Obama, the Democrats and the Chances of Another Popular Vote Victory and Electoral College Loss

In the looking-way-too-far-ahead department think about this: If Obama is the Democratic Party’s nominee he could convincingly win the popular vote and still lose the Electoral College in November. This split has happened three times before, the latest, of course, when Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost the election to George W. Bush.

Although Obama is likely to bring out significantly more voters than Kerry in 2004, this would mean little if the turnout is in states like California and New York which Democrats generally win anyway. Even much higher turnouts of blacks in South Carolina or Georgia, which have large black populations, will pad the popular vote but these states almost certainly will remain red states. So, although Obama could end up with a clear majority of the popular vote, he could do so and still have the same blue-state, Electoral College tally as Kerry.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee the all-important question is, can he win in a purple state like Ohio or Florida? Kerry didn’t, and if Obama does bring out significantly more voters than did Kerry and even wins the popular vote, can he? The March 4 primary in Ohio may give some idea but is unlikely to answer this question definitively.

In support of his argument that Obama would likely do well in the general election, Peter Beinart recently wrote in “Courting Joe Six-Pack,” http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1715282,00.html that the demographics have changed significantly since George McGovern and even Michael Dukakis lost as the Democratic nominees and, as a result of the shifts, Obama is unlikely to be hurt by the white conservative vote because, Beinart writes, “this fall, for the first time in memory, blue-collar whites may not constitute a majority at the polls.” The implication is that blacks, Hispanics, college-educated whites, and other voters more likely to vote for Obama can get him the win that was not possible for McGovern or Dukakis. The demographics certainly have changed since the days of those two but it matters more where they have changed for the general election and how in relation, say, to 2004, the last presidential election. In other words, it isn’t enough to look at the effect of demographics on the popular vote or even the number of states won but rather on swing states and the likelihood of a candidate winning these.

California and Washington State, for example, have changed greatly since 1972, the year McGovern was trounced by Nixon, adding especially more Hispanics to the total population in each state, but these are states that the Democrats have won for some time now. A demographic shift has also occurred in many states in the south that have more Hispanics and blacks relative to white males. These changes should add nicely to Obama’s popular vote but what about the Electoral College votes, and states likes Ohio and Florida which Kerry needed but did not win in 2004? Have the demographics changed so much in these states since the 2004 presidential election to make a difference; can the increase in blacks and Hispanics put him over the top? This would be a much better indication of how Obama will do in November.

Also, in contrast to the implication in Beinart's article, Obama is actually doing pretty well, especially in recent primaries, among those identify themselves as independents and conservatives, groups that have been voting for Obama recently and who are, despite what folks like Beinart imply, essential if the Democratic nominee is to win any of the swing states in November. And if Obama does win in the Ohio or Texas primaries, he almost certainly will do this with the help of conservative and even independent voters who can vote in both primaries. What must be troubling for Democrats, though, is that although these groups have been voting for Obama recently (most recently in the Virginia primary) and could help him in the Ohio and Texas primaries, his political views and voting record are almost certainly unknown to many of those currently voting for him. It is likely that they, like many in the media, appear, instead, to be caught up in all the excitement. As a result, if Obama is the nominee, his soaring rhetoric about change and unity won’t be as compelling when the Republicans draw him into a battle that, ironically, could be one of the most divisive in recent memory.

If Obama is the Democratic Party's nominee it is very possible that the new demographics will not, in fact, enable him to break out of the blue states. Similarly, as more independents and conservatives become aware of his record, courtesy of the Republicans, many of the voters that Obama is getting now may go instead to McCain. If this comes to be, and the 2008 election ends with the Republicans securing another four years in the White House, Democrats will wish that they paid more attention to the issues, the voting records of the Democratic candidates, and had scrutinized claims such as Obama's that wins in the caucus and primaries translate to victories in even red states in the general election. I also suspect that many in the media, who often write so uncritically about Obama's greater electibility, will have a similar wish.

Just the Facts, Ma’am

Hillary Clinton has a new website that may help answer, at least partially, the question I asked yesterday about what she will do should she not win convincingly in the upcoming primaries in Ohio and Texas.

The website (delegatehub.com) purports to include “five facts about Democratic delegates,” and politicizes the very issues that will probably make or break her campaign:
(1) whither the superdelegates, and (2) what to do with those poor disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan.

In true Clintonian fashion the “facts” as Hillary sees them are a somewhat heavy-handed, self-serving parsing of reality that might do more harm than good. I take a look at these below. For her full discussion of these issues see the website.

Fact: Pledged delegates and automatic delegates are the same—they each count for ONE vote.

Fact: Neither candidate can secure the nomination without automatic delegates.

Fact: Automatic delegates are expected to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and the Democratic Party.

Fact: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats’ 50-state strategy.

Fact: There is a clear path to an overall delegate majority (pledged + automatic) for Hillary Clinton after all states have voted—with or without Florida and Michigan.

This is just about the extent of the site though it also includes a rotating group of links that when I was viewing included a letter by a black superdelegate urging other black superdelegates supporting Clinton to resist the pressure to move to Obama; some words from Howard Dean, the DNC Chairman, on superdelegates that is ostensibly in line with Clinton’s understanding of the issue; and links to other articles or sites that she believes confirm one or another of her “facts.”

This tiny site popped up like a mushroom overnight and prominently features at the top of the page a big button so that you can send this info to your “friends, family, and co-workers.” It indicates at the very least that Clinton is contemplating what could be a bruising late-stage strategy to fight like hell to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates and to stop not only the peeling away of especially black superdelegates but quash Obama’s attempts to pressure the Party and the superdelegates to go to the candidate with the most actual votes. It also appears to contradict the several dunderheads on the various television programs this evening who, in the wake of Clinton and Obama’s debate in Texas tonight, marveled at her “valedictory” (Keith Olbermann) or “conciliatory” (some other schlump) manner and whether it might portend that she is getting ready to mail it in or even signal her desire to be Vice President! (Olbermann, again.)

Although this indication that she will continue to fight is heartening for those who believe she is the most electible candidate, Clinton’s facts, which are so crucial to her possible late-stage strategy, just aren’t convincing no matter what you think of her candidacy.

--Pledged delegates and superdelegates do each count as one vote but the pledged delegates represent thousands of votes and are proportional, whereas one superdelegate has the same voting power without representing anyone other than him or herself. It may be the rules that superdelegates are given equal footing with pledged delegates and one can argue that they should "vote their conscience" or do "what's best for the nation" (whatever that means) but it is a specious argument at best to suggest they are the “same.”

--It simply isn’t fair to count Florida and Michigan at this point. Yes, it was dumb of the DNC to come up with this hare-brained punishment (which looks increasingly like self-flagellation), but all the candidates agreed to this and, as a result, could not campaign in these states; in Michigan Obama wasn’t even on the ballot. There is little legal precedent for overturning a Party’s rules even if that means disenfranchising voters, apparently, and at least one Florida challenge to the DNC was dismissed before the primary there. A do over makes more sense though it is fraught with problems of its own.

--And Clinton’s clear path to victory? Even her husband doesn’t seem to think it’s all that clear anymore. He, James Carville, and nearly anyone who can speak believe that Clinton must do very well in both Ohio and Texas to just stay in the race. So whatever some campaign hack writes on Clinton's behalf, the path to victory, while not impossible at this point, isn’t a clear one at all.

I haven't touched on all of the Clinton facts but they all aim at the general strategy I’ve outlined. What they share in common is something that both Clintons have become too well known for despite their accomplishments and abilities: a reliance on technicalities, procedural minutiae, and parsing of meaning. Clinton even wants to bend language to her will and her campaign has requested that henceforth superdelegates be called automatic delegates as if that will somehow make them less conspicuous and less a point of contention.

None of these parlor tricks will seat the Florida or Michigan delegates or freeze the superdelegates in their current allegiances though, if Obama continues to be ahead in delegates and the popular vote after March 4. Surely, Hillary Clinton must know this.

March 4 Muddle

As the Democrats lurch towards March 4 and the primaries in Ohio and Texas at least the questions, if not the answers, are becoming clearer.

Obama: Will he continue to be able to appeal to independents and conservative Democrats in the upcoming primaries, as has been the trend, and, if so, will these groups vote for him in November if he is the Democratic Party’s nominee?

Clinton: Will she withdraw gracefully if she loses Ohio and/or Texas, or even basically plays Obama even in these states, or push her campaign beyond this, perhaps even to the convention?

First, Obama. If he continues the trend and is able to appeal nearly across the board to all constituencies in Ohio and Texas, where independents can vote in either the Democratic or Republican races, there is nothing to indicate that he will maintain these voters in November. Common sense would suggest he will have problems maintaining these voters after the Republicans go after him but this can’t be measured either. As tantalizing as it is to plug in the demographics of a state and “compute” a winner, the promise of advance and exit polling and the relative successes there have been in identifying voter allegiance based on demographic information may be more like chasing a will ‘o the wisp, or a receding horizon than providing a satisfying metric for a candidate’s strength in November. Would be “scientists” are now reduced to humble prognosticators and shameless speculators when it comes to assessing November.

And Clinton? If she continues the campaign after losses or even lackluster victories in Ohio and Texas she is in serious danger of entering the quagmire that has sucked in so many politicians unable to accept the inevitable, whether enmeshed in a sex scandal as a congressman in a Bible Belt state or a Chief Executive burglar ransacking the Watergate. If Clinton does soldier on she could take the Party with her submersing it in the muck with legal battles over seating the delegates in Florida and Michigan and procedural and cultural battles over what to do with the Superdelegates.

We owe both questions to the convoluted, confusing, and inefficient system that is the Democratic nominating process, a hybrid of democratic elements such as access and transparency, and old-style party politics that are anything but. Many Democrats were praising the process when Clinton came roaring back in New Hampshire, opining that the process was intended to draw things out, ensure the vox populi would be heard, and that the best candidate to beat the Republicans silly would ultimately emerge. Now that its groaning superstructure has been thrown into relief, I doubt anyone is so sanguine about the process with its inaccessible and undemocratic caucuses, fickle superdelegates whose votes are greatly magnified over the hoi polloi, non-sensical state Democratic party rules for awarding delegates, and the DNC’s bright idea to disenfranchise voters in Florida and Michigan for thwarting its will.

And so after all this, we are not one bit closer to knowing who is the better candidate to take on McCain in November, whether Obama’s ability to attract independent and even conservative voters will carry into November. The caucuses, arcane methods of awarding delegates, and permitting independents to vote in some primaries but not others have helped make a nearly complete muddle of this. Neither do we know that Clinton or Obama, for that matter, will do if neither can establish a commanding lead in delegates. Will she battle to seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, or wrest away his pledged delegates? Will he demand that the Superdelegates vote for him because he has the popular vote?

This time around, at least, the Democratic nominating process has neither ensured that the will of the people will prevail in determining the Party’s candidate or that the best candidate will go forward in November. It’s just created a lot of uphill slogging for the candidates, and is raising more questions than its answering.

It sure is exciting though.

Mitt for Obama?

A big win for Obama tonight in Wisconsin, no doubt about it. This is an all white state so the victory, by about 15 percent it appears, is all the more impressive.

There are still a few things that are troubling, if looking ahead to the general election. Among white voters 45 and older, which made up about 55 percent of all voters (Edison exit polling) in the Democratic primary, Obama lost to Clinton. He won handily among independent voters and Republicans, those identifying themselves as liberal, moderate, and conservative, atheists and snakehandlers, and just about everything else. Yipes.

I am still scratching my head over the independents, who voted 2-1 for Obama, and Republicans, 75 percent of which went to Obama. He seems to be getting voters like these on a regular basis now (He did this most recently in Virginia and Maryland) though I just can’t believe that he will continue to get such voters if he makes it to the general election. I am very skeptical, in other words, that these people will still be voting for him when McCain and his 527 friends publicize that Obama is more liberal than Castro and not nearly as experienced (a taste of which we got tonight in McCain’s victory speech). If he doesn't this is real trouble as independents and Republicans voting for Obama made up 28 percent and nine percent, respectively, of voters in the Wisconsin Democratic primary. Take these away, and he narrowly beat Clinton among Democrats.

Who knows. Maybe these independents and Republicans who are voting for Obama aren't supremely ignorant but rather are so pissed off at George Bush and all his dirty tricks they are looking to send a message even in the general election.

One thing is for certain, though. if Clinton doesn’t win in Ohio and Texas on March 4, we will surely get a chance to see just what it is these voters are up to and maybe even whether that old opportunist, Mitt, has jumped on the bandwagon as an...Oromneycan.

Campaign 2008: Superdelegates and Mitt Romney's Underwear

In response to my Midnight for Mitt entry, a commenter wrote that I should stop blogging about trivialities and start writing about something important like the superdelegates and Obama’s attempt, the writer claimed, to do a kind of end run around the rules to get them. Frankly, I don’t see what could be bigger than Mitt’s dropping out of the race (at least I didn’t write about his magic underwear or affinity for corpses), but the superdelegates as well as Obama’s wiley ways are certainly important issues, probably bigger, even, than Willard Mitt Romney’s underpants.

Here are the opening paragraphs of the anonymous commenter:

Who cares whether Mitt Romney is out of the race. There is more interesting stuff to blog about. For example, yesterday, the Obama campaign accidentally released (leaked) a memo to the press projecting the delegate count at the end of the primary process. It’s not clear how they came up with the numbers, perhaps wishful thinking, perhaps a crystal ball. Either way, the campaign seems to be lamenting the fact that the nominee will be decided by the super delegates. Apparently, Obama believes that this does not bode well for him. Naturally, he would like the press to take up this issue and cry foul on his behalf. And so they did.

The issue was discussed on all the political talk shows and before long, the country will be convinced that allowing the super delegates to determine the outcome of an election will be a great calamity akin to the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore.

The writer goes on to say that Obama is making, in his or her mind anyway, a brazen and unfair play for the superdelegates by putting the DNC on notice that the superdelegates should go to the candidate with the popular vote, that the press sucks for being not only receptive to but magnifying such hogwash, and that I should be outraged at Obama’s naked political grab instead of writing about Mitt’s Underoos. Or something like that.

I certainly see why someone supporting Clinton, as the writer clearly does, would want the superdelegates to cast their votes for the candidates they currently support. In a NY Times article yesterday which identified the superdelegates and their allegiance to Clinton or Obama based on the candidates’ own lists, Clinton retains a healthy lead. Many of these delegates had pledged their support well before the race was tight and no doubt Clinton has based at least part of her overall strategy on getting these (and perhaps foregoing a real play at some of the caucus states).

I also see why Obama would do what he is doing. Why wouldn’t he put these party dandies on notice? He wants to win, doesn’t he? And if he does win the popular vote and is ahead in pledged delegates won fair and square in the primaries and caucuses he would have a pretty good argument that the superdelegates should go for him. So, it makes perfect sense to me that Obama would make a public play for these superdelegates and let them know that Obama voters anyway aren’t going to let their candidate win the pledged delegates and the popular vote only to let the party operatives deliver victory to Clinton like gods from the machine.

In the end, Obama’s public courting or even threatening of the superdelegates isn’t any different than Clinton’s attempting to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates or any of the other strategic maneuvers the candidates are making. Like all the Democratic candidates, Clinton agreed that she wouldn’t campaign in these states, and that their votes would not be counted. In short, both candidates are doing what they can to win the primary. At this point their battles are reasonable and do not threaten the Party in any significant way. This could change, though, and, in a worse case scenario, there could be a legal challenge about the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters (the DNC’s treatment of these states amounts to nothing less than this) and Obama or his surrogates could drive his supporters into an acrimonious and divisive battle over the superdelegates. In either case the only people profiting would be the Republicans.

None of this addresses the question as to whether Clinton or Obama is the most electable candidate, a concern of the commenter who apparently fears that the manipulation of the superdelegates by Obama could leave us with a candidate ripe for trouncing in November. Electability should be an issue, but you certainly can’t blame Obama for wanting to have his head be the one on the chopping block.

Sometimes it’s just more fun to write about Mitt’s under garments.

Truth or Consequences: Perception and Reality in the Chase to be the Democratic Party's Nominee

Although the media and the candidates themselves often live by the notion that perception is reality, carrying on about “momentum,” “change,” “comebacks” and “solutions,” while talking little about the issues important to voters, perception isn’t, in fact, reality. Frequently voters don’t get this until it is too late, something Democrats seem especially prone to, when they choose nominees like McGovern or Dukakis that have little chance of winning the Presidency. Anyway, in recognition of this phenomenon, to which Republicans are not immune, detailed below are some frequent perceptions associated with the Democratic and Republican presidential races and the realities.

Perception: Obama’s victories in red states such as Idaho and Utah are meaningful as it indicates his ability to possibly win these states in November’s general election.

Reality: Democrats will win these states in the general election when hell freezes over.

Perception: Clinton must win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, and by wide margins, in order to beat Obama and eventually win the Democratic party’s nomination.

Reality: Clinton must do well in these states but barring a sweep of these states by high margins in all, neither candidate will have anywhere near the number of delegates to lock up the nomination. Also, it is increasingly likely that something will happen with the delegates in Florida and Michigan, states Clinton won handily and which she would be the favorite to win again if, say, there were a “do over.”

Perception: If either candidate wins more states and/or the popular vote, the superdelegates should go to that candidate.

Reality: Winning more states is meaningless unless it results in winning these states in November. Idaho and Utah, which Obama won, are out of reach for Democrats in November and many of the states he has won are caucuses which attract party activists only and thus are not representative of how voters in these states will vote in the general election. Similarly, someone could even win the popular vote and still be the weaker of the candidates in the general election. Obama, for example, could win the popular vote even after losing California, Florida, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas. This is exactly the kind of scenario in which the superdelegates have meaning as they could give their votes based on the one thing that matters at the point: who is the candidate most likely to beat John McCain?

Perception: Independent voters are more likely to support Obama in the general election than they are McCain.

Reality: Many of the independent voters Obama is now getting will not be voting for him in the general election. Incredible as it may seem, many of these voters appear to be unaware that Obama has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate (number 1 in 2007 according to a National Journal assessment of senate voting records). And conservative Democrats? Seventy percent of voters in the Virginia primary who identified themselves as conservative voted for Obama! (Edison exit polling). How many will be there after McCain and the 527 groups desconstruct his voting record?

Perception: Obama is beating Clinton across all demographic groups.

Reality: Clinton is consistently winning geezers and white lunch bucket democrats, two groups critical to a Democratic victory in November.

Perception: Obama is more electible than Clinton.

Reality: It is Obama’s mantra that he can get Clinton’s voters but she cannot get his. The truth is likely otherwise. If she is the Democratic nominee she will take all of Obama’s constituencies other than perhaps young voters which make up a small percentage of overall voters anyway. She will take back blacks and white liberals and combine these with the constituencies supporting her now: latinos, older women, and moderate to conservative Democrats.

Perception: Obama’s “change” candidacy means that he will be more likely to vote his conscience and eschew the kind of political casuistry typical of other pols.

Reality: Despite his opposition to the war in Iraq he has voted to continue its funding. In addition, he recently did not vote on the reauthorization of the FISA bill instead of voting one way or another out of fear that Republicans would say he was soft on terrorism.

Perception: The wheels have come off Clinton’s campaign and epic strategic blunders have led to her current state at the edge of the abyss as she approaches the Wisconsin primary on February 19, and the March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas.

Reality: Clinton has a lot of baggage that she needed to lighten to even challenge to be the party’s nominee and she has done that by appearing more moderate; letting Bill run interference in especially the red states where white males believe she is the devil incarnate; focusing on the big delegate-heavy states; and, most important, recognizing the role that Florida/Michigan could ultimately play, and locking up as many superdelegates as possible from the beginning. This doesn’t mean that there haven’t been missteps—she should have put more effort into contesting the caucus states, for one—just that the blunders aren’t nearly so big in comparison to what she has accomplished.

Perception: Obama will do more to unite Republicans and Democrats than Clinton.

Reality: Uniting Republicans and Democrats is a myth and, in fact, is not something to be wished for as such unity leads to things like the War in Iraq. As soon as more is known about the liberal Obama’s economic, health care, and security policies, he will be demonized by the Republican attack machine as just another liberal Democrat like McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry. So much for the hope of unity. Ironically, and for better or for worse, Clinton has worked closely with Republicans on many important issues, from war to security matters.

The Clinton Obama Identity Politics Game

There’s a game that’s a lot of fun right now. Anyone can play, and it involves little more than going about your daily business, being interested in 2008 Presidential race, and taking a cursory look at the exit polls from the completed Democratic primaries and caucuses.

The game works basically like this: visit Starbucks or Dunkin’ Donuts; your greengrocer or Safeway; your BMW dealer or Jiffy Lube; your dad’s family in Mississippi or your mom’s in Newport, Rhode Island; or just think about any of the places you frequent and try to guess before visiting them if they are Clinton or Obama supporters.

Just one example: As my wife and I drove up to a local coffee roaster this weekend we both exclaimed, without knowing anything about the owner other than his relative youth, and scraggly goatee, “Obama supporter.” And sure enough, before we had even purchased the freshly roasted Panama Boquette, exquisitely laced with civet cat droppings, he was asking if we were supporting Obama. Before we could respond, we espied a white middle-aged woman with steel grey hair stirring in the corner, who momentarily interrupted her inspection of a ceramic coffee cup emblazoned with the roaster’s business name to listen. My wife and I looked knowingly at one another and, sure enough, she put down the cup and came over to announce that…she was a Clinton supporter. A raucous but happy debate followed, with others in the store joining in, until with the help of the black assistant roaster and, you guessed it, Obama supporter, we finally made it back to our car with our coffee.

Although there are many variations—you could make this a drinking game or a travel game—in the end it’s kind of boring because it is so easy. The Democratic primary is all about “identity politics,” as some call it, or voters whose allegiance, almost deterministically, appears to be driven by class, race, and gender, and age all those things that Americans don’t like to talk about, let alone admit frequently drive their decisions and the way they live their lives. It is somewhat ironic given that unity is a major theme of one of the candidates but inevitable, too, with the two Democratic candidates that matter of gender and race would, arise. Class is also playing a role and even the age gap, so demographics, identity politics, whatever you want to call it, is as the exit polls confirm at the front and center of the Democratic race in a way that it never has been before.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The Democrats have a diversity and potential pool of voters that the Republicans can only drool over. By the same token, such diversity can be messy and even divisive if one or more blocks of voters feel somehow betrayed. The controversies over the superdelegates and whether to seat the delegates in the Florida and Michigan primaries are two instances of how this could happen. The Democrats cannot afford to let the campaign become divisive, however, and I don’t believe that either Clinton or Obama will permit this to occur.

The bigger issue is whether the Democrats will be able to sustain in the general election the excitement that is apparent at the local coffee shop or hardware store, and if the eventual Democratic nominee, whether Clinton or Obama, can get the kind of turnout they are now seeing in the caucuses and primaries. If they can do this, and if they can turn out blacks and white lunch bucket Democrats, the young and old, and all the other constituencies one or the other of them is getting now the Democratic nominee will win in November—hands down. And If Democrats are ultimately able to energize and unite their diverse constituencies and thrash McCain then the messy, imperfect, and possibly disastrous process they use to select a nominee may even have some vindication.