Here's an interactive Electoral College map. You'll see the swing states are beige, and you can pick a year and see who won the various states in past elections. Now, here's a map showing which states Obama and Clinton have won so far. Obama has strong appeal — or Hillary is unappealing — in the nation's midsection. Is a picture of Obama's electability emerging?
We were just talking last night about what the superdelegates can fairly do with their power. One argument is that they must vote to produce the result that would obtain if there were no superdelegates.
But isn't it fair for them to look at who can take the party to victory in the end? Isaac Chotiner argues:
Think of it like this: you are a superdelegate or party boss. You have been undecided but now must choose between two candidates with roughly equal numbers of delegates. Most of all, you want to win in November, which is now only three months away. And while one of your two choices is consistently beating the Republican nominee in polls, the other is consistently losing.Chotiner hasn't gotten to the point where he sees that it's the Electoral College that matters, but his main idea is that superdelegates will be influenced by data about who's more likely to beat the Republican nominee.
Yesterday, I linked to Chris Bowers, who made this threat:
If the Democratic Party does not nominate the candidate for POTUS that the majority (or plurality) of its participants in primaries and caucuses want it to nominate, then I will quit the Democratic Party... [If the] "super" delegates nominate someone for POTUS other than the person who received the most support during Democratic primaries and caucuses, then I fail to see any reason to continue participating in the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party is not a democratic institution, then to hell with the Democratic Party.Well, he sounds angry, but what exactly is the standard?
A 1% lead or more in pledged delegates from all 50 states and every territory. If it falls in between the plus or minus 1% range, I'll cut some lack. Otherwise, none.So, fine, he's not looking at a national poll or going on the numbers of voters/caucus-goers. This shows some sensitivity toward the electoral map. But he's not taking into account any subtleties of who has support in the states that will be hard-fought in the general election. He throws in the territories, which have no electoral votes, and he doesn't have a good way — as far as I can figure out — to deal with the botched process in the big swing states of Michigan and Florida.
It seems to me that the superdelegates are in a position to account for some complex considerations of democracy as it plays out in our peculiar electoral process. The only reason to lock the superdelegates into a formula the way Bowers wants is that you don't trust them to think in a sophisticated way about legitimate factors. You're afraid of the politics that will go on behind the scenes. I understand that fear, but so will the superdelegates. The check on behind-the-scenes deals and corruption is that they will know the people will be hypervigilant and easily outraged.
ADDED: Here's the way Barack Obama puts it:
My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates from the most voters in the country, that it would be problematic for the political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters. I think it is also important for superdelegates to think about who will be in the strongest position to defeat John McCain in November and who will be in the strongest position to ensure that we are broadening the base, bringing people who historically have not gotten involved in politics into the fold.See? He's pushing a subtle, multi-factored approach that serves him well. I assume Mrs. Clinton will do the same. The linked article quotes her saying:
Superdelegates are, by design, supposed to exercise independent judgment. But, of course, if Senator Obama and his campaign continue to push this position, which is really contrary to what the definition of a superdelegate has historically been, I will look forward to receiving the support of Senator Kennedy and Senator Kerry.Ha ha. It's an old quote. (Both Kennedy and Kerry have declared their support for Obama.) That was mean! Anyway, I look forward to seeing how she puts it to adapt to the changing circumstances.
ADDED: I misread the Clinton quote, which isn't old. It's a sound witticism.
Posts
55 comments:
Dems may need to hold quickie caucuses in Michigan and Florida after the last official contest if there is still not a nominee so that those states can have their delegates. If they go into their convention without a clear winner it isn't going to be acceptable to have 2 big swing states unrepresented.
Even if that doesn't officially decide the winner it will remove a big, nasty issue they'll have to fight over at the convention otherwise - and it looks as though they may have other things to worry about.
Looking at that electoral calculator its hard for me to realistically see how a McCain wins against Obama. Not so hard with Hillary as that changes the dynamics and states in play a bit, I think.
There is an aspect that is being ignored regarding the battle of the super delegates; a Democrat will probably win the White House next year. The electorate is furious at the Republicans- both Democratic and Republican voters.
The issue is not who can beat John McCain. The real issue is who deserves to be that candidate and who deserves to make history. The battle between Clinton and Obama is not about beating John McCain. The choice that the delegates- regular and super- have to make is who do they really want to be the president. Do they want another legacy president or do they want a fresh start. The candidates themselves are not that different and there is very little to distinguish them. If the party is smart, they will go with the fresh start.
"I....will be in the strongest position to ensure that we are broadening the base, bringing people who historically have not gotten involved in politics into the fold."
Like who? Who is Obama talking about? The stinky cheese eating pimp community? Their hos? It's true that if blacks are super energized by an Obama candidacy marginal elements of the black community like pimps and hos and crackheads may participate in the vote. Providing they can get up before the polls close. Is that what he's implying?
If its close it better go my way, and nobody gets hurt.
Sincerely,
HuffpoKosMSNBCTPM
AA said: It seems to me that the superdelegates are in a position to account for some complex considerations of democracy as it plays out in our peculiar electoral process.
No, they are in a position to exercise a disproportionate say in who gets the nomination; and it's all about power, influence and spoils. To think otherwise is political naivete.
One can (and some have) argued that super-delegates are representative also. This is false. They are not representative of the current contest. Think of the situation this way:
- Some newish members will favor Obama.
- Some will favor Billary.
This sub-group will tend to roughly reflect the general Democratic populace.
Then there will remain a substantial core of historical insiders who actually control the outcome. That core contains, among others, Bill Clinton and all those he has connived with or supported over the years. There is just no way the process can be fair to outsider Obama and his supporters, and it is not intended to be. Don't they get it?
The show goes on, but the outcome is already determined. Billary is on a greasy slide to the inevitable nomination. Regular voters have been rendered meaningless, and the Althouses of the world are busy rationalizing the travesty.
"You're afraid of the politics that will go on behind the scenes. I understand that fear, but so will the superdelegates."
They will? How do you know that? Perhaps they were chosen becasue they are in fact amenable to back room manipulation. I am not sure about the basis for your trust in them.
Does this electoral confusion all stem from the difficulty socialists have with open, honest competition? Straightforward competition involves winners AND losers, and that is a difficult thing for socialists to accept in my view.
Trey
It seems to me that the super delegates win no matter what happens: Whoever they support will get the nomination and most likely the presidency. That president will owe those party insiders. Either Clinton or Obama will loose, the super delegates can't loose no matter who they pick; as long as who they pick wins the general election.
If I were a super delegate, I would pick whoever I thought had a better chance to win the general election.
The GOP needs McCain to pick the right veep and, most of all, that the Democrats fight like dogs in August.
Is a picture of Obama's electability emerging?
Or is a picture of Hillary's unelectability emerging?
If it's Obama vs Huckabee in November, then you get hope and change vs miracles, which ought to be spiritually uplifting.
The Democratic Party is a private organization. It is not a part of the government. It has every right to set up whatever rules it wants to choose who they want to nominate for president. There is no reason why they have to hold primaries at all.
The only thing that Bowers has ever written is his determination to quit the Democratic Party if it follows the rules in place, and comes up with a result he disagrees with. He has every right to do that, and should.
Perhaps he and Markos would be more comfortable forming their own party instead.
Jayzuz, she cried again! in Maine this time. Expect a full scale breakdown if Obama takes this thing.
Crying the first time may have made Hillary look less robotic, less scripted, more emotionally engaged.
The continued crying makes her look weak and overly emotional.
He's pushing a subtle, multi-factored approach that serves him well.
Multifaceted?
Joseph's coat of many colors, by the way, may be a mistranslation of long coat with stripes.
Maybe Obama truly does want to be president for its own sake, but many party funtionaries only want continued access to money: consulting fees, earmarks, a safe seat, a freezer full of cash, all the privileges and perks of office. I worked for the Dems in my misguided youth and know this. So the superdelegates will do as they are told; otherwise, they jeopardize their political future.
I do plan on Tivo'ing the whole convention, though, because I don't want to miss the part when Moveon & Co. wake up to this reality and tear the place apart.
althouse.blogspot.com mentioned again on Howie Kurtz's RELIABLE SOURCES....the MSNBC WIMPED OUT OVER PIMPED OUT post....
I have been convinced over the years that "Democratic Party" is an oxymoron, ever since the duly elected Illinois delegation was shoved aside by Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition.
Take California: The Progressives left a magnificent legacy of the Referendum, the Initiative, and the Recall. But when the recall was used to oust "Best Governor Money Can Buy" Grey Davis, the Democrats(tm) were up in arms. The people of California amended their constitution via the initiative process to deny recognition of same-sex marriage. In defiance of the express will of the people, Democrat legislators have ever since tried to pass bills to recognize same-sex marriage. Signing such a bill will precipitate a constitutional crisis.
Basically, Democrats liked democracy back when the special interests were the railroads. Now that the special interests are the public employees unions, their tune has changed.
The concept of superdelegates exercising a vote that no citizen gave them is consistent with the Dems' previous actions, as is taking away the votes of Michigan and Florida Democrats. Don't the Democrats see the irony of taking away the votes of Florida Democrats? Hellooo! Is anybody home?
gahrie, the Democrats don't have unlimited discretion in picking candidates, under Nixon v. Herndon. Here Texas Democratic (see a pattern beginning to emerge?) clubs picked candidates through club votes, not primary elections. Blacks were excluded from the clubs. In 1927 the Supreme Court struck this practice down, reasoning that primaries were so critical a part of the electoral process that they should be subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.
you gotta like ricpic her: "I....will be in the strongest position to ensure that we are broadening the base, bringing people who historically have not gotten involved in politics into the fold."
Like who? Who is Obama talking about? The stinky cheese eating pimp community?
Obama has energized young voters. He also appeals to the affluent and the educated. Obviously ricpic falls into none of these groups.
Gee, maybe if The Super Delegates put Superwoman over the top, I won't have to listen to Dems who told me that SCOTUS appointed Bush as POTUS or that Gore won the popular vote & Bush only won because of the antiquated Electoral College, QED....
And maybe if the Rule of Law has prevailed in this case, I will no longer be called a fascist for using such term. Oh, wait, vox populi is per se evil when it speaks defeat to power.
Power to my people!
BTW, by Rule of Law I mean here rules & regs validly adopted by the Party, (arguably in a banana republic fashion) so that the process of determining the winner is fixed in advance, understandable by all, & operable without the need for outside interpretation. The average Joe should be able to feel that the choice was made "by the rules" rather than by a power play by the loser.
Of course, it will seem to the loser to be no different than the old smoke-filled rooms, but "Rules Is Rules".
Of course, one might say "um, depends on your definition of 'Rule' ".
I think the Federal government should withhold campaign funding to the Democratic Party until it meets certain "benchmarks" of democracy. As a country we cannot support such obstinacy and lack of internal discipline as is exemplified by, say, the Florida and Michigan debacles. If the Democratic Party can't demonstrate the ability to manage itself in a true Democratic fashion, the United States should -- financially speaking -- "pull out."
Best possible outcome--Obama goes to DNC convention with a slight lead in delegates, the Clintons then steal the nomination from him (by bribing enough super delegates).
Oh, wait a minute. The Clinton's are ethical, they would never do this.
One correction: small "d" in "true democratic fashion."
I also forgot to mention the upcoming travesty of democracy that will be accomplished when undemocratically selected superdelegates swing the balance of power for the nomination.
"Obama has energized young voters."
This tired line is trotted out every election cycle, last time about Howard Dean.
All these fresh-faced energized! young voters, with all their energy, are happy to spring to life the minute someone mouths the same Democratic-left platitudes and policies at them that politicians have been mouthing at people for decades, as long as the new mouther is shiny and hip and cool.
"He also appeals to the affluent and the educated."
Being affluent and educated, I do find him appealing. His policies and politics, not so much.
Tom, that's silly. And I think it would be a severe conflict of interest, too.
A party could select their candidate by lotto or by lotto for delegates and secret ballot after or by lotto for delegates and an extended game of "quarters" or by an MMA match by chosen champions.
In other words, they can do whatever they want to do. And if they don't please enough of their constituents then they suffer the consequences and are either abandoned or made to reform.
As a few people have said... this looks to be a "hoist on their own petard" sort of situation where for 7 years the mantra has been pure democracy and the supremacy of the untainted popular vote. But that's not actually how it's ever worked (and for good reason), not in the party nominating process and not in the presidential election.
I wouldn't assume that a majority of the super-delegates won't pick Obama, anyway. But whoever they do pick, it will represent half of the popular vote. So who gets to cry about being disenfranchised? Which half?
From the looks of it, half of them will, because losing gracefully in a skin-of-your-teeth election is not something *any* of them have practice doing lately.
"Obama has energized young voters."
This tired line is trotted out every election cycle, last time about Howard Dean.
Why criticize an accurate, succinct description of the Obamaphenomenon? For example, so many Stanford students showed up to vote that Palo Alto polling places ran out of Democratic Party ballots.
And it's Ron Paul who's getting the Howard Dean voters this time around.
Correction: Terry v. Adams was the Texas Democratic Club case. The Supreme Court ruled that the Jaybird Democratic Association's exclusionary process had become "part of the machinery for choosing officials" and, therefore, required constitutional scrutiny, even though it was a private club, and thus nominally not a state actor.
As a black ho who smokes crack, I resent your ugly, racist, Don Imus remark, Ricpic. You nasty, ignorant stale honky cracker. I hope Obama wins and appoints an all black cabinet just to spite worthless white trash like you. I hope he appoints only Afro-Americans to the SCOTUS until the entire court is black. He can start by appointing Anita Faye Hill to cancel out Clarence Thomas' vote. I hope he picks O.J. Simpson as his running mate, too. Then if someone knocks off President Obama, the greatest running back of all times will become the greatest president of all time, who "CAN" unite all of America, black, white, etc. How can you stand to look at your non-black niggardly-ass face in the mirror every morning. Don't you just want to puke on the divan? You are a hopeless, holess, hophead homey & a horny, horned toad, horned owl to hoot!
FLS,
Wasn't it also the case that there was *no* competing mechanism whatsoever? That it was essentially a one party system?
Man, now I hope the campaign comes down to the superdelegates. I'd contribute to the ensuing lawsuit to establish the rights of the voters, especially the Florida and Michigan ones. This should make Bush v. Gore look like a Little League umpiring dispute.
Isn't a screen name of "former law student" almost like one of "coulda been a contender" or "didn't get it done" or "almost won the lottery"?
Why would somebody lead with something they didn't accomplish?
synova -- while that is true, you can make an argument that the Democratic candidate is likely to win this year, because of disgust with the war, the tanking dollar, the recession that is just beginning, or just the natural desire for a change after eight years.
enigmaticcore: I have it on reliable authority that middle class guy is actually richer than croesus. He and I are both modest.
"I have it on reliable authority that middle class guy is actually richer than croesus."
Not sure what that has to do with the price of the tea in China, but ok.
"He and I are both modest."
So you are a lawyer now? If so, not admitting it isn't modesty.
I also forgot to mention the upcoming travesty of democracy that will be accomplished when undemocratically selected superdelegates swing the balance of power for the nomination.
How bout the Obamatrons actually get ahead in popular and delegates first before they start crying about being disenfranchised? And of course if the Supers swing it His way and Hillary gets fucked well that's just Destiny. And remember, only the Chosen One can beat McCain, not collective Democrats and their ideas. Just Him. Obama talks alot about McCain these days, I'd love to hear why he endorsed Lieberman against LaMont in the CT primary.
enigmaticcore: as long as you opened the door to criticizing one's AA name, why not change yours to "boring, banal, and transparent"?
Since when were affluent and educated voters "people who historically have not gotten involved in politics," deep thinker FLS?
DaveW --
The problem here is that, while it is in the interests of the national Democrats to hold caucuses in Florida and Michigan, it is not in the interest of the state Democrats.
The interest of the state parties in both cases is to have their deliberate decisions to have the delegates selected by an early primary instead of a later caucus be recognized as allowed, by making the national party seat the delegates chosen by the primary.
As a practical matter, the DNC does not have the infrastructure to hold caucuses in either state, so the state parties get to decide whether or not caucuses will be held. As a political matter, the DNC holding its own caucuses in a state would alarm all the state parties, because it would challenge their power.
Finally, the state parties, in the end, have the balance of power. The person who appears on the Florida and Michigan ballots as the Democratic nominee is not determined by the national convention, but by who the state party tells the state government to put on the ballot as the nominee. If the national convention were to refuse to seat the primary-selected delegations of Michigan and Florida, well, the state parties can refuse to put the national nominee on the ballots as the Democrat.
And remember, Florida and Michigan have a principled argument they can make to mask the stench of raw power politics. New Hampshire's primary date was set by the DNC as January 22, but New Hampshire ignored that and held theirs earlier. Why should Florida and Michigan be punished for similarly scheduling a primary before its DNC-authorized date?
So, no, I highly doubt there are going to be any "quickie caucuses". Instead, Michigan and Florida will be seated at the convention.
Does this electoral confusion all stem from the difficulty socialists have with open, honest competition? Straightforward competition involves winners AND losers, and that is a difficult thing for socialists to accept
Yes, I think that's partly the reason. I remember a friend --an avowed socialist-- saying during the 2000 Bush/Gore fracas that he didn't care what Gore had to do to win. If breaking the rules was required to keep a republican out of office, so be it. I think a lot of socialists believe so deeply that they know what's good for everybody, and in their eyes the opposition is so evil, cheating is entirely justified.
I be honored by yo compleemens, trump-ho.
Hey, Althouse!
Please Join us at the Kohl Center in Madison @ 6:15pm on Tuesday 2/12/08 to hear Obama. Come on! It'll be fun hangin' with all the kids. Just leave your huge "I'm in love with Barack and I vote" sign at home. And, well, leave behind big bags and anything metal as well.
See you there! This town's great, isn't it? I haven't been this excited since the Wesley Clark rally at the Pyle Center 4 years ago. (Understatement of the year).
Why criticize an accurate, succinct description of the Obamaphenomenon
Well, very rarely does support from young voters translate into votes on actual Election Day. To me, saying someone has a lot of youth support is like saying Kerry endorsed them-- not such a great thing.
Plus, young people are idealistic... but mostly stupid. They will generally support someone with impractical and/or radical policies. They also dig lots of hope- and change-type buzzwords.
Funniest is watching the Progressive Stalinist urge come to the forefront so soon. The willingness to do *anything* to win ("Screw the Rules") while whining about Bush/Rove is just too delicious.
I've been hearing about the fabled 'youth vote' since I was a youth, and the only time I've seen much of it was just after 18-year-olds got the vote in time for the '72 elections. Well do I remember how George McGovern was swept into the Presidency by their enthusiasm.
And when a commenter speaks of 'affluent and educated' voters I figure they're talking about people with education degrees in cities with failing schools but highly paid members of teachers unions and assorted other education establishment members, like DC and Detroit, et al.
"enigmaticcore: as long as you opened the door to criticizing one's AA name, why not change yours to "boring, banal, and transparent"?"
Mostly to avoid being confused with folks like you.
I had a kind of waking dream where Hillary! heaves her cankles up on a raised dais in front of a huge, darkened arena and begins to speak to the nervous, standing room only crowd:
"I have heard it said that many of you have felt, at times, that I or the DNC don't really think your issues are important beyond what we have to say to benefit from your votes. Nothing could be further from the truth! In spite of scurrilous claims on talk radio, the in spite of the fact that it fell to Republican administrations to appoint African-Americans to prominent cabinet positions, or that the Democrat party of New York purportedly coerced an eminently African-American to not run for the Senate seat I now hold, it is vital that you understand that YOUR interests are at stake as you go to vote as super delegates...."
A voice from the hall interrupts:
"Madam senator? The Democrat super delegates and black folks are next door. We are the conservative minority of the Republican party. John McCain was supposed to be here to explain why we are supposed to vote for him, but we just found out he's next door promising open-ended welfare benefits, restrictions on talk radio, and socialized health care.
It's a funny old world, aint' it?
If I were a Democratic superdelegate, I'd be thinking along the following lines:
"If I go with Clinton, and Obama wins, I can mend fences with Obama later. If I go with Obama, and Clinton wins -- and then wins the Presidency -- I'm on the Clintons' enemies list for all eternity."
Only the most politically and financially secure Democratic officeholder (Ted Kennedy; maybe Richie Daley, too) will buck the Clintons under those circumstances. The costs down the road -- primary challenges, lawsuits, late night phone calls from Sid Blumenthal -- are just too horrible to contemplate.
If Clinton gets the Michigan delegates seated as is, I will be furious.
They need to redo this primary.
NH moved its primary without penalty.
But MI did too, and all hell broke loose. Obama took his name off the ballot, perhaps to appease the party and the Clintonistas who run it. Why did Hillary leave her name on the ballot, rather than joining the others in removing it? Hubris?
So voters were faced with a ballot with one name--Clinton--and the other choice was uncommitted.
If you wrote in Obama, your ballot was invalid.
I am told that thousands of ballots were tossed out as invalid because people didn't understand the bizarre ballot rules brought on by the DNC and MI Dems. And in my district, the uncommitted vote beat Hillary.
Great interactive map at the NPR site.
Among the big late prizes are Pennsylvania (158 delegates, April 22) and North Carolina (115 delegates May 6).
Can you imagine if Clinton and Obama were tied going into the June 3 primaries in South Dakota and Montana?
Everybody would be bitching about "Who decided that these states should go last?"
What national "polls" are they going to base their future on-
Zogby?
This is the guy that had Obama winning California- a couple of days befofe the actual results-
Obama 49%
Clinton 36%
{Come on people we didn't have that much early voting}
But hey if the Dems want to focus their response on what Republicans are doing...
Then the MI and FL mess.
Do you really want to mess with Florida....?
Then there's this quote-
During this fight, I've seen a lot of changing, in the way you feel about me, and in the way I feel about you. [...] I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!
Who said it?
btw-
If this is the way Democrats run primaries just Imagine! what they could do with the whole country!
They'd have the House, Senate, the Presidency and they could come up with a whole bunch of new fangled rules!
The Star Fangled Banner!
Let us not forget Edwards. He has about 70 delegates. Who will he endorse? Will he pledge his delegates to someone in exchange for perhaps a shot as VP, or some other government job? He might be more important than the super delegates.
ugh-
I'll see your super-delegates and I'll raise you Edwards.
Yuck.
I swear Obama lost New Hampshire when he allowed Edwards to defend him against Hillary during the final debate.
garage mahal said...
How bout the Obamatrons actually get ahead in popular and delegates first before they start crying about being disenfranchised?
Actually it is Hillary who is whining about disenfranchised voters- Florida and Michigan. Their primary votes do not count. Now she wants the rules she broke changed to benefit her.
The Democratic Party screwed the pooch this year by giving their own candidates a platform to fight against; their own party.
That map is a great little bit of Flash.
TmjUtah made me laugh.
Maybe this time is truly different but by-and-large the energized youth vote doesn't stay energized long enough to actually vote.
In California, where I'm intimately familiar with the demographics, you could drop the under 25s without changing the outcomes at all.
The Obama camp should get the word out that Bill Clinton is a super-delegate, and then tie that into a Clinton nepotism/corruption meme.
Voters don't like a cheater.
That's not an old quote. She's responding to Obama's argument that superdelegates should reflect the voters. Which, as she won Massachusetts, means that Kerry and Kennedy should, according to Obama's principles, throw their support towards Hillary. She's pointing out his inconsistency.
He wants her superdelegates, but isn't exactly urging his own to follow his stated standards.
Yes, but he won Washington, despite her endorsement by Washington's two Senators. So the witicism isnt sound, because it's a draw, two for two. No point in making the switch.
Post a Comment