The Candidates
A while ago, I declared Barack Obama the nominee. I am no longer so certain. I realized shortly after Texas and Ohio that Clinton has a path to the nomination, and it involves basically winning PA by a large margin, winning the popular vote, and having a Barack implosion that calls into question his fundamental electability. This is looking more and more likely every day.
The first requirement is winning PA by a large margin. Clinton currently leads in the RCP average by about 16 points. Moreover Obama shows zero momentum in the average; if anything he has dropped a bit. Clinton won the counties along the Ohio/WVa/PA border in the range of 70-30. The difference in PA is that those counties are more populous, with small cities like Washington and Aliquippa providing a Democratic voting base that isn’t found in SE Ohio. Pittsburgh is basically a bigger Youngstown. True, Obama does have the Philly suburbs to draw upon, but that is it — Pennsylvania lacks the Cleveland/Columbus/Cincinnati triumverate of large cities with sprawling suburbs for him to draw upon.
After this comes Indiana and North Carolina. Indiana is probably a Clinton state, with the Southern tier holding many white Democratic voters who share the demographic profile with the voters in SE Ohio. North Carolina is harder to predict. It is sandwiched between two of Obama’s best primary states: SC and VA. But in reality,it is more like TN than SC. While there is a large AA population, there is also a sizeable white, blue collar population which has not migrated to the Republican party. The two Republicans have only narrowly won their seats, and the Democrats have controlled the Governorship since 1992. There are historical reasons for this (like AR), but the point is, this state will likely be close. Indeed, Obama only leads by 5 in the RCP average (with the most recent poll showing a 1-point lead for him).
After this come WV (Hillary currently leads by about 30 points, which makes sense given that this is SE Ohio without the Republicans), KY, OR, PR, MT, SD, and possibly Michigan. She’ll likely win KY by a margin similar to West Virginia, which is to say, big. Puerto Rico recently switched to a primary, which means higher voter participation in a state that is almost entirely Hispanic (whether this will translate the way that, say, Texas broke down is hard to say, but it is not unreasonable to assume a healthy Hillary margin). OR, MT, and SD are harder to predict. Obama has done well in similar states, (ND, ID, etc), but those were caucus states. MT still has a large, blue collar, unionized Democratic base in the Western mountains, which is Hillary’s wheelhouse. OR similarly has a lot of downscale Democrats in the East and South, to offset mini-Seattle in the North. I couldn’t tell you how the ten SD Democrats are going to vote, but we’ll give Obama the edge here for giggles.
In other words, Hillary is in good shape in 6 of the last ten primaries, and will almost certainly do well in all of them (except maybe SD). So how does this translate to her second goal: Winning the popular vote?
Obama got a 100,000 vote bump in MS by winning by 20 points. Right now she’s leading in a state with five times the population of MS, and with a much higher proportion of Democrats at that, by 15-20 points. Not that I necessarily think she’ll end up winning by that much, but the polls are what they are right now. Then there is the triumverate of states — WV, IN, and KY, that she probably *will* win by about 20 points, given her performance in demographically similar counties in Ohio and VA. Together they also have about five times the population of MS. Taken together, these states could easily wipe out Obama’s 800,000 vote lead under his best-case scenario (and is it really fair to exclude FL, where both were on the ballot?), and then some.
On the other hand, you have primaries in NC, OR, PR, MT and SD, which won’t be won by anyone by 20 points, and which combine for about 5x the population of MS. Of these, NC and PR will probably cancel each other out (NC is more populous but PR won’t be as close), and participation in OR, MT, and SD will be small.
In other words, there’s still a lot of time for someone to rack up a heckuva lot of votes. And with MS and the WY caucuses, Obama is pretty much out of states in his wheelhouse (I have no idea what happens in OR, MT, and SD — he did well in caucuses in similar states, but of course these are primaries, which tend to favor Hillary). This leaves aside the question of popular vote in FL, or the possibility of re-votes in MI. In other words, she is very much in that race.
This leaves the third goal: The Obama implosion. You are already probably thinking: I know what that is. And you would be Wright. I think he is a symptom, not a disease. The disease is that we just don’t know much about Obama or his past, and the press is playing catch-up raining blows upon him. But it is clearly taking its toll on him. It was not that long ago that Obama clearly performed better against McCain than Clinton. This is no longer the case, as he and Clinton perform almost identically against McCain.
This is more pronounced on the state level. A slew of polls have come out in the last couple of days on the state level. Consider the following difference between Hillary’s performance against McCain and Obama’s performance against McCain:
Florida: Clinton +7
Ohio: Clinton +9
NH: Obama +3
CO: Obama +14
WI: Obama +3
MN: Clinton +4
MA: Clinton +13
CA: Clinton +4
MO: Clinton +12
KY: Clinton +26
OH: Clinton +13
And this is without another two months of trench warfare and media assaults.
Obama performs better than Clinton in three states: WI, CO, and NH. He leads in one of those three states (WI). Do you really think the Superdelegates are going to go with Obama if these numbers hold, and they’re given a potential argument for going for Clinton (ie the popular vote)?
I’m not at all certain. She’s very much back in the game.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I’ve been thinking this for a couple weeks.
I now think Obama is easier to beat. But I may still have a preference for Hillary in case things go very wrong in the fall. If we have to have a Democratic President, Hillary would do far less harm than Obama.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I expect that there will be an anti-Clinton push-back in the coming weeks; I don’t think that Hillary will win all of these states by the margins you’re suggesting. I expect Penn to narrow to +10 Clinton by election day. I think both candidates will look very unelectable when Puerto Rico finishes; that would still probably leave Obama with the nomination.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Metro,
Indeed. I remember DaveG getting laughed at for expressing that sentiment, but Obama is easier. Like I said at the time, given a choice between an unvetted candidate leading McCain by a few points and Hillary trailing him by a few, if I were a Dem, I’d go with Hillary.
I would rather face Hillary than Obama, though, for the reason you describe. She is tougher to beat. But I think she is less ideologically committed than he is. More importantly, she will likely not have coat tails the way he could. Look at CO. If she loses by 15, Mark Udall will not be the next Senator from there, as opposed to Obama turning out every hippie kid in Boulder and Vail. She could drag down red state Senators and Congressmen across the country. So what if she wins MA by 40 while Obama only wins by a few points — I would take that over a guy who has the potential to turn out every African American voter in North Carolina and Louisiana, endangering Republican Senatorial candidates there. Plus, I don’t think the midterms will be kind to the next President, more so if she is the President.
Then again, Obama could continue to implode, making him a juicy target for the fall up-and-down the ticket. Who knows?
March 20th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I partly agree with Metro - I’m not sure who I think would be easier to beat, but Clinton’s personality is much less popular, and, while Obama’s “preacher problem” seems to have hurt him, I think a lot of Clinton’s rise may be due to her being out of the headlines - very similar to what happened to McCain in the summer.
That said, I agree that Clinton would do far less damage, and would be far easier to beat in four years with a Conservative candidate.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I’d rather face Obama. As Romney noted correctly, there’s some illusion within the populace that Hillary has a level of experience because she was in the White House for 8 years. The experience issue has less resonance in a Hillary/McCain matchup. I also think that Obama’s voters are much harder targets for McCain in a general election. If Obama eeks out the nomination, it’s easy to see how McCain wins over blue-collar white men and Catholics. It’s hard to imagine McCain ever winning activist youths, and wealthy latte liberals. Maybe they stay home in protest, but they certainly won’t be crossing over.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I am on record as saying for 15 months now that Obama is one of the most overrated presidential candidates in American History. Race 4 2008 was one of the first places in the blogosphere to challenge Obama’s aura of invincibility (at least me and Dave anyways…)
Race 4 2008: Mocking Barack Obama since late 2006!
March 20th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
why is hilary only at 26% on intrade? shouldnt it be more like 33-40? also, why is the odds of a republican being next pres only at 38? shouldnt that be more like 45?
it seems like investors should be feeling better about clintons chance at the nom, and mccains chance at the white house.
March 20th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I may be in the minority now, but I still tend to think Hillary would be a much easier opponent in the fall. Polls will fluctuate a lot between now and then, but I think with the mood of the country right now and Obama & Hillary’s strengths and weaknesses (and those of McCain), Barack plays much better in November.
I’d still much rather face Hillary in November, current poll numbers aside. I still think Obama wins the Dem nomination, though, when all is said and done. As Marc Ambinder pointed out this morning, “To put it crudely, the analyst’s emotional brain feels momentum for Hillary; the analyst’s analytical brain can’t quite figure out how Obama loses.”
March 20th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
when was the last time we had a convention that required more than one round of voting?
‘56 wasn’t it?
March 20th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
#9 1952, Adlai Stevenson won on the 3rd ballot. In 1956 Stevenson won on the 1st ballot but Kefauver won the VP slot on the 2nd ballot.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
But the superdelegates will all be racists if they go against Obama now? Barack made that clear in his speech. Not sure if he deserves my vote after that (yes, I’m a Dem on R4′08 - shoot me)…
http://www.political-buzz.com/
March 20th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I still say the best result for the Republicans isn’t necessarily who the Democrats settle on, but how long it takes them to get there. If the Democrats can’t coalesce around a nominee by June 1 their convention will be too rancorous to give them any kind of post-convention bounce. And if they don’t settle on a nominee until the convention, there probably won’t be enough time to mend fences with the losing coalition in time for the election (which is only 9 weeks after the nominee is officially chosen).
March 20th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ has some statistical matchups based on current polling data.
According to his model, Obama and McCain are pretty even split nationally, whereas Hillary loses significantly to McCain.
There’s an interesting column on the left side showing likelihoods of winning the different states. Obama in Iowa has an 86% probability of winning over McCain versus a Hillary 26% chance of winning. Looks like McCain skipping Ames is still haunting him there. Lots of other interesting matchups in the swing states.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
“(which is only 9 weeks after the nominee is officially chosen).”
Which itself is absurd. Candidates spend more than a year campaigning for the part nominations, and less than a hundred days actually campaigning against each other for the most powerful position in the world.
The Parties need to switch to a more compact primary schedule, its crazy that we have half the country voting on one day, and a six week break before the last seven states. Campaigning should be Feb. - Feb., primaries should be Feb. - May, and the conventions should be in June.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Switch the wigs and outfits and Hillary - McCain become nearly indistinguishable. There is room for a third party candidate here. A lot of us are still looking for a meaningful choice.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Oh for God’s sake me again GET OVER IT. John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama are going to be the 44th President not even Teddy Roosevelt could get elected as a 3rd pary candidate. You have one of those three choices and if you don’t like it, then either swallow your pride and vote for one of them or stop complaining
March 20th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I remember DaveG getting laughed at for expressing that sentiment, but Obama is easier.
But who’s laughing now? Who’s laughing now?!
Ah, sweet validation!
Since Sean wrote the post that I was planning to write, beating me to it while I was flirting with the waitresses at a local watering hole, I will simply throw in my two cents here in the comments section.
The Democratic Party will not nominate Barack Obama for president. That’s because Barack Obama is unelectable. African-American candidates win in this country when they display the ability to transcend the racial divisiveness of the past, i.e., when they cease to be a “black candidate” and become a candidate who happens to be black. Obama was the “black candidate” in the race up through South Carolina. After Bill Clinton pissed off Teddy Kennedy with his post-SC commentary, it was Kennedy’s imprimatur that made it okay for white liberals to vote for Obama. That was the point at which Obama became a candidate who happens to be black. WrightGate, though, has reverted Obama back to “black candidate” status by doing what Michelle Obama has been trying to do for the past few months: demonstrating that Barack is anything but post-racial and tying his candidacy to the perpetuation of racial division and anger based on past crimes.
Now that Obama has lost his anointing, he will no longer win any substantial portion of the white vote. This means he will lose nearly every remaining primary, and if nominated, will lose the general election. As such, I simply cannot imagine the Democratic Party of our era — the one that refused to concede the last two presidential elections even after all the votes were counted — nominating a sure loser. It just doesn’t seem consistent with the power-at-any-cost mentality that has overtaken contemporary Democrats. As such, the only logical conclusion is that Democrats will find a way to ensure that Obama is not nominated in Denver.
Given that Obama cannot get to a majority in pledged delegates, denying him the nomination will be easy. The question is whether the superdelegates will choose to nominate Hillary Clinton instead, which could cause blacks to stay home and kill Democrats down the ballot, or whether the supers will draft a consensus pick and wait for the second ballot to rally around their new, electable candidate. I actually think that Gore/Rendell/Warner/Bayh/Etc. on the second ballot is becoming more and more likely, and perhaps even more likely than either a Hillary or an Obama nomination.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I just read some of the comments on the impact of either a Hillary or Obama nomination down the ballot.
I tend to agree with those who argue that Obama would be a weaker presidential candidate for Democrats but, oddly enough, would yield Democratic gains in the House and Senate. An Obama nomination means an increased black vote in the south and in states with major urban areas, and an increased youth vote in states like Colorado. While those will be canceled out in the presidential race by the blue collar whites and ethnics who vote for McCain, those same voters will probably vote Democrat for House and Senate, meaning that, as with Reagan’s victories in the 1980s, we’ll end up with a President McCain and a 240-seat Democratic House due to all of the McCain Democrats who voted against the latte liberals for president but who voted with them for Congress. Under that scenario, we could end up with only 42 Senate seats in 2009 and, after midterm losses, a 40-seat Senate caucus in 2011. I love the idea of President McCain being a sure thing, but do we really want a 250 seat Democratic House at the end of his first term?
McCain/Clinton would be more dangerous. Even if the black vote and the youth vote stay home, she’s still got a 50/50 shot at Ohio and Pennsylvania and will probably flip Arkansas, meaning that she could potentially win the election. But the congressional gains that Democrats are counting on this year wouldn’t materialize if Hillary were the nominee, and if President Rodham became reality, 2010 could look like 1974 did for Democrats under an unpopular President Nixon. Basically, Hillary remains the modern-day Nixon: an appeaser to a center-right country (the way Nixon appeased a center-left country), and a politician who will likely drag her party down with her if she is chosen to lead it, allowing Republicans to make gains in spite of themselves, the same way the hapless Democrats of the late ’60s and early ’70s made gains down the ballot even as Nixon won two terms.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
DaveG,
If you really believe that, you could short both Obama and Hillary at Intrade (trading at 97 combined for the Dem nomination), and turn $1,000 into $32,000.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
NC does have a large university population of yutes that could save him.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
#17 I agree.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
There’s a spectacular level of denial going on in liberal fantasy land. Wander off to DailyKos; you have a 400 comment post today, demanding that Hillary Clinton drop out, because dontcha know, Obama has this all wrapped up. Someone will say something like “Hillary could win every remaining state by 10 points, and she’d lose the delegate count”. This, to them, is an extreme and outrageous scenario, so outrageous that it’s implausibility demands that Hillary Clinton drop out. Well, sorry folks but we’re facing the very real possibility that Hillary Clinton could win Penn, KY, IN, PR, and WV by TWENTY+ points. And she could plausibly manage narrow wins in the remaining states. So not only isn’t a “winning every state by 10 points (on average)” a pipe dream, but it’s probably just slightly on the low end of expectations. No, she’s still unlikely to overcome him in pledged delegates, but she has a very real chance of becoming the nominee; and the fact that gaggles of lefties are hysterically insisting that she’s finished is either an indictment of their sanity or a sign of flailing desperation.
March 21st, 2008 at 12:22 am
Sean, you bring up a very interesting point about Hillary’s probable lack of coattails. I will bet you a million dollars that this is the reason why Nancy Pelosi seems to be trying to block a Hillary Clinton nomination. I think this is also a reason why Hillary cannot close the deal with superdelegates, who have to win reelection themselves. This is the reason why I think Obama will still be the nominee. Most powerful Democrats know that Clinton could sink them.
March 21st, 2008 at 9:04 am
Sean, I hope you are right. I certainly would not vote for HER, but if we have to end up with a dem i would rather have HER than the very radical BO BS.
March 21st, 2008 at 11:29 am
Bottom Line. Let the voters of PA speak. A resounding Clinton victory in a key state is gonna rattle the Obama camp even more.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
[...] mean to pat myself on the back, but a few days before Jay’s calculator came out, I had my own estimate coming to this conclusion. But this calcuator provides some more concrete ways of estimating the [...]