On the Repub side, it’s McCain; on the Dem side, it’s halftime

Thinking out loud

2mccain.jpgGood Wednesday morning, Fellow Seekers,

After six hours of following the Super Duper Tuesday returns and listening to the talking heads, I’ll just blurt my impressions, then come back and discuss them a little.

  1. John McCain has about locked up the Republican nomination. All he has to do is avoid a meltdown and run the clock. For some reason, this is a forbidden thought.
  2. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama gained any significant ground at the other’s expense. It’s all about the delegates now, not the momentum. They’re still counting, and the formula for awarding delegate is very complicated. But it appears likely that when the counting’s done, Clinton’s small lead in delegates going into Tuesday will remain a small lead.
  3. The more polls you read, the more clear it is that they can’t tell you what’s gonna happen.
  4. Who’da thunk this: You can carry the white vote and the black vote and still lose by a wide margin.
  5. If you listen to CNN, Fox and the broadcast networks long enough, they’ll say everything that’s sayable and then keep on talking. Some of it will be insightful. Plenty of it will be the sound of two gums flapping. But they sure have some cool new gadgets for displaying and analyzing results.

Okay, back to the top:

1. On CNN especially, the gang went to some lengths to avoid stating the obvious:

McCain had a huge dominant night, swept the four biggest states, won all the winner-take-all states (which is about five or ten times more valuable than winning the proportional states, doesn’t it seem like there’s something wrong with that winner-take-all rule?), has more than 60 percent of all the delegates that have been locked up so far, almost three times as many as his nearest rival Mitt Romney (who has no apparent path to the comeback trail), demonstrated strength in every region of the country and has the Repub nomination in the bag.

At 10:11 p.m. Central Time, after several members of the “Best Political Team on Television” had taken turns saying that the clearest thing you could say is that the race isn’t over on either side, analyst Jeffrey Toobin summoned the nerve to say that he disagreed: “I think it’s over. The math isn’t there for any of these other candidates. They cannot catch.” First he was mildly rebuked and gently mocked for uttering this forbidden truth. Before I turned them off at 1 a.m., most of his teammates had conceded the point, but none so clearly as that.

And at 1 a.m., USA Today updated a story headlined Despite big win, McCain isn’t home free.” It makes no suggestion of how McCain could lose the nomination, but quickly pivots to the currently fashionable story line about how important it is from him to appease more orthodox conservatives who don’t like him.

Obama_Clinton.jpg2. Early in the evening, when Clinton locked up the northeast except for Connecticut, which was too close to call, it looked like the story of the night was going to be a big Obama fizzle. But before long Obama did win Connecticut (a small state, but it broke Clinton’s regional hegemony, for whatever that’s worth), Clinton ended up the biggest prize (California) and four of the five most delegate-rich states up for grabs. But Obama ended up with five of the top ten, and won 12 out of 21 that were decided as of this writing (New Mexico is still too close to call, which means it hardly matters at this point who wins it, with the Dem’s proportional rules.

Dems will be counting and apportioning delegates for a while yet today, but it appears that Clinton may be ahead by a little less than 80 delegates out of more than 1,500 awarded so far (counting superdelegates who have committed). And the calendar for the balance of February looks favorable to Obama, at least to my eyes. (Here’s the list for the balance of February, in chronological order: Washington state, Nebraska, Louisiana, Maine, Virginia, Maryland, D.C., Wisconsin and Hawaii.) If I was a football analyst I believe my line would be: this is starting to look like one of those games that will be won by whichever team has the ball at the end.

Some of the talkmeisters are still fond of an analysis that depends on momentum. I’ll buy that on the Repub side (and McCain has the big mo). But the Dem race so far has defied, nay repudiated the momentum analysis. Whoever gets it, loses it on the next round. From now, forget the momentum, keep counting the delegates and remember that on the Dem side, the arcane delegate-awarding rules make it dangerous to project from state-by-state vote totals to delegate totals. We’d better also start keeping a close eye on the superdelegates. It’s not crazy to think that they will end up holding the balance. They can commit at any time, on any basis they choose, and many of them may go to the convention still uncommitted. If it gets incredibly close, John Edwards also has 26 delegates committed to him.

3. I know I’d be a better person if I could break this habit, but I can’t stop studying polls. And I know they’re not predictions, only snapshots, and that by the time you take the margin of error into account, they all overlap. (In every state other than the real blowouts like New York and Illinois, if you looked at the five or six most recent polls heading into Tuesday, they were almost evenly divided between Clinton leads and Obama leads, often in the same state taken on the same days.)

OBrienSoledad05.jpg But the one thing that seemed most clear for the past five days, was that things were moving toward Obama. I think I heard every pundit agree that the only thing that might save Clinton was that Super Tuesday wasn’t a week later, because he was gaining so fast. So I was surprised to hear Bill Schneider and Soledad O’Brien report that, according to the exit polls, Clinton had won among late deciders.

4. Speaking of the exit polls, Obama and Clinton keep trying to tell us their contest isn’t about race or gender, and we’d really like to believe that, wouldn’t we? Of course Obama won big among blacks (82 percent) and Clinton dominated among women (I don’t have an overall figure, but in some states it was almost 60 percent). Still, Obama did carry 40 percent of whites, a higher portion than he has received so far. And according to Soledad and Bill, he actually won the overall white vote in California (49-43 percent, with the rest going to John Edwards) while racking up 81 percent of the black California vote. But Clinton still managed to beat Obama rather soundly statewide (53-39 at the current level of counting).

So how do you carry the white and black vote and lose the state by 14 percentage points? In the melting pot that is California, 29 percent of all Democratic voters Tuesday were Hispanic and Clinton carried them by an impressive 66-33; and another eight percent were Asian, a group that Clinton carried by an even more impressive 73-25. I read a lot over recent days about the inroads Obama was making into Clinton’s strength among Hispanics. Not in California.

5. So where are we on the issue of spin and the efforts by all campaigns to play the expectation game? the Clinton’s are known to be masters, and I thought I had detected a certain rebellion against it by the press corps. I heard CNN’s Obama reporter say early in the evening that he had been told Team Obama would consider the night a success if they ended within 100 delegates of Clinton. That’s about where they ended, but personally, I don’t see how that can be considered a victory.

But as I switched channels late in the evening, I came in in the middle of a weird speedrap by Fox’s Clinton reporter, Major Garrett, in which he passed along the spin in such details without expressing any skepticism about it that it took my breath away. His Clinton inside sources had told him. “that looking at the early exit polls, they thought they were gonna be in for a very very long night.” But, as things played out, they discovered that they had greatly exceeded expectations and actually met all of their goals. The riff went like this:P

“They understand that Barack Obama has done well in certain key segments, but they also believe they won the most important races on their map. New Jersey, Massachusetts, and they believe will win Arizona, Missouri and California. [None of those states had been called yet. They ended up being wrong about Missouri.] Those are all the states they were most interested in winning. So the narrative for the Clinton campaign is this: Whatever the delegate totals are at the end of the night, Hillary Clinton took on the Obama charge, saw that surge coming and on the ground game, tactically prevailed in the places they needed to prevail… [so the important thing about this is that it will enable them to tell the superdelegates] ‘we’re still the frontrunner. Get on the Hillary Clinton bandwagon… So, yes, they had a good night; it could have been much worse. The goodness of this night is framed by how bad they thought it might be three or four hours ago.”

Karl Rove, by the way, made his debut as a Fox analyst. He kept calculating delegates and turnout on scrap paper. He worried aloud about the implications of the turnout comparison, which favored the Dems by about 2-1. He said that Dem turnout was higher than Repub is every state except Utah and Georgia.


11 Responses to “On the Repub side, it’s McCain; on the Dem side, it’s halftime”

  1. Peder_,

    Question for Obama supporters, if the Dem race comes down to superdelegates (which looks likely), and that throws it to Clinton, will you be ok with that?

    Eric, I agree with your analysis about McCain, both about his path to the nomination and that it won’t much matter how conservatives feel about him. If they haven’t chosen a different candidate by now, they’ve run out of time. He looks to be the nominee come November.

  2. parthian,

    Dem turnout in Nov will depend completely on who the nominee is, so KKKarl needn’t worry. With Hillary, kiss increased black and youth turnout goodbye, with a strong smattering of anti-dynasts (apparently mostly white males) also having zero interest. Where that leaves the party, who knows.

    McCain/Clinton will generate no real national enthusiasm (other than those dying to see the first woman president) and an overall decreased turnout nationwide. Basically it will signal establishment politics as usual, and a certainty that “change” is simply an Orwellian buzzword. Nothing more can ne expected of our democracy in future if that is what this enormous primary battle cranks out. The utter failure of our “system” will be palpable to those with any perception whatever.

    It’s discouraging to see the Left descend into a simpleminded race/gender battle, with white women overwhelmingly voting Hillary, latinos and asians soundly rejecting a black male (see CA) and blacks mostly backing Obama. The bitterness and rancor that are developing will carry over into the general election, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the rejection of Obama ends up destroying the current coalition that had been the Dem party.

    And a loss to McCain could very well spell the end of the party—in fact, it really should. Why would one continue as a Dem in such a circumstance?

  3. Peder_,

    “It’s discouraging to see the Left descend into a simpleminded race/gender battle, with white women overwhelmingly voting Hillary, latinos and asians soundly rejecting a black male (see CA) and blacks mostly backing Obama. The bitterness and rancor that are developing will carry over into the general election, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the rejection of Obama ends up destroying the current coalition that had been the Dem party.”

    Live by identity politics,…

  4. parthian,

    Perhaps you could give some concrete examples of Dems “living by identity politics”.

    Do you mean opposing income and estate tax cuts for the wealthy and programs to help, for example, poor children? Or perhaps you mean supporting comprehensive immigration reform legislation?

    Thanks.

  5. Dan,

    I can live with superdelegates giving this to Clinton. That’s just part of the game. I can’t live with Clinton if she wins by getting Florida and Michigan to count.

  6. pkbrandon,

    I’m not sure it’s that simple.
    The basis for disenfranchising Florida and Michigan voters (because their state parties went against the national party wishes in scheduling the primary) can easily be questioned.
    Unquestionably Hilary is doing it out of self interest, but that doesn’t mean that she’s wrong to do it.
    Do you think that the Democratic rank and file in those states are not entitled to vote?

  7. Dan,

    I agree that its very problematic that the votes of the Florida and Michigan voters don’t count. The Republicans handled the situation much better in taking away only some delegates (as opposed to all of them like the Democrats did) to punish these states.

    But the candidates went into those races understanding that they wouldn’t count. Without a doubt, if Michigan and Florida had counted (or counted for half) both Clinton and Obama would have campaigned there. Obama wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot, so it wasn’t even a real primary. Would all the uncommitted votes in Michigan be given to Obama, since that is where his supporters went?

    Clinton is going to have trouble getting the votes of some of the people Obama has brought in. If she beats Obama fair and square (and I think superdelegates are part of fair and square) then I think most people will be ok with Clinton. If she tries to change the rules in the middle of the game, and wins by doing so, it will by a Pyrrhic victory for her.

  8. john sherman,

    Probably the most entertaining part of last night was the hosing McCain took in MN thereby proving that Tim Pawlenty has a bare butt where his coat tails ought to be.

  9. pkbrandon,

    I believe that the exit polls showed that about 70% of the people supporting both Clinton and Obama said that the other would be acceptable to them if nominated.
    Sounds like most of Obama’s supporters are committed Democrats (considering the alternative, and all that).
    After all, we saw the consequences of take my marbles and go home in 1968.

  10. Dan,

    Well, 70 percent yes means 30 percent no. And ultimately I think that an even higher percentage of Clinton and Obama supporters would support the other candidate, again I think that is contingent on a fair campaign. Clinton agreed ahead of time that Florida and Michigan wouldn’t count. If she gets them to count she will have lied and effectively cheated as Obama didn’t compete in those races, per the argreement of the candidates. I think that is where you will see some real drop off of voters. In the recent thread on McCain’s viability in Minnesota, you state:

    “The question is not whether there exist people who might be uncertain about choosing between a Democrat who is thoroughly on the left and a Republican who is equally far to the right, but where choosing on the basis of vague qualities like leadership ability without considering where we will be led to will get us.”

    There are a lot of people who chose candidates that way. The similar policies of Clinton and Obama would be less important than how they won the nomination. If Clinton resorts to cheating (or what Obama supporters perceive as cheating) we’ve got a problem.

  11. Peder,

    “Perhaps you could give some concrete examples of Dems “living by identity politics”. Do you mean opposing income and estate tax cuts for the wealthy and programs to help, for example, poor children? Or perhaps you mean supporting comprehensive immigration reform legislation?”
    Nope, that’s not what I meant. Nice example of non sequitur, though. I’m talking about the years and years of pushing people into little groups and telling them they should vote accordingly. Women should vote for women politicians because only they can understand women’s issues. Blacks should vote for blacks for the same reasons. In fact, if someone strays from their assumed identity-ideology then they are no longer authentic (see Justice Thomas, Condi Rice or any woman who isn’t pro-choice). Now your party has found itself in a situation where it has to choose between electing the first black president or the first woman president.
    The saddest part is that Bill Clinton (I’d go with KKKlinton but that seems childish) is actively race baiting. It’s obvious that he has no shame. What’s sad is that a large part of the Dem party doesn’t have the shame to keep him out of the White House. Congrats to Minnesota for showing better judgement.
    Obama, (to his great credit) has stayed away from this as much as he can. His desire to be more than just the color of his skin is one of his more admirable traits. That’s at least part of his appeal. I hope that message isn’t lost.