State of the Race: 2/11

[M]

Obama and Clinton have reached mathematical parity, and it is now up to the superdelegates (or, in one fanciful scenario, Puerto Rico) to determine the winner.

I do think, however, that an unexpected and meaningful win would give either candidate the advantage, and so would a majority of unpledged delegates. Subverting either would increase the perception that super's were overturning the vox populi.

Obama will win the majority of unpledged delegates, almost certainly. He is also better positioned to secure a surprising win (Ohio or less likely Texas, and thereafter Pennsylvania) than Clinton is to pull the reciprocal, which is something along the lines of starting to win black or rural electorates, especially caucuses.

On top of this, Obama's supporters are less likely to forgive and flock to Clinton than the reverse. And already Obama has a clear lead in the general election.

Barring unforeseen developments, therefore, Obama is a heavy favorite to win the super's and the nomination's, even without breaking into Clinton's 3/4 and 4/22 firewalls.

*

On the Republican side, something very interesting is occurring, if we look at the most recent polls on RCP.

McCain has surged... a bit. But Huckabee has increased his showing by 50% or more. He now shows about 30 points in many polls (compare to ~50 for McCain). If I had to guess, I would say that 2/5 had the same effect for Huck that Iowa did for Obama. Namely, his core (evangelicals) came to believe that Huckabee was the real deal and are out for him in force. These may include undecided as well as some former Romney supporters.

In addition, he may have picked up some non-evangelical Romney supporters as an anti-McCain measure, though I think this is by far the smaller factor.

Obviously McCain will still be the nominee, but the message is that 2/9 can only partially be explained as a fluke of chronological contest placement. Yes, Louisiana was a tailor-made Huckabee state, especially with the South and NOLA demographically weakened by Katrina. Yes, Kansas is creationist; and yes, Washington did go for Robertson in '88. But I would venture to suggest that the Washington result especially, and perhaps the Louisiana and/or Kansas as well, reflect in part a post-2/5, post-Romney-dropout Huckabee surge.

Nevertheless, McCain will win both Virginia and Texas. Huckabee can only expect to win the Deep South (only Mississippi still outstanding) and perhaps caucuses (Nebraska? Idaho?). Thus, Huckabee will not be able to replicate his 2/9 result, though it will keep him in the race a bit longer, probably through March 4.

[Gustaf]

Sounds reasonable. However, I think the states throughout March (not just the 4th) are favourable to Clinton. We have places like Kentucky and West Virginia also voting then. So I still hold Clinton as the favourite, even thoug it's really, really close.

On teh GOP side I think the race will be over pretty soon, even if it is counter to intuítion. The reason is that McCain looks like he will slam-dunk Virginia. And if Huckabee can't win Virginia, how is he going to get the nomination? I would expect that a humiliating defeat in Virginia would cause Huckabee to drop out.

[Mr. Morden]

Sounds reasonable. However, I think the states throughout March (not just the 4th) are favourable to Clinton. We have places like Kentucky and West Virginia also voting then. So I still hold Clinton as the favourite, even thoug it's really, really close.

KY and WV actually don't vote until May.

In any case, I agree that Obama's the favorite to win the most pledged delegates (unless FL & MI are reinstated).  After tomorrow, Obama's pledged delegate lead might just be too big for Clinton to overcome....unless she can win OH, TX, *and* PA by California-like margins....which I guess is *possible*.

[Gustaf]

Sounds reasonable. However, I think the states throughout March (not just the 4th) are favourable to Clinton. We have places like Kentucky and West Virginia also voting then. So I still hold Clinton as the favourite, even thoug it's really, really close.

KY and WV actually don't vote until May.

In any case, I agree that Obama's the favorite to win the most pledged delegates (unless FL & MI are reinstated).  After tomorrow, Obama's pledged delegate lead might just be too big for Clinton to overcome....unless she can win OH, TX, *and* PA by California-like margins....which I guess is *possible*.

By "March" I meant "All months following February"

So far in this race, momentum has meant almost nothing, much as I suspected. So i don't think Obama's impressive victories in those states mean that he necessarily will do well in the Clinton-friendly states that are to follow. After all, his incredible showings in Iowa and South Carolina don't seem to have meant that much.

[Mr. Morden]

If Clinton had won Iowa, would Obama still have done as well as he did on Super Tuesday?  If Obama had swept all four of the pre-ST states, would Clinton still have done as well as she did on Super Tuesday?

I think the early contests *did* mean something in terms of the candidates' national standing, it's just that, because Clinton & Obama went 2-2 in the early primaries, they cancelled each other out.

Anyway, momentum means less now, because the post-Super Tuesday contests are all getting much less coverage than the pre-Super Tuesday contests.  But I still think Obama's the favorite to win the pledged delegates, because of the lead he already has.  Clinton will have to win big in the March-June primaries to catch up.

[angus]

When I first started posting here I think you had a big blue texas shield.  You said you'd been accepted into Brandeis and would change it to blue massachusetts.  Now you're going off to Law School.  (By the way, some of the most interesting graffiti I have ever read was in the bathroom at the Tarlton Law Library at UT Austin.  So don't worry about taking a magazine or newspaper along when you take a dump there.) 

Tempus fugit. 

Well, I think you're right about McCain.  He'd have to screw up badly to lose to Paul or Huckabee now.  Does he win Virginia and Texas?  Rudy outdid everyone else in the Lone Star State in fundraising.  I think he has raised something like six million.  Clinton runs a weak second.  Whomever Rudy endorses is likely to get lots of votes in a state where turnout is lower than the national average, and that's McCain.  In Virginia, Hillary outdid everyone else, raising something like 3 million.  But Obama's a close second.  A very close second.  McCain, Rudy, and Romney are, respectively, third, fourth, and fifth there.  Huck's down below Richardson, Dodd, and Ron Paul in Virginia.  So I'd imagine McCain wins easily there as well.

The thing is, even if huckabee wins every state remaining, McCain likely still wins.  CNN's John King ran through this scenario a few days ago where Huckabee wins every state remaining, and he made some assumption like 55% of the vote to McCain's 30%, or something like that.  Unlikely, and certainly limiting, but a fun experiment.  And even in that unlikely event McCain gets to 1190 delegates, or whatever the 50%+1 mark is pretty much by around early May.

The Democrats are harder to call.  I'm with JJ on the issue of unpledged delegates.  They can do what they think is best.  Still, I do think you'll see lots of unpledged delegates wisely going with their constituents presumed wishes.  My rep, for example, is Bruce Braley.  Wisely, he hasn't made an endorsement yet.  I imagine most haven't.  Bruce may vote for Obama because 43% of the Democrats who attended caucus from this district voted for Obama over all other candidates (and there were many at the time), so Obama seems to be the plurality choice in northeastern Iowa.  Certainly he's under no obligation to do so.  Nor would he be even if he had made a previous endorsement.  I'm not sure that this fact is well understood.  They are under no obligation to vote in any certain way whether or nor they have publicly endorsed anyone, and they are expected to use their own judgment in decided the nominee.  One facet of judgment is being able to read what really pisses your constituents off and what doesn't.  I don't know how much his constituents care about this, or whether it ranks high among the issues they care most about.

At the moment, the number of delegates each one has depends upon whom is doing the estimating.  The Associated Press, Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post all have different numbers.  But one thing they all have in common:  Clinton leads.  So it seems that clinton is ahead of obama, slightly, in terms of delegates.  They may well tie.  That'd be exciting, I think.  I gotta imagine that all the junkies who post here, along with all the newsies whose livelihood depends on getting the public hyped up on sensationalism would love it as well.  The specter of a brokered convention rears its ugly head.  How cool is that?

[Flying Dog]

At the moment, the number of delegates each one has depends upon whom is doing the estimating.  The Associated Press, Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post all have different numbers.  But one thing they all have in common:  Clinton leads.

Uhh, no.

[Gustaf]

If Clinton had won Iowa, would Obama still have done as well as he did on Super Tuesday?  If Obama had swept all four of the pre-ST states, would Clinton still have done as well as she did on Super Tuesday?

I think the early contests *did* mean something in terms of the candidates' national standing, it's just that, because Clinton & Obama went 2-2 in the early primaries, they cancelled each other out.

Anyway, momentum means less now, because the post-Super Tuesday contests are all getting much less coverage than the pre-Super Tuesday contests.  But I still think Obama's the favorite to win the pledged delegates, because of the lead he already has.  Clinton will have to win big in the March-June primaries to catch up.

No, of course momentum isn't nothing. Just almost nothing. My point is that Obama's win in Iowa didn't help him win New Hampshire. Clinton's wins in NH and NV didn't help her in SC. Obama's win in SC didn't help him in places like CA or MA. And so on. On the GOP side it's even worse. Several people on this forum thought Huckabee stood a good chance of winning New Hampshire because of all the momentum he was going to get from Iowa. He finished a distant 3rd. The point is that when candidates are sufficiently different and representing different electorates momentum won't mean as much. Winning one state doesn't translate into winning another.

[Josh/Devilman88]

How important will NC be this year?

[Flying Dog]

One or two wins in a row doesn't yield much in the way of momentum. However, 6 or 7 wins does.

[angus]

At the moment, the number of delegates each one has depends upon whom is doing the estimating.  The Associated Press, Fox News, CNN, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post all have different numbers.  But one thing they all have in common:  Clinton leads.

Uhh, no.

Honestly, your comment went way over my head.  Is something I said inaccurate? 

[Flying Dog]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

Plus, NBC/MSNBC has Obama ahead.

[Mr. Morden]

If Clinton had won Iowa, would Obama still have done as well as he did on Super Tuesday?  If Obama had swept all four of the pre-ST states, would Clinton still have done as well as she did on Super Tuesday?

I think the early contests *did* mean something in terms of the candidates' national standing, it's just that, because Clinton & Obama went 2-2 in the early primaries, they cancelled each other out.

Anyway, momentum means less now, because the post-Super Tuesday contests are all getting much less coverage than the pre-Super Tuesday contests.  But I still think Obama's the favorite to win the pledged delegates, because of the lead he already has.  Clinton will have to win big in the March-June primaries to catch up.

No, of course momentum isn't nothing. Just almost nothing. My point is that Obama's win in Iowa didn't help him win New Hampshire. Clinton's wins in NH and NV didn't help her in SC. Obama's win in SC didn't help him in places like CA or MA. And so on. On the GOP side it's even worse. Several people on this forum thought Huckabee stood a good chance of winning New Hampshire because of all the momentum he was going to get from Iowa. He finished a distant 3rd. The point is that when candidates are sufficiently different and representing different electorates momentum won't mean as much. Winning one state doesn't translate into winning another.

Well, different people on the forum had different ideas about how momentum works.  Mine was much closer to reality than was the people who thought Huckabee would win NH. 

For my own part, I don't think I ever suggested that winning in one state is going to make you win in every successive state.  Just that winning several states in a row can very likely give you enough momentum that you start winning virtually anywhere.  Doesn't work that way from just a single victory, you need a string of victories.  (But as I said, that's not likely to work anymore, post-Super Tuesday).  Anyway, since no one ever won several states in a row pre-Super Tuesday, that wasn't really tested.

However, while it's true that no one ever got a critical mass of momentum, there were plenty of examples of candidates getting a national bounce out of some of those early victories.  Clinton had a consistent 15 point lead or so in most national polls pre-Iowa, then Obama wins Iowa, and the next two national polls have a Clinton lead of just 4 points and a tie.  Then Clinton wins NH, and her lead grows again.

On the GOP side, Huckabee had gained a lot in national polls, but (aside from Rasmussen) he wasn't actually *ahead* in national polls until after he won Iowa.  Then McCain wins NH, and suddenly *he's* ahead in national polls.  Also, winning in NH clearly seemed to help McCain gain in the polls in both SC & FL.  I think if we imagine a counterfactual in which Huckabee had won SC and Romney had won both NH & FL, McCain would have done *far* worse on Super Tuesday, though of course there's no way I can prove that.

[angus]

flem:  fair enough, but Fox has Clinton ahead 1136 to 1108, CNN has her ahead 1148 to 1121, WaPo has it 1136 to 1108, and the NYT has her ahead 939 to 789.  The last time I checked, all those other outlets had her slightly ahead as well.  But obviously some have adjusted lately, and I see that some outlets have obama slightly ahead. 

Real Clear Politics, as well as demconwatch.blogspot.com and a few other bloggers obviously put Obama ahead.  I wasn't ever referring to them as I'm aware that they tend to skew differently.

You might also note that probably the best source for this information is thegreenpapers.com  They tend to break it down for you in terms of alternate versus soft, and pledged versus unpledged delegates.  And if you dig deep enough, they actually give an accounting of the method they use, and in all categories except for pledged delegates not including those sanctioned, Clinton leads slightly.  This is also reflected in the trend that most reputable sources of news show her slightly ahead.  You might also note that something like four tenths of one percent more voters, among all those who voted in Democrat primaries and caucuses so far, have voted for Clinton than for Obama.  This is noteworthy as well, I think.  I'm just calling it objectively, I think.  Obviously, if I had my druthers neither McCain nor Clinton would be nominated by their respective parties.  But it does seem that so far all indications favor Clinton, slightly, over Obama.

I report, you decide.

[Gustaf]

If Clinton had won Iowa, would Obama still have done as well as he did on Super Tuesday?  If Obama had swept all four of the pre-ST states, would Clinton still have done as well as she did on Super Tuesday?

I think the early contests *did* mean something in terms of the candidates' national standing, it's just that, because Clinton & Obama went 2-2 in the early primaries, they cancelled each other out.

Anyway, momentum means less now, because the post-Super Tuesday contests are all getting much less coverage than the pre-Super Tuesday contests.  But I still think Obama's the favorite to win the pledged delegates, because of the lead he already has.  Clinton will have to win big in the March-June primaries to catch up.

No, of course momentum isn't nothing. Just almost nothing. My point is that Obama's win in Iowa didn't help him win New Hampshire. Clinton's wins in NH and NV didn't help her in SC. Obama's win in SC didn't help him in places like CA or MA. And so on. On the GOP side it's even worse. Several people on this forum thought Huckabee stood a good chance of winning New Hampshire because of all the momentum he was going to get from Iowa. He finished a distant 3rd. The point is that when candidates are sufficiently different and representing different electorates momentum won't mean as much. Winning one state doesn't translate into winning another.

Well, different people on the forum had different ideas about how momentum works.  Mine was much closer to reality than was the people who thought Huckabee would win NH. 

For my own part, I don't think I ever suggested that winning in one state is going to make you win in every successive state.  Just that winning several states in a row can very likely give you enough momentum that you start winning virtually anywhere.  Doesn't work that way from just a single victory, you need a string of victories.  (But as I said, that's not likely to work anymore, post-Super Tuesday).  Anyway, since no one ever won several states in a row pre-Super Tuesday, that wasn't really tested.

However, while it's true that no one ever got a critical mass of momentum, there were plenty of examples of candidates getting a national bounce out of some of those early victories.  Clinton had a consistent 15 point lead or so in most national polls pre-Iowa, then Obama wins Iowa, and the next two national polls have a Clinton lead of just 4 points and a tie.  Then Clinton wins NH, and her lead grows again.

On the GOP side, Huckabee had gained a lot in national polls, but (aside from Rasmussen) he wasn't actually *ahead* in national polls until after he won Iowa.  Then McCain wins NH, and suddenly *he's* ahead in national polls.  Also, winning in NH clearly seemed to help McCain gain in the polls in both SC & FL.  I think if we imagine a counterfactual in which Huckabee had won SC and Romney had won both NH & FL, McCain would have done *far* worse on Super Tuesday, though of course there's no way I can prove that.

I didn't mean to imply that you were one of the people I was referring to. Of course, if a candidate never wins any states they will never win any states. But one could argue that to some extent the fact that McCain did so well on Super Tuesday is partly the cause of him doing well before Super Tuesday. Again, my point is not that momentum doesn't exist. But McCain got back into the race without any state wins. After he had finished 4th in Iowa he was already on the rise nationally. Now, if you look at Huckabee after he won Iowa he underperformed in every single state which followed, finishing 3rd in New Hampshire and Michigan, 2nd in South Carolina and 4th in Florida. And yet, he did very well on Super Tuesday. Romney incurred surprise losses in both Iowa and New Hampshire and still managed to bounce back.

I agree that momentum has played a part but not an enormous one in the sense that it doesn't seem to make outcomes determined at all.

[Mr. Morden]

OK, Gustaf, I guess we don't actually disagree on this all that much.

I do wonder, however, if some of the influence of IA and NH actually came *before* they voted.  (pre-mentum?)  Huckabee's rise in national polls didn't really come until after he had started surging in the polls in Iowa.  If the media hadn't been so relentlessly focused on Iowa during November and December (instead of just focusing on the national picture), would he have gotten nearly as much attention, and would he have ever gotten the kind of national surge that brought him out of single digits?  I don't know.

Anyway, that's kind of a new phenomenon that I don't remember having happened in, say, 2000 or 2004.  In 2004 for example, the national polls barely budged towards Kerry until *after* he'd won Iowa.

[MarkWarner08]

Barring unforeseen developments, therefore, Obama is a heavy favorite to win the super's and the nomination's, even without breaking into Clinton's 3/4 and 4/22 firewalls.

My only disagreement with your lucid  analysis is your conclusion that Obama is a "heavy favorite" to win the Democratic nomination. If Hillary wins by sizable margins TX and OH, and then defeats Obama in PA, she'll either be tied or barely leading the junior Senator from Illinois .  Pressure from Harold Ickes and other Democratic insiders backing Clinton could push many Superdelegates into the Clinton camp.

The key is who leads in the popular vote. If Hillary trails by a slim margin among delegates but leads in thee aggregate  voter totals, she'll probably be the Democratic nominee.

[Mr. Morden]

Barring unforeseen developments, therefore, Obama is a heavy favorite to win the super's and the nomination's, even without breaking into Clinton's 3/4 and 4/22 firewalls.

My only disagreement with your lucid  analysis is your conclusion that Obama is a "heavy favorite" to win the Democratic nomination. If Hillary wins by sizable margins TX and OH, and then defeats Obama in PA, she'll either be tied or barely leading the junior Senator from Illinois .

I don't know, it depends on what you call a "sizable margin".  Unless Obama underperforms tomorrow, he could well finish tomorrow night with a pledged delegate lead of about 100.  If the primaries and caucuses of WI, HI, RI, VT, MS, and WY are basically a wash, then Clinton would need to get about 60% of the delegates from OH/TX/PA just to catch up to Obama in pledged delegates by the end of April.  Seems pretty tough to me.  She may ultimately catch him in pledged delegates, but she'll probably need some help from places like Indiana, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico in May/June.  Doing it by the end of April seems really tough.

[MarkWarner08]

Barring unforeseen developments, therefore, Obama is a heavy favorite to win the super's and the nomination's, even without breaking into Clinton's 3/4 and 4/22 firewalls.

My only disagreement with your lucid  analysis is your conclusion that Obama is a "heavy favorite" to win the Democratic nomination. If Hillary wins by sizable margins TX and OH, and then defeats Obama in PA, she'll either be tied or barely leading the junior Senator from Illinois .

I don't know, it depends on what you call a "sizable margin".  Unless Obama underperforms tomorrow, he could well finish tomorrow night with a pledged delegate lead of about 100.  If the primaries and caucuses of WI, HI, RI, VT, MS, and WY are basically a wash, then Clinton would need to get about 60% of the delegates from OH/TX/PA just to catch up to Obama in pledged delegates by the end of April.  Seems pretty tough to me.  She may ultimately catch him in pledged delegates, but she'll probably need some help from places like Indiana, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico in May/June.  Doing it by the end of April seems really tough.

Wisconsin is probably a good indication of how Ohio will go. If Obama can win by +5% there, It'll be difficult for Hillary amass a strong delegate win from Ohio.

Hillary can also claim a symbolic victory if she sweeps the OH/TX/PA/ trio. That would keep her in the race till Puerto Rico, which would likely mean the contests id decided by party insiders. I still think she has an edge among that group.

Chuck Todd has argued that Obama can make inroads with Superdelegates by playing up the electability card. For Obama to nab the nomination, he must continue to win big in smaller states, hold his own against Hillary in TX (or OH) and probably beat or tie her in OH (or TX), gain a plurality of the popular vote, and maintain a +5% lead over McCain.

Those are all difficult, though surmountable challenges. Factoring in all the variables, I'd say Obama now has a 40% chance of the winning the Democratic nomination.

[J. J.]

Barring unforeseen developments, therefore, Obama is a heavy favorite to win the super's and the nomination's, even without breaking into Clinton's 3/4 and 4/22 firewalls.

My only disagreement with your lucid  analysis is your conclusion that Obama is a "heavy favorite" to win the Democratic nomination. If Hillary wins by sizable margins TX and OH, and then defeats Obama in PA, she'll either be tied or barely leading the junior Senator from Illinois .

I don't know, it depends on what you call a "sizable margin".  Unless Obama underperforms tomorrow, he could well finish tomorrow night with a pledged delegate lead of about 100.  If the primaries and caucuses of WI, HI, RI, VT, MS, and WY are basically a wash, then Clinton would need to get about 60% of the delegates from OH/TX/PA just to catch up to Obama in pledged delegates by the end of April.  Seems pretty tough to me.  She may ultimately catch him in pledged delegates, but she'll probably need some help from places like Indiana, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico in May/June.  Doing it by the end of April seems really tough.

Unless Clinton loses VA by 30 points, I don't think the super delegates will move.  TX, OH and PA are key.

I fully expect Obama to attain an overall lead in the delegates by 2/29/08.  By 4/1/08, I expect Clinton to be ahead overall and possibly by 4/30/08 to be ahead in the elected delegate race.  I still expect at least 250 super delegates not to have committed.

I would not be surprised if on 6/1/08 neither candidate will have enough delegates to get the Democratic nomination.

McCain is free and clear by 4/30/08.

[Mr. Morden]

I fully expect Obama to attain an overall lead in the delegates by 2/29/08.  By 4/1/08, I expect Clinton to be ahead overall and possibly by 4/30/08 to be ahead in the elected delegate race.  I still expect at least 250 super delegates not to have committed.

How does Clinton catch up in pledged delegates by April 30th?  Doesn't she need awfully big victory magins (as in, similar victory margins to what she got in NY) in all three of OH, TX, and PA in order to do that?  (unless we're already counting FL & MI delegates)

[gmo]

Obama ... is also better positioned to secure a surprising win (Ohio or less likely Texas, and thereafter Pennsylvania) than Clinton is to pull the reciprocal, which is something along the lines of starting to win black or rural electorates, especially caucuses.

Those paying a lot of attention see Clinton as broadly struggling in the numbers race for pledged delegates overall, but OH/TX/PA are expected to work in her favor.  A problem for her though is what (I think) you say.  She has to hang onto those, and it does not look like she has any relatively big prizes she can "steal".  NC is I believe the 4th biggest left, but her chances there seem not too good.

If somehow this picture of the race gets imprinted on the wider public and Obama can pull an upset somewhere, or possibly even just lose really closely.  Then it could spell the beginning of the end for Clinton.  I have thought trying to establish a firewall in WI that could be a "surprise" victory would be good strategy.  Maybe that state does not play into her strengths enough though.

I still think Clinton is more likely to win in the end, but her path seems to be all about hanging on and holding off.  Obama has to make up ground, but he seems to have plenty of potential openings - giant Feb wins, good publicity & shifting opinion through Feb, string showings in OH/TX, shocking in PA...

[M]

When I first started posting here I think you had a big blue texas shield.  You said you'd been accepted into Brandeis and would change it to blue massachusetts.  Now you're going off to Law School.  (By the way, some of the most interesting graffiti I have ever read was in the bathroom at the Tarlton Law Library at UT Austin.  So don't worry about taking a magazine or newspaper along when you take a dump there.) 

Tempus fugit. 

Good memory... I doubt there are more than a handful left who recall, but you're absolutely right. I'm a graduating senior at Brandeis and while it's not definite that I'll attend UTA (haven't heard from everywhere yet), I think it's an 80%+ chance.

I love interesting graffiti. Should be a trip.