Loyal readers are already familiar with my effort to count the forgotten supderdelegates - the 76 Unpledged Add-On Delegates (UADs) to the Democratic Nationa Convention. To recap: 720 superdelegates get to go to Denver by virtue of the party or governmental offices they hold. The forgotten 76 are handed out to the states in proportion to the number of DNC members in each state, and (s)elected by state committees, conventions, or delegations. In this incredibly tight contest, it's naive to believe that any candidate whose supporters comprise a majority of the body that selects the UADs will select anyone not (unofficially, but no less firmly) pledged to support them.
Counting UADs is hard, because like delegates from caucus states, we don't know who they'll be, only how they're likely to vote in Denver. Further complicating the picture is the diverse array of selection processes. So in this count, I'm only including delegates who we know, pretty much for sure, are going to back a given candidate. Though February 5, the count stood at:
Obama: 11
Clinton: 7
Tonight's results bring a further advantage for Obama, whose lead is based upon his dominance of caucus states, on show again this evening.
Clinton Obama Undetermined
WA: 0 2 0
NE: 0 1 0
LA: 0 0 0
Your new totals:
Obama: 14
Clinton: 7
We'll keep a running tally here every election night, until one of the more reputable bodies tracking delegates notices that they're excluding more than twenty delegates who, by any right, ought to be counted.
If you find this worthwhile, please click the 'recommend this' link, so that other readers can share it. More election and polling analysis is available on my blog (click my name). And, as always, I welcome your comments and corrections.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
How Gallup Got It Wrong
I've seen a lot of indignant comments about TPM's pro-Obama bias, because it didn't flog the Gallup results yesterday that showed Clinton up, 52-39. I blogged about that poll, explaining that to the extent we look to tracking polls as predictors of voter sentiment, a poll that showed a thirteen point gap in the three days ending Tuesday at the same time voters divided their votes evenly was clearly flawed.
I also asked the guru of polling, Mark Blumenthal, for an explanation. He put forward a bunch of theories, and followed up with an extensive discussion this morning. Mark is on a righteous crusade to get pollsters to abide by the professional code of conduct to which they ostensibly subscribe, and to disclose their data and not just a summary of their results. So in addition to putting forward his own theories, he pressed Gallup for answers.
Gallup apparently delayed their usual early-afternoon release to crunch the numbers. And just now, Gallup has spoken. Their explanation boils down to this. They call 1,000 adults every night. About 200 of them say they're unlikely to vote, so they screen them out. The remaining 800 describe themselves as at least a little likely to vote (or that they have voted) in either the Democratic or Republican races. In other words, their sample includes 80% of American adults. But even in this seminal year, only about 30% are actually voting. And therein lies the problem.
Gallup went back and ran the numbers for the five days between John Edwards withdrawal and Super Tuesday. Among those who characterized themselves as highly likely to vote, about 50% of the total sample (thus still too high), Obama drew 48% and Clinton 45% - a statistical tie. Now there may have been more than that at work here - Mark's other questions remain unanswered, as does my biggest (what's the gender and racial composition of the sample, and does it vary night by night?) But it goes a long way to explaining the discrepancy.
I'd argue that it provides a good reason for Gallup to use a tighter screen in the future. Gallup says "a broad sample of over 80% of American adults would not be expected to match the actual voting patterns" which to me, is a very good argument for not using such a sample. But it should also provide us all with reason for caution. National tracking polls, it's worth remembering, are useful indicators of trends. Gallup picked up, succesfully, that Clinton had stopped the Obama surge by about Sunday. (And both Gallup and Rasmussen show Obama getting a post-Feb 5 bump). But they are absolutely lousy indicators, at least until they change their voter models, of how the electorate will actually vote.
I also asked the guru of polling, Mark Blumenthal, for an explanation. He put forward a bunch of theories, and followed up with an extensive discussion this morning. Mark is on a righteous crusade to get pollsters to abide by the professional code of conduct to which they ostensibly subscribe, and to disclose their data and not just a summary of their results. So in addition to putting forward his own theories, he pressed Gallup for answers.
Gallup apparently delayed their usual early-afternoon release to crunch the numbers. And just now, Gallup has spoken. Their explanation boils down to this. They call 1,000 adults every night. About 200 of them say they're unlikely to vote, so they screen them out. The remaining 800 describe themselves as at least a little likely to vote (or that they have voted) in either the Democratic or Republican races. In other words, their sample includes 80% of American adults. But even in this seminal year, only about 30% are actually voting. And therein lies the problem.
Gallup went back and ran the numbers for the five days between John Edwards withdrawal and Super Tuesday. Among those who characterized themselves as highly likely to vote, about 50% of the total sample (thus still too high), Obama drew 48% and Clinton 45% - a statistical tie. Now there may have been more than that at work here - Mark's other questions remain unanswered, as does my biggest (what's the gender and racial composition of the sample, and does it vary night by night?) But it goes a long way to explaining the discrepancy.
I'd argue that it provides a good reason for Gallup to use a tighter screen in the future. Gallup says "a broad sample of over 80% of American adults would not be expected to match the actual voting patterns" which to me, is a very good argument for not using such a sample. But it should also provide us all with reason for caution. National tracking polls, it's worth remembering, are useful indicators of trends. Gallup picked up, succesfully, that Clinton had stopped the Obama surge by about Sunday. (And both Gallup and Rasmussen show Obama getting a post-Feb 5 bump). But they are absolutely lousy indicators, at least until they change their voter models, of how the electorate will actually vote.
Obama Closes the Superdelegate Gap?
Ben Smith of the Politico has some posts up today with major convention implications. He's put up a spreadsheet that Bloomberg News obtained, apparently an internal Obama campaign worksheet that attempts to project where the race is headed. It's of prurient interest, but most of its scenarios are fairly conservative, and there's not much news in it.
The big deal, though, is in a few boxes at the bottom. Obama's campaign lists the current superdelegate tally as 159-209. That's 40-50 more than any public tally I've seen. And it gets more interesting - Ben queried the Obama camp, and discovered that they're now claiming the backing of 170 superdelegates.
A word of caution. They haven't substantiated that with lists of names - as of this morning, only 113 endorsements had been publicly announced. And its perfectly plausible that Hillary has her own internal tally which also shows her doing better than the major media organizations project. But given that this spreadsheet, on the whole, is fairly conservative, and it does the Obama camp no good to delude itself as to how many delegates are going for Hillary, I'd say its prima facie evidence that Obama has finally closed the superdelegate gap. If he's really trailing by just 40, and his Super Tuesday projections hold up, then the overall gap is now in the single digits. And that would be huge news.
(And, for readers just joining me, I discussed this morning why the gap is at least four delegates smaller than any current count.)
The big deal, though, is in a few boxes at the bottom. Obama's campaign lists the current superdelegate tally as 159-209. That's 40-50 more than any public tally I've seen. And it gets more interesting - Ben queried the Obama camp, and discovered that they're now claiming the backing of 170 superdelegates.
A word of caution. They haven't substantiated that with lists of names - as of this morning, only 113 endorsements had been publicly announced. And its perfectly plausible that Hillary has her own internal tally which also shows her doing better than the major media organizations project. But given that this spreadsheet, on the whole, is fairly conservative, and it does the Obama camp no good to delude itself as to how many delegates are going for Hillary, I'd say its prima facie evidence that Obama has finally closed the superdelegate gap. If he's really trailing by just 40, and his Super Tuesday projections hold up, then the overall gap is now in the single digits. And that would be huge news.
(And, for readers just joining me, I discussed this morning why the gap is at least four delegates smaller than any current count.)
Convention Math: Adding up the Unpledged Add-On Delegates (UADs)
So by now, we're all familiar with the rudiments of the delegate selection process. We ordinary folk go to the polls or the precinct caucuses (or in Texas, both) and cast our votes. Those are tallied, and eventually used to determine all of the pledged delegates, of whom there are 3,253. Then there are the superdelegates, the party bigwigs who get their tickets to Detroit no matter what, of whom there are 796. And that's the end of the story.
But it turns out that not all superdelegates are the same. For 720 of them, the process works pretty much as you'd expect - they hold public office, a seat on the DNC, or have held an important position in the past. We know who they are, we're tracking their endorsements, and we're tallying their support.
But then there are the 76 Unpledged Add-on Delegates, the ones I'll call UADs for short. These aren't necessarily party bigwigs. In fact, we don't know who they are at all, because they haven't even been selected yet. But as a block with 76 votes, there as important as any midsized state. And if we look closely, we can already figure out how more than half of them are going to vote.
Here's how it works. Every state is eligible to receive one UAD for every four DNC members it possesses (except for DC, which is stuck with just 2). Since the party chair and vice-chair of every state serve on the DNC, and the rules stipulate that the total be rounded up to the nearest integer, that means every state gets at least one UAD. Some get more. Illinois gets three, for example, and California has five. And it's up to the state parties to decide how to select these delegates. In the past, they've typically been awarded as plums to political insiders. Since they're not distributed until late in the process, they've never had an impact on determining the nominee. But this year, that's going to change.
States have adopted a wide range of methods for selecting UADs. Those include a vote of the state party committee; a vote of the entire state convention; a vote of the entire delegation to the DNC; or, in some cases, a vote of one of those bodies that's a sham, because the state chair only presents the nominees he wants to serve. Because the methods vary widely, it's not always possible to figure out which way these delegates will lean. But in most cases, we can be fairly certain. Although these delegates are formally unpledged, I can guarantee that any candidate who controls a majority of the body which awards them will ensure that the slots are reserved for their own supporters. That's right - there's nothing proportional about it. For UADs, the system is winner take all. And that allows us to start to compile a tally.
Here's a quick rundown of states that have already voted:
Clinton Obama Undetermined
Iowa: 0 0 1
NH: 0 0 1
NV: 1 0 0
SC: 0 0 1
AL: 0 0 1
AK: 0 1 0
AR: 1 0 0
AZ: 0 0 1
CA: 5 0 0
CO: 0 1 0
CT: 0 0 1
DE: 0 1 0
GA: 0 0 2
ID: 0 1 0
IL: 0 3 0
KS: 0 1 0
MA: 0 0 2
MN: 0 2 0
MO: 0 0 2
ND: 0 0 1
NM: 0 0 1
NJ: 0 0 2
NY: 0 0 4
OK: 0 0 1
TN: 0 0 2
UT: 0 1 0
Total: 7 11 23
Those aren't enormous numbers, but I'll continue to track this, and I suspect the tallies will mount with time. For now, the result is a four delegate advantage for Obama that's not acknowledged in any tally of which I'm aware.
Now, a few words to forestall howls of outrage in the comments section. The most common method of selecting UADs in caucus states is a vote at the state convention; the most common method in primary states is a vote of the state committee. That confers certain advantages on a candidate who runs strongly in caucuses - in this case, Obama. He's already got the votes he needs to secure those UADs. Now it's likely that the state committees that meet in states that one candidate carried will choose delegates who will back that candidate - but we don't actually know that. A few examples. Hillary is almost certain to carry the four UADs from NY. But in Massachusetts, Obama still has the backing of a significant number of institutional players, even though he lost the primary. Similarly, Hillary has lots of endorsements in SC. So where the majority of people who will choose these delegates haven't publicly committed to supporting a particular candidate, I've left the delegates in the undecided column.
One other note: I'm sure I got things wrong! Please use the comments section to point out the error of my ways.
But it turns out that not all superdelegates are the same. For 720 of them, the process works pretty much as you'd expect - they hold public office, a seat on the DNC, or have held an important position in the past. We know who they are, we're tracking their endorsements, and we're tallying their support.
But then there are the 76 Unpledged Add-on Delegates, the ones I'll call UADs for short. These aren't necessarily party bigwigs. In fact, we don't know who they are at all, because they haven't even been selected yet. But as a block with 76 votes, there as important as any midsized state. And if we look closely, we can already figure out how more than half of them are going to vote.
Here's how it works. Every state is eligible to receive one UAD for every four DNC members it possesses (except for DC, which is stuck with just 2). Since the party chair and vice-chair of every state serve on the DNC, and the rules stipulate that the total be rounded up to the nearest integer, that means every state gets at least one UAD. Some get more. Illinois gets three, for example, and California has five. And it's up to the state parties to decide how to select these delegates. In the past, they've typically been awarded as plums to political insiders. Since they're not distributed until late in the process, they've never had an impact on determining the nominee. But this year, that's going to change.
States have adopted a wide range of methods for selecting UADs. Those include a vote of the state party committee; a vote of the entire state convention; a vote of the entire delegation to the DNC; or, in some cases, a vote of one of those bodies that's a sham, because the state chair only presents the nominees he wants to serve. Because the methods vary widely, it's not always possible to figure out which way these delegates will lean. But in most cases, we can be fairly certain. Although these delegates are formally unpledged, I can guarantee that any candidate who controls a majority of the body which awards them will ensure that the slots are reserved for their own supporters. That's right - there's nothing proportional about it. For UADs, the system is winner take all. And that allows us to start to compile a tally.
Here's a quick rundown of states that have already voted:
Clinton Obama Undetermined
Iowa: 0 0 1
NH: 0 0 1
NV: 1 0 0
SC: 0 0 1
AL: 0 0 1
AK: 0 1 0
AR: 1 0 0
AZ: 0 0 1
CA: 5 0 0
CO: 0 1 0
CT: 0 0 1
DE: 0 1 0
GA: 0 0 2
ID: 0 1 0
IL: 0 3 0
KS: 0 1 0
MA: 0 0 2
MN: 0 2 0
MO: 0 0 2
ND: 0 0 1
NM: 0 0 1
NJ: 0 0 2
NY: 0 0 4
OK: 0 0 1
TN: 0 0 2
UT: 0 1 0
Total: 7 11 23
Those aren't enormous numbers, but I'll continue to track this, and I suspect the tallies will mount with time. For now, the result is a four delegate advantage for Obama that's not acknowledged in any tally of which I'm aware.
Now, a few words to forestall howls of outrage in the comments section. The most common method of selecting UADs in caucus states is a vote at the state convention; the most common method in primary states is a vote of the state committee. That confers certain advantages on a candidate who runs strongly in caucuses - in this case, Obama. He's already got the votes he needs to secure those UADs. Now it's likely that the state committees that meet in states that one candidate carried will choose delegates who will back that candidate - but we don't actually know that. A few examples. Hillary is almost certain to carry the four UADs from NY. But in Massachusetts, Obama still has the backing of a significant number of institutional players, even though he lost the primary. Similarly, Hillary has lots of endorsements in SC. So where the majority of people who will choose these delegates haven't publicly committed to supporting a particular candidate, I've left the delegates in the undecided column.
One other note: I'm sure I got things wrong! Please use the comments section to point out the error of my ways.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Clinton: Loans $5M, Staff Working for Free. Obama: On Pace for another $30M in February
That's the big news at this hour. A roundup of the headlines:
The Clintons have loaned Hillary's campaign $5 million.
Senior staffers, including campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, are working for free to help the campaign save cash.
And Obama is apparently on pace to raise $30 million in February, on top of the $31.5 he raised in January. And you've gotta believe that to be a conservative estimate, given that his campaign is going to be held to hit, and hit if it fails to meet the target.
This is not the story that the Clinton campaign wants dominating the news cycle today.
The Clintons have loaned Hillary's campaign $5 million.
Senior staffers, including campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, are working for free to help the campaign save cash.
And Obama is apparently on pace to raise $30 million in February, on top of the $31.5 he raised in January. And you've gotta believe that to be a conservative estimate, given that his campaign is going to be held to hit, and hit if it fails to meet the target.
This is not the story that the Clinton campaign wants dominating the news cycle today.
So Much for Tracking Polls!
There's been a lot of ink spilled about daily tracking polls over the past few weeks, some of it (at least metaphorically speaking) by me. And today, I'm heartily sorry for it.
Let's cut to the chase. Both tracking polls purport to offer a snapshot of the preferences of likely Democratic voters. Here are the numbers from today's reports:
Rasmussen: Clinton 46, Obama 42
Gallup: Clinton 52, Obama 39
The problem is that we ran a controlled experiment yesterday, and discovered that voters are split evenly - really damn evenly. The popular vote aggregate totals for yesterday, apparently, were 50.2% to 49.8%. So Rasmussen skates by, at the very edge of its +/-4% margin of error. Conveniently, I might add, as their margin shrunk dramatically from 47-40% yesterday, but I'll assume they're being honest about it. But Gallup, the supposed gold standard for polling organizations, totally flubs. They're just incredibly far from telling us how voters actually feel.
Wait, I can almost hear you say. What if it's voters in the other 27 states who overwhelmingly back Clinton, and in the 23 who voted yesterday they're evenly split? Funny you should ask. Gallup broke out the Feb. 5 states a couple days ago, and found them, if anything, more supportive of Clinton than the rest.
So Rasmussen, as I've explained before, is erratic and error-prone, even if they barely skate by this time around. (See, for example, their results from CA). But until we get an explanation out of the Gallup folks, anything coming out of that tracking poll - be it an Obama surge or Clinton domination - should be fairly suspect.
Let's cut to the chase. Both tracking polls purport to offer a snapshot of the preferences of likely Democratic voters. Here are the numbers from today's reports:
Rasmussen: Clinton 46, Obama 42
Gallup: Clinton 52, Obama 39
The problem is that we ran a controlled experiment yesterday, and discovered that voters are split evenly - really damn evenly. The popular vote aggregate totals for yesterday, apparently, were 50.2% to 49.8%. So Rasmussen skates by, at the very edge of its +/-4% margin of error. Conveniently, I might add, as their margin shrunk dramatically from 47-40% yesterday, but I'll assume they're being honest about it. But Gallup, the supposed gold standard for polling organizations, totally flubs. They're just incredibly far from telling us how voters actually feel.
Wait, I can almost hear you say. What if it's voters in the other 27 states who overwhelmingly back Clinton, and in the 23 who voted yesterday they're evenly split? Funny you should ask. Gallup broke out the Feb. 5 states a couple days ago, and found them, if anything, more supportive of Clinton than the rest.
So Rasmussen, as I've explained before, is erratic and error-prone, even if they barely skate by this time around. (See, for example, their results from CA). But until we get an explanation out of the Gallup folks, anything coming out of that tracking poll - be it an Obama surge or Clinton domination - should be fairly suspect.
Taking Stock: Tallying up Advantages for the Race Ahead
The Money: This race has already consumed record amounts of cash, and we're scarcely halfway through. Campaigning takes ever-increasing amounts of money, for television ads and polling, for paid staff and for volunteers, for office space and for lawn signs.
Obama: The Obama camp raised an astonishing $32 million in January, $25 million of that from mostly small-dollr donors via the internet. That enabled them to go on the air in all but two Feb 5 states - and also to begin airing ads in states with contests through Feb 12. Obama reportedly spent $12 million on TV in the past two weeks alone. His dependence on small-dollar internet fundraising now provides a critical advantage, as he can raise funds more quickly, and return to those who have already donated for another round. Look for a press release within 24 hours trumpeting the dollars flowing in after Super Tuesday.
Clinton: In one of the strangest twists to the primary season, Hillary Clinton is now facing some significant fundraising challenges. She outraised her rivals in 2007, and fundraising has always been one of her key strengths. She's done much better at persuading her donors to give the maximum allowable contribution, and many have gone a step further, writing checks for her general election fund. But the river of cash is slowing down. In January, she raised $13.5 million - impressive in any other year, but not enough to keep pace. She spent $9 million, to Obama's $12 million, on television in the last two weeks, and has yet to go on the air in the remaining states. So there's no doubt that she's hurting here. But at the same time, she's likely to raise enough money to remain competitive. It doesn't take tens of millions to win a race (although that rarely hurts), it takes a better message and a more compelling candidate. And Clinton should be able to get her hands on enough cash to stay competitive.
The Delegates: Anything I choose to write here is likely to be out of date by the time it gets posted. But indulge me in a little math. It takes 2,025 delegates to secure the nomination. Of those, 722 are superdelegates, not bound by the results of any primary or caucus. Just over half the pledged delegates have been awarded, and just under half the superdelegates have announced their commitments. This race remains wide open.
Clinton: Going into Super Tuesday, Clinton held an edge on the strength of her endorsements from superdelegates. By the only transparent count, she had 201 to Obama's 110. That tally will grow this morning - some (like Sen Barbara Boxer) were holding off, but promised to follow the will of voters in their states. It certainly appears that teh candidates split the available pledged delegates yesterday; any edge enjoyed by either candidate will be small. Hillary believes that she can capture most of the remaining superdelegates, keeping the remaining contests close enough, when she doesn't win outright, to prevent Obama from overcoming her current lead. She's hoping that party insiders will ultimately announce in favor of the candidate of experience, and is counting on members of the Democratic National Committee, who constitute the bulk of the current crop the unpledged superdelegates, to back her.
Obama: Going into Super Tuesday, Obama held an edge among the pledged delegates who had been awarded. It's not clear where things stand this morning, but by most counts, he probably retains that edge. Winning a majority of the delegates awarded by voters gives him a powerful moral claim, but moral claims don't win conventions. He has enjoyed increasing success in winning superdelegates, particularly elected officials from red states, but still lags significantly with DNC members and overall. Those are not promising trends. He's certainly trailing this morning in the overall count, and faces an uphill struggle building a large enough margin in the remaining states to overcome Hillary's edge in superdelegates. He's banking on three things: that many superdelegates will be reluctant to tip the convention away from the candidate backed by a majority of pledged delegates, that most elected officials would rather he topped the November ticket than Hillary, and that a good number of the 411 superdelegates who have yet to endorse have been holding off because they dislike Hillary, but are afraid to cross the Clintons until they know they can be defeated. Those are persuasive theories, but there's been scant evidence to back them thus far.
The Calendar: Suddenly, all of the states that resisted the rush to advance their primaries to Super Tuesday are looking pretty clever. They were awarded bonus delegates by the DNC, in proportion to how late their primaries will be held, and will now enjoy the sort of attention to their issues and constituencies that few states lost in the rush of Super Tuesday managed to garner.
Obama: It's fair to say that the junior senator from Illinois is looking forward to the rest of February. Four of the ten remaining contests are caucuses; Obama won six of seven caucuses yesterday (losing only American Samoa). They play to his strengths in enthusiasm and organization, and to his red-state edge. The heavily-black Democratic primary electorates in Louisiana and DC should deliver both of those contests by healthy margins. The remaining primaries shape up as more contentious battles: Maryland and Virginia are fairly even matches, Wisconsin may tip toward Obama, like the rest of the midwest, and Hillary will likely carry the Virgin Islands. Still, for the next month, Obama can look forward to a steady drumbeat of victories, and a mounting edge in the pledged delegate count. That sets the stage for the six states in March, when Texas and Ohio are the big contests. Obama needs to build and broaden support in February to keep those big states close, or to have a chance at winning them himself, although he'll likely sweep the four smaller contests. And April is, for the moment, too far to contemplate.
Clinton: Hillary is acutely conscious of the dangers of February. She already has her surrogates pressing for a large number of debates, to ensure that Obama's coming success won't hijack the campaign narrative. She had recaptured momentum in the two leading tracking polls even prior to yesterday's election, and she knows better than to believe polls that show her trailing Obama in some of the remaining states. She wants to remain in the public eye, return the focus to the two of them on stage, and keep the races too close for him to emerge with a significant advantage. March brings more favorable terrain. Actually, the slow pace delivers certain advantages for Team Clinton. After February 19, there are no contests until March 4, a span of two weeks. That will give Clinton a chance to kick her relatively ponderous fundraising operation into high gear; she relies on personal networks and events to bring in cash, and that takes longer than internet appeals. It also gives her a chance to replicate Obama's more substantial field operations. And she can be fairly confident that she'll retain her overall edge in delegates even after the remainder of the February contests. That gives her two weeks, without the distractions of Obama's wins, to remind voters why they have favored her for most of the past year.
The only guarantee about these elections is that they'll be close, and unpredictable. And of course, there's always the chance that a scandal or a gaffe could upset all of these prognostications. But to a bleary-eyed observer this Wednesday morning, this is how things look.
(If you've found this summary useful, please recommend it, so that others can enjoy it, too. And as always, I welcome your comments.)
Obama: The Obama camp raised an astonishing $32 million in January, $25 million of that from mostly small-dollr donors via the internet. That enabled them to go on the air in all but two Feb 5 states - and also to begin airing ads in states with contests through Feb 12. Obama reportedly spent $12 million on TV in the past two weeks alone. His dependence on small-dollar internet fundraising now provides a critical advantage, as he can raise funds more quickly, and return to those who have already donated for another round. Look for a press release within 24 hours trumpeting the dollars flowing in after Super Tuesday.
Clinton: In one of the strangest twists to the primary season, Hillary Clinton is now facing some significant fundraising challenges. She outraised her rivals in 2007, and fundraising has always been one of her key strengths. She's done much better at persuading her donors to give the maximum allowable contribution, and many have gone a step further, writing checks for her general election fund. But the river of cash is slowing down. In January, she raised $13.5 million - impressive in any other year, but not enough to keep pace. She spent $9 million, to Obama's $12 million, on television in the last two weeks, and has yet to go on the air in the remaining states. So there's no doubt that she's hurting here. But at the same time, she's likely to raise enough money to remain competitive. It doesn't take tens of millions to win a race (although that rarely hurts), it takes a better message and a more compelling candidate. And Clinton should be able to get her hands on enough cash to stay competitive.
The Delegates: Anything I choose to write here is likely to be out of date by the time it gets posted. But indulge me in a little math. It takes 2,025 delegates to secure the nomination. Of those, 722 are superdelegates, not bound by the results of any primary or caucus. Just over half the pledged delegates have been awarded, and just under half the superdelegates have announced their commitments. This race remains wide open.
Clinton: Going into Super Tuesday, Clinton held an edge on the strength of her endorsements from superdelegates. By the only transparent count, she had 201 to Obama's 110. That tally will grow this morning - some (like Sen Barbara Boxer) were holding off, but promised to follow the will of voters in their states. It certainly appears that teh candidates split the available pledged delegates yesterday; any edge enjoyed by either candidate will be small. Hillary believes that she can capture most of the remaining superdelegates, keeping the remaining contests close enough, when she doesn't win outright, to prevent Obama from overcoming her current lead. She's hoping that party insiders will ultimately announce in favor of the candidate of experience, and is counting on members of the Democratic National Committee, who constitute the bulk of the current crop the unpledged superdelegates, to back her.
Obama: Going into Super Tuesday, Obama held an edge among the pledged delegates who had been awarded. It's not clear where things stand this morning, but by most counts, he probably retains that edge. Winning a majority of the delegates awarded by voters gives him a powerful moral claim, but moral claims don't win conventions. He has enjoyed increasing success in winning superdelegates, particularly elected officials from red states, but still lags significantly with DNC members and overall. Those are not promising trends. He's certainly trailing this morning in the overall count, and faces an uphill struggle building a large enough margin in the remaining states to overcome Hillary's edge in superdelegates. He's banking on three things: that many superdelegates will be reluctant to tip the convention away from the candidate backed by a majority of pledged delegates, that most elected officials would rather he topped the November ticket than Hillary, and that a good number of the 411 superdelegates who have yet to endorse have been holding off because they dislike Hillary, but are afraid to cross the Clintons until they know they can be defeated. Those are persuasive theories, but there's been scant evidence to back them thus far.
The Calendar: Suddenly, all of the states that resisted the rush to advance their primaries to Super Tuesday are looking pretty clever. They were awarded bonus delegates by the DNC, in proportion to how late their primaries will be held, and will now enjoy the sort of attention to their issues and constituencies that few states lost in the rush of Super Tuesday managed to garner.
Obama: It's fair to say that the junior senator from Illinois is looking forward to the rest of February. Four of the ten remaining contests are caucuses; Obama won six of seven caucuses yesterday (losing only American Samoa). They play to his strengths in enthusiasm and organization, and to his red-state edge. The heavily-black Democratic primary electorates in Louisiana and DC should deliver both of those contests by healthy margins. The remaining primaries shape up as more contentious battles: Maryland and Virginia are fairly even matches, Wisconsin may tip toward Obama, like the rest of the midwest, and Hillary will likely carry the Virgin Islands. Still, for the next month, Obama can look forward to a steady drumbeat of victories, and a mounting edge in the pledged delegate count. That sets the stage for the six states in March, when Texas and Ohio are the big contests. Obama needs to build and broaden support in February to keep those big states close, or to have a chance at winning them himself, although he'll likely sweep the four smaller contests. And April is, for the moment, too far to contemplate.
Clinton: Hillary is acutely conscious of the dangers of February. She already has her surrogates pressing for a large number of debates, to ensure that Obama's coming success won't hijack the campaign narrative. She had recaptured momentum in the two leading tracking polls even prior to yesterday's election, and she knows better than to believe polls that show her trailing Obama in some of the remaining states. She wants to remain in the public eye, return the focus to the two of them on stage, and keep the races too close for him to emerge with a significant advantage. March brings more favorable terrain. Actually, the slow pace delivers certain advantages for Team Clinton. After February 19, there are no contests until March 4, a span of two weeks. That will give Clinton a chance to kick her relatively ponderous fundraising operation into high gear; she relies on personal networks and events to bring in cash, and that takes longer than internet appeals. It also gives her a chance to replicate Obama's more substantial field operations. And she can be fairly confident that she'll retain her overall edge in delegates even after the remainder of the February contests. That gives her two weeks, without the distractions of Obama's wins, to remind voters why they have favored her for most of the past year.
The only guarantee about these elections is that they'll be close, and unpredictable. And of course, there's always the chance that a scandal or a gaffe could upset all of these prognostications. But to a bleary-eyed observer this Wednesday morning, this is how things look.
(If you've found this summary useful, please recommend it, so that others can enjoy it, too. And as always, I welcome your comments.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)