, and West Virginia, she has also won the independent vote in these states. Obama’s campaign has been fond of saying that the more voters get to know him the better he will perform in any given state. As the primary winds to an end the facts suggest otherwise.

Key States. If anyone thinks that the Obama is going to win the caucus states he won in the primary in the general election or that it is possible to “redraw the lines of the electoral college map,” based on what I call Obama’s “Colorado” strategy, I would like some of whatever it is he or she is smoking. Obama has supposedly all but written off West Virginia so thoroughly trounced was he in the state. Does this mean, too, that he will also spend less time in Ohio and Pennsylvania, states which he also lost and which also have a high percentage of working class voters, and focus, instead on states like Utah? If so, he and the Democratic party do this at their own peril. Whatever Obama and his wannabe mouthpiece, Keith Olbermann, might have you believe, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and likely Colorado and New Mexico will, as usual, belong to Republicans. And just as certain, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia—all of which Obama lost--will be states in which the Democratic candidate must do well.

Caucuses. Can anyone say with a straight face that caucus victories in Wyoming, with about 10,000 caucus participants, is any indication of how a candidate will do in the general election. Obama has won every caucus state, nearly all of which are in states that have gone and almost certainly will continue to go to the Republican candidate. Many of the caucuses are in the very states that make up…the Colorado strategy.

These are just a few things the serpentine Democratic nominating process has disgorged for us and, at least in this regard, it hasn’t been complete and total nonsense, nor wholly destructive if the superdelegates fulfill their role in the process by focusing on which of the candidates is most likely to beat the Republican nominee in November.

It is the superdelegates and not the “math,” or at least not the fuzzy math that somehow doesn’t take into account that neither candidate can win based on pledged delegates alone, that will determine who will be the Party’s nominee. And the superdelegates will do this without needing to solve complex equations or, in fact, needing any mathematical skills whatsoever. Ironically, the superdelegates won’t need much brainpower at all, just the cajones to make a decision, based on the information derived over the course of the primaries, to choose the candidate who is most electible instead of, once again, opting to build sandcastles in the air.