When Does Leading Become Winning?
May 19, 2008 | Permalink
The Clinton and Obama campaign are arguing over what tomorrow’s primaries are going to mean. That is when Obama is going to secure a majority of pledged delegates. That won’t be enough to put him over the top - he’ll need more superdelegates and add-ons, but it does mean something. The Clinton campaign has essentially three responses:
1) Michigan and Florida!.
2) So what, you need superdelgates.
3) Millions more have to vote.
The third is the easiest to debunk. It’s superficially true, but ultimately pointless. After tomorrow, there are three primaries left: Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana. Using the population figures of Wikipedia (because they’re freely available), 98.1% of the country will have had a chance to vote in the Democratic primary. (This includes territories, since they vote in the primary.). I doubt the last 1.9% will be the deciding factor.
The first is fairly easy to debunk as well. Clinton is claiming a lead in the popular vote with Michigan and Florida included, but as RCP makes clear, she deliberately is not including the results of any caucuses that have any threshold requirements for viability. That makes results harder to gauge, but not impossible. For instance, no one disputed that Obama won Iowa. Moreover, if you include just Florida, where Obama was on the ballot, he is ahead in the popular vote count still. And in Michigan, while Clinton is strong, subsequent polls show a tight race. I’m willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt in that state in terms of being a strong candidate, but not infinitely stronger as her campaign would want you to believe by citing that election as meaningful. For instance, if you take Clinton off the ballot in the next most populous state, she would lose 330,000 votes and the popular vote would be out of reach. Moreover, Clinton herself had said that the Michigan primary would be meaningless. I’m all for looking to it for some meaning, but the particular vote count is pretty pointless. Even giving Obama the uncommitted vote in Michigan would give him the popular vote lead.
And as for the argument relating to superdelegates, well, Obama has more endorsements than Clinton on that front now.
No wonder Warren Buffett said the race was over today.
In short, to answer the headline question: it already has. Everyone is allowed a chance to vote, and the vote is meaningful, but not every vote is going to be decisive…
Sphere: Related Content
Good post.
I’d like to see something about why CLinton is still in the race? She must know that she has no chance of getting the nomination, whatsoever. It is completely beyond her reach at this stage and yet she won’t give up, causing more damage to the Dems.
Is she just bitter about losing? So desparate for power that she is lying to herself? Trying to recoup her debt somehow?
I just can’t understand why she’s still in the race apart from that she’s being stubborn
what ever happen to common sence? What happen to listening to people that make this country? I guess if,you don’t make millions of dollars. You are not important.
Hey! I agree with Zach. When is Clinton going to admit she’s lost! I think its hurting the democrats too! I was browsing through a bunch of political websites and blogs and I came across your blog and find it to be very interesting. There are a bunch of others I like too, like huff post, and other news sites like politico. Do you know of any that cover politics and the environment? I saw earthlab.com which has mostly environmental info (like a pretty cool carbon calculator) but some politics. Are there any other blogs you would recommend? Can you drop me a link to your favorites or any ones with green info?