Giving Pragmatism and Brains a Chance

After the American Century

The rapprochement between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama apparently has been taking place since June. Clearly neither has such a sensitive ego that it prevents them from seeing the advantages of working together. I admit that I am surprised both that he would ask her to become his Secretary of State and that she would accept. I always thought that being a Senator, especially a high-profile Senator from a large state, was a better position than serving in the cabinet. Being Secretary of State is the most important job there, to be sure, but it is potentially only a four year run, and at best eight years. In contrast, Clinton has such a strong hold on her Senate seat that she could keep it for life.

So far, it seems that Obama's criteria for getting a post in his administration are that one has to be very smart, preferably with an Ivy League education, and not too much of an ideologue. He seems to prefer pragmatists who have Washington experience. He has drawn on many from the Clinton White House, which is not surprising, since to find other Democrats with such experience he would have to go back to 1980, the last year of Carter's administration. Most of his staff are now retired. As with all cabinets, this one almost assuredly looks better before it takes power that it likely will in four years time. But after eight years of ideologues and a less than brilliant president, surely it is time to give pragmatism and brains a chance. This will be novel for Washington lobbyists and for Fox News, not to mention any Republicans who still believe that Obama is a socialist.

As the appointment process proceeds, the contrast increases between the staggering economy and hope that the Obama will be able to turn it around. His announcement yesterday of a major economic stimulus package, ideally to be passed as soon as possible after January 20, clearly is calculated to hearten the market, and to help bridge the 8 week gap between now and the moment he assumes control. Call it "change they need to believe in." If the meltdown continues, Obama may inherit a nationwide crisis so palpable that his plans will be passed quickly. If the economy miraculously improves, he will presumably face a bit more opposition. But either way, I think we can expect passage of a stimulus package that features green energy technologies, tax cuts for the middle class, and incentives for industries to create jobs.

Obama's Victory Train is Leaving the Station; Will Hillary Get on Board?

After the American Century

Its finally over. The person with the most pledged and "super" delegates is Senator Obama, with 2154. Senator Clinton has 1919. He gave a powerful speech in Minneapolis to a packed hall., not incidentally the same hall that the Republicans will be using to nominate McCain at the end of the summer. She spoke to a smaller crowd of supporters, close to her adopted home, in New York, and refused to concede. Can she swallow her pride and do what is best for the Party? Or will she become one of the bitter, defeated figures of history? She has lost, but will she choose to make losing part of her identity? Will she, in effect, help John McCain?

The New York Times estimated several hours before the polls closed that Obama only needed 12 votes to clinch his victory. Thus, on paper at least, the primaries in Montana and South Dakota put him over the top. The turnout was reported to be heavy. However, there were only 31 delegates at stake in these two physically large but sparsely populated states, and in fact that was not enough to make much of a difference. If Hillary had won them all, she would still be more than 200 behind. In any case, it was not possible to win them all, given the proportional system in use. While final delegate results are not yet in, apparently Obama won by a slight majority in these two states (taken together) on the last day of the primaries.

Obama needed so few of the last primary votes because he successfully won over the super delegates. Clinton once had the advantage with that constituency, but in the last month almost none of these political professionals have opted for her candidacy, and Obama now has about 107 more of them than she does. Indeed, a parade of new supporters appeared in the last few days, pushing him to the brink of success. Furthermore, as soon as the polls closed, a number of super delegates announced for him, most notably former president, Jimmy Carter, and the majority whip in the House of Representatives, James Clayburn. If the superdelegates put him over the top, in other words, they were careful to wait until the end of the voting, so that it coincided with it.

Clinton not only lost among both delegates and super delegates. She also lost financially- Hillary Clinton has lent millions of dollars to her own campaign, joining Mitt Romney as a rich candidate who failed, despite having deep pockets. It seems that a rich person cannot (yet?) buy the office of president. On the other side, Obama who has no personal fortune, out-fundraised Clinton. This is the real measure of popular support, as millions of Americans gave him relatively small amounts. In contrast, Clinton long relied on large donors and did accept money from lobbyists, which Obama did not.

Yet even with all the warning signs flashing, Hillary Clinton refused to admit that defeat was coming, as she kept on campaigning vigorously in South Dakota, where polls suggested that the race was close. and where she indeed won. She virtually conceded Montana to Obama. Afterwards, she refused to make a concession speech, denying the party closure and cementing her image as a defiant fighter. But now she is not fighting against the odds, because it is statistically over. Hillary can either help unite the Democratic Party or she can increase the divisions in it. She has to decide how much she wants to get the Republicans out of the White House.

The longer she waits, the more unrealistic and petty she looks. Obama has been gracious, he has praised her a good deal of late, and he has offered to sit down privately with her to talk. But he will not give her the power to decide anything for him. Clinton needs to realize that she has a small window in time before the campaign train leaves the station. History will move on, and she can either board the train as a passenger or stay on the platform. She must abandon the fantasy that she will be the engineer driving the train. If she cannot concede defeat and begin to support the party's choice, then she may quickly become a minor figure shrinking in the distance.

Hillary's Hubris

After the American Century

One of the ancient Greek playrights might have worked up the events of the Democratic Party primaries into a dramatic production: "Hillary's Hubris" - a brilliant politician's unsuccessful drive for power threatens to tear her world apart . . . . a new work by the author of Oedipus Rex.

Shakespere might have rolled out "Hillary Hamlet," - being the tale of a princess who expected to inherit the throne and became convinced that only a foul conspiracy against her person could explain the sudden rise of a handsome young prince.

But seriously, there is a curious idea, or proto-narrative, floating around that goes something like this: Hillary Clinton is losing to Barack Obama because discrimination against women is stronger and more pernicious than discrimination against African-Americans. Such talk is deeply unfair to both candidates. It assumes that race and gender are more important than anything else. It overlooks the rather obvious fact that an attractive, experienced, and well-spoken white man, John Edwards, lost to both Clinton and Obama. In fact, so did every other white man in the race. So, the idea that voters are deeply preoccupied with gender and race, and that they are particularly prejudiced against women, is not a convincing position to begin with. But when the argument is raised by the Clinton camp, it is self-serving nonsense. Trying to make Hillary look like a victim just doesn't fly. She was the front-runner until early February, and when you are in front, the journalists go after you. The same thing happened to Obama when he took the lead.

For Hillary's supportrs to claim she is a victim of sexism does not fly for other reasons that are also obvious. Recall that she was leading in the polls for months during 2007. Recall that the press annointed her as the virtual candidate. Recall that she had the enormous advantage of drawing on Bill Clinton's political network. During all this time one did not hear many complaints from her camp about her treatment in the press, because she was getting good press.

Why did she fall behind Obama? Because she ran a lousy campaign in January and especially in February, when she had prepared almost nothing for the primaries after "Super Tuesday." Instead, she had to fire her campaign manager and reorganize. Despite her huge early advantage, Hillary lost in the trenches. She did it too herself. Obama won because he managed his campaign more effectively in those crucial first two months. She has been trying, and failing, to catch up ever since.

When a politician falls behind, or an athelete or anyone else for that matter, one possibility is to gain some respect for the opponent, admit mistakes, exhibit some grace under pressure, and try to win back the lost ground. To some extent, Clinton has done that. But she has also whined, complained of discrimination, played the race card and most unpleasantly of all, hinted that she remains available just in case her opponent gets shot. It was a disgrace when she said that she was the candidate of white people, of "hard-working white people." As a white person, I am angry that she spoke that way. It is especially offensive if you happen not to be white.

Is she a victim, as some of her supporters claim? She beat every white male opponent, and every male opponent but one. She is a powerful US Senator. She has accumulated a large personal fortune. For such a person to complain about gender discrimination is deeply dishonest. The Clinton camp should have learned from Obama that most voters are not looking to elect a victim as president. They do not want that sort of self-dramatization combined with a sense of entitlement. What voters want is a positive message. Bill Clinton knew that in 1992, but she seems to have forgotten.

Worst of all, she and Bill Clinton have to some extent succeeded in making the primary race into a contest where race and gender are central, rather than the very serious issues. The African-American voters in New York are angry at her pattern of behavior. History may not forgive the Clintons, but in the meantime get ready for an exciting fall production, "Who's Afraid of Hillary's Hubris?"

Why Hillary Keeps Running

After the American Century

Hillary Clinton has persisted as a candidate beyond the point most people expected. She is spending millions of dollars of her own money at this point, seeking a nomination that almost no one else thinks she has any chance of winning. Yet this is not a quixotic quest. There are a number of reasons why she might continue, which I will list in a moment. I do not claim that these reasons are a coherent explanation, and it is quite possible that only one or two come close to the mark.

1. Hillary continues because, like Mike Huckabee, she wants to get her message across and to position herself as a certain kind of candidate. The goal is not actually to win the nomination in 2008, but to imprint one's image on the electorate for the future. The goal is to become an icon for at least part of the electorate.

2. Hillary keeps running because she genuinely believes what she is saying, that she can be the nominee this year. Often candidates are so surrounded by admirers who encourage them, that they just don't give credence to any nay-sayers. The "truth" is the crowds of well-wishers at every campagin stop. The "truth" is the victories in West Virginia and Kentucky. Just keep at it until the media buys into the gritty determination and the dream.

3. Hillary keeps running because she believes that Obama cannot beat McCain, regardless of what she does. She wants the voters to remember her as the lost alternative, as the one who could have taken back the White House, so she can come roaring back in 2012.

4. Hillary keeps running because psychologically she cannot give it up, because the excitement and the competition are just too much a part of her identity. She keeps going because as long as she is a candidate she is the center of attention, a phenomena, like a marathon dancer who should have collapsed hours ago but keeps on regardless. There may also be a dynamic here with her husband, who must play second fiddle to her as long as she has not given up.

5. Hillary keeps running because she is determined to be the vice-presidential nominee if she cannot get the top spot. By dividing the party and keeping it divided as long as possible, she becomes the only one who can put the Democratic party back together again. If the convention is divided at the end of the summer, then Obama will have to select her as his running mate in order to have any chance of victory.

These five explanations are by no means mutually exclusive. She might even believe them all, or some combination of them, or even different explanations at different times. My point is that there are rational grounds to keep going. Or to put this another way, what should she do with her time instead of run for the preisdency? What could be more galvanizing or more historically important for women? By running, she shows she has grit, determination, heart, stamina, staying-power, popular appeal, and guts. By comparison, dropping out of the race has far less to offer.

So, if she is willing to go go go further and further into debt, Hillary might just keep this marathon going as long as there is any statistical possibility that she can win.

The Democrats Move Toward Closure

After the American Century

Yesterday we had heard only that Hillary Clinton had loaned some money to her campaign. Today it has become clear that she has put $6 million of her own cash into what now appears a lost cause. Generally, American voters do not like to hear that candidates are trying to buy their way to power. Romney also was pumping his own wealth into his bid for the presidency. In hard times, voters cannot help but think that Clinton's wealth puts a barrier between her and the vast majority of Americans. Her claims to emphasize with their hardships ring a little hollow when they realize that she has so much money.  More importantly, potential donors begin to head for the exits. As noted here yesterday and confirmed by more reports since, many of Clinton's donors have maxed out on what they can give her, and it is hard to find true believers in her candidacy now. 

In terms of delegates, the primaries two days ago increased Obama's lead by 13. Many analysts have concluded that Hillary has no mathematical chance of winning the nomination, even if somehow Florida and Michigan delegations are allowed in. Significantly, in the last 24 hours one superdelegate dropped Hillary and announced for Barack, and three more also decided to back him. So she has fallen further behind, with fewer places to make up the difference  She has not had any new superdelegate endorsements. 

Meanwhile, some party figures are asking her to go gracefully. One of the most prominent calls for her to give up the fight came from former Senator George McGovern, the 1972 presidential candidate. It is also an open secret that Jimmy Carter has been leaning toward Obama for some time. He might choose this moment to throw his prestige behind him. 

Meanwhile, Obama has conspicuously taken a day off in Chicago, while Hillary is out stumping in West Virginia. She is presumably doing this mostly to keep getting her picture in the paper and to show that she is fighting on. But everyone expects her to win there anyway. Perhaps she wants  a victory there, and depart from the race as a winner. Presumably Obama wants that scenario too, because it would embarrass him if she dropped out and still won West Virginia. So a possible scenario is that she is given only token opposition this week, has the pleasure of a final face-saving victory, and then drops out for financial reasons.

Of course, Clinton can just keep spending her own money and drag the battle out for another month. But at some point, the loss of all the money will begin to hurt. Her advisors may suggest that to preserve some good will in the party that might be needed to fight for the nomination another day, it might be time to think about an exit strategy.

Significantly, Clinton stopped attacking Obama yesterday, and he has also been careful to say nothing derogatory about her. He asked his supporters to refrain from calling for her to give up. Rhetorically, this was a good move. In effect, he said that it was time for her to depart, and yet he did not say that at all. He stressed that this is her call. But make no mistake, the Democrats are moving toward an earnestly desired closure. 

Candidate Strategies after North Carolina and Indiana

After the American Century

The pre-election predictions I posted on Monday were so accurate that you can go back and read it now as a report of what happened. Obama did win North Carolina by a wide margin, and he did make it quite close in Indiana. Each did well where I predicted they would. The results can be read in several ways.

1. Obama's lead in delegates has increased again, because North Carolina has more of them to give him, and he won it by more than 14 points. He will likely get close to the same number of delegates as Hillary in Indiana. On the whole, he has come out of the election better than many expected after all the media hype about Rev. Wright.

2. Hillary will stay in the race, she announced, even though the New York Times reports that her campaign is broke again. Since there is a ceiling on how much any individual can give a candidate, she will need to find some new donors. This is not easy for her now.

3. While the results in the two states differ, the pattern is the same. Black voters are 90% for Obama. He also wins all the large urban areas, often by margins of 20-30%. But Hillary wins by equal margins in rural areas. She attracts poor whites, the less educated. old people, pensioners, and women. Barack continues to win decisively among the most support from the young, the educated, and those who make higher incomes. It's McDonalds vs. Starbucks.

What does this mean for the immediate future - the West Virginia primary? It will likely be a strong win for Hillary on May 13. Look at the counties that are most like West Virginia in rural North Carolina. She won them by huge margins. The same is true for the Ohio counties just across the Ohio River from West Virginia. There are few Black people in Appalachia, where plantation slavery never existed, and it is not exactly a highly educated state either. I once spent some days in its back country riding around in a jeep with a vet, Doc Weiner. He was very popular up i the hills and hollows as he made his rounds, mostly to treat dogs and horses. I heard several people ask him if he would treat their children as well. (He would not. ) Doc Weiner told me that often a man did not call a physician if one of the (usually many) children got sick, but he always called his office if a hunting dog fell ill. Admittedly this was years ago, and possibly the Internet and globalization has transformed the people I saw then, but I doubt it. These are mountain people in a poor state. This is not Obama-land.

So expect Hillary to proclaim herself the underdog, battling against tremendous odds. She has been comparing herself to Rocky Balboa of late. Expect her to keep on talking about her bogus plan for tax-relief on gasoline (see my earlier blog on this). Expect her to trumpet her poverty - shucks, she's down on her luck just like those mountaineers - and to keep painting Obama (poor family, single mother) as an elitist who is out of touch with the ordinary people like herself. It is astonishing to see how she has managed to bury her own elite education at Wellsley and Yale, not to mention her personal fortune.

What will Obama do? He probably will not campaign too hard in West Virginia, but spend time wooing the super-delegates, make a major speech attacking John McCain, and focus on the two primaries on May 20. As usual, he has been better at raising money and more disciplined in using it than Hillary, so he can afford to go all out for the primaries in Kentucky and Oregon. In short, his best strategy is probably to campaign in West Virginia just enough to pin Hillary down, spending money she does not have, while making sure he wins in the following week. It is not over yet, her chances are dwindling, but anything can happen in American politics.

Standoff in Indiana and North Carolina Primaries

After the American Century

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have just completed two weeks of frantic campaigning in Indiana and North Carolina. The polls suggest they will split these two states, with Clinton the likely winner in Indiana and Obama in North Carolina. It appears that North Carolina, with a large black population voting overwhelmingly for Obama, is likely to give him a much needed victory. The scenario seems to be that he will win the cities, she will take the rural counties (though not in the northeast where there is a rural black majority), and the victory likely will go to whoever carries the suburbs. Average out the polls, and Obama is leading by 7%.

There is a small chance that Obama could make it close in Indiana, where Clinton has a 5% lead. When I was living in that state for half of 2003, I was surprised to find a sizable peace movement there trying to stop President Bush from invading Iraq. However, the Black population is not large in Indiana, whose voters share many characteristics with Ohio, right next door. They are struggling economically more than many states. It depends on how well Obama does with those groups Hillary has been so good at winning over: blue collar voters, Catholics, older women, people without a college education, and pensioners. There are quite a few people that fit into those categories in Indiana, which is a rather conservative state, taking both parties into consideration. Normally, Obama would get some mileage out of being from neighboring Illinois. But Clinton can also claim midwestern roots. The state has many college students, who nationally tend to be pro-Obama. Finally while it may seem trivial, he does play basketball well, and that is Indiana's favorite winter sport. However, he has been hurt by Rev. Wright's public statements, which came at the worst possible time. Overall, expect him to do well in the largest city, Indianapolis, in Bloomington and Brown County, to struggle in the small industrial cities like Ft. Wayne, Muncie, and Anderson, and to have great difficulties with rural voters, with the exception of the Quaker population, who will likely support him. As for the many Mennonites in Indiana, I suspect that not many of them will vote. Taken all around, Hillary should win that one, balancing off an Obama victory in North Carolina.

Whatever happens tomorrow, Obama will still have the lead in total delegates on Wednesday morning. But will he have regained some momentum? Clinton has been on the comeback trail now for well over a month, since her victories in Texas and Ohio, reinforced by her victory in Pennsylvania. If nothing else, she has shown grit and determination. 

Clinton has also called for dropping the federal tax on gasoline for the summer, to help out ordinary Americans. This proposal was surely crafted after looking at a Gallup Poll which showed that of all the problems faced by the US right now, high gas prices are perceived as the worst. It certainly does sound nice to suggest that the federal tax be dropped, and that instead the oil companies ought to be taxed directly. Silly idea, however. It is rather like a card sharp moving the queen of spades around the table. The taxes are still going to be collected on gasoline, just at a different location. Raise the cost of doing business for oil companies and they will shortly pass it on to the consumers. 

Moreover, making gas cheaper will send American consumers the wrong message. It will say: no need to trade down to a smaller, fuel efficient car; no need to cut back on smog and pollution; no need to reduce oil imports; no need for consumers to change their wasteful ways. Clinton no doubt expects to win some needed votes through this irresponsible proposal, and to strengthen her grip on her core constituency. For the Gallup polls show that the poorer an American is, the more gas prices loom as the most important problem the nation faces. (not the war in Iraq.) Were Mrs. Clinton thinking about the long term, she would try to move the electorate toward reduced energy use. That would be good for the environment and good for the economy. Her proposal has been attacked by many economists, and rejected by Mr. Obama. McCain, on the other hand, has put forward a similar proposal. Once again, it would seem that Hillary has adopted the dangerous strategy of becoming McClinton, a female clone of the Republican candidate. As the campaign chugs on toward what may be the bitter end of the primaries in early June, it appears that serious discussion of economic policy has all but disappeared. 

The Dangers of Clinton's Strategy

After the American Century

Many have noted that Hillary Clinton is pursuing a strategy which is potentially destructive not just to Obama but also to the Democratic Party. But polling figures show that the strategy of all out attack on Obama, often using precisely the same arguments as Republicans, is having a destructive effect on Clinton herself. The Rasmussen daily tracking poll shows that Mrs. Clinton has been behind McCain now for more than one month. According to the same polling organization, Obama has been closer to McCain, and on a few occasions ahead of him, during the same period.

In short, Clinton risks being seen as a surrogate McCain, or a second-rate version of the "real McCain." She can talk about learning to shoot a gun as a young girl, and she can sidle up to the bar and have a beer and a shot of whiskey, but she just is not as believable in that role as McCain himself. She was not a fighter pilot, she only mistakenly claimed to come under fire. An undecided voter in the crucial swing states of Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida just might prefer the new (if old) face, and go for the Republican anti-Bush.

It gets worse. Suppose Hillary's endless attacks on Obama do eventually win her the nomination. The millions who voted for him are not going to be enthusiastic about her. Not now. She will have quite a struggle to unite the Democrats, and will have to start months after McCain has been at the same game in his party. Polls show that back in Februry most Democrats were excited about both their front-running candidates, but today the divisions are far deeper, with the split getting worse every day.

Now imagine that you are one of the remaining super-delegates, who has to decide. Clinton has managed to take some of the gloss off Obama, who nevertheless still leads McCain in national polls, while she is clearly weaker against him. The process of selecting a candidate is weakening the party, which now risks losing the White House, despite President Bush's extremely low popularity ratings that hover around 30%. If this goes on much longer, is it not possible that a new, no doubt impossible, scenario has a certain appeal, the scenario of an entirely new candidate coming to the rescue? Someone with experience. Someone who once received more than 50% of the national vote. Someone the party might unify around - like Al Gore.

Impossible now. But what if the race remains undecided until the end of summer?

OBAMA: Guns and religion in Pennsylvania

After the American Century

Obama has closed the gap between himself and Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, and depending on which poll you believe, he is now behind by 4-5%. This will allow him to suffer an "acceptable loss" on April 22 - by which I mean a small loss compared to his initial weakness in the state, where he trailed by more than 10%. Note, too, that he narrowly leads John McCain in Pennsylvania polling, though Hillary leads by considerably more. 

However, Obama has not been having an easy time of it of late, due to some ill chosen words in San Francisco, when trying to explain why he is not winning in the polls in Pennsylvania. To summarize, he said voters were bitter, and that they were clinging to guns and religion. This was a rare mistake in what has generally been an extremely good campaign, and Clinton is riding it for all it is worth, in every campaign appearance.

Pennsylvania is a state I once knew very well. I grew up in the center of the state, in Boalsburg, which is far enough west to make me a Pittsburgh Pirates fan. The town claimed to be the birthplace of Memorial Day, and it was the sort of small town where lots of farm boys were in the schools, and these boys went hunting with their fathers when they were about 11 or 12 years old. Some would come into school on Monday with tales of killing their first deer. Even if all you know about Pennsylvania is the early scenes from The Deer Hunter, then you know that hunting and gun ownership are not about fear. Whatever else might be wrong with the world, the rural Pennsylvanian can still go hunting. The woods will welcome the hunter each fall, and the man will recall when he was there for the first time with his father. Obama simply got that part wrong. Rural white Pennsylvanians love to hunt, and they connect gun ownership to going into the woods after game. No doubt in Chicago, where Obama lives, gun ownership has another meaning, and gun control has considerable appeal. But hunting and gun ownership are simply not debatable for the sort of people I grew up with. He has lost some votes for that mistake.

Unfortunately, Obama managed to drag religion into his remarks as well, as another thing Pennsylvanians cling to. Remember that the state was founded by Quakers, who were extremely tolerant about religion, allowing any sect to immigrate into the state. As a result, the variety of religions in Pennsylvania is greater than just about anywhere in the country. You can find sizable groups of Mennonites, Amish, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and Catholics, to make a short list. These groups do not merely persist, they flourish, and it is not because people cling to them due to bad times. The churches as I knew them, through endless suppers, bingo games, small carnivals, bake sales, coffee hours, markets, and strawberry shortcake specials, were the sinews that held communities together. In the small town you might well go to some of the events at another church, which helped them to raise money. We all knew one another, and the church was not so much a matter of doctrine as a matter of cultural identity. I do not think religious doctrine then was or now is quite as central to church-going in Pennsylvania as it might be in Alabama or Chicago. Rather, people were comfortable with their particular church, without being particularly zealous. Obama should get to the chicken dinners, and then have some apple cobbler and coffee.

When I lived in rural Pennsylvania, there were almost no Black people. There were none in my elementary school and only one fellow in seventh grade, as far as I can recall. Hillary will seem a more familiar figure to them than he will. Obama is definitely my candidate, but I wish he had found better local advisers and had practiced his bowling before heading out into the hinterland.  My guess is that for a decent showing in the primary there, he will have to rely on getting out the vote in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and the other cities. More generally, he will have to use his ability to learn quickly to understand this part of the electorate a bit better, or McCain will win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the White House.

Where Are the Battleground States? Does This Information Point to Clinton or Obama?

After the American Century

Rasmussen Reports has made a study of the alignment of the states, looking at them in terms of the electoral college. It turns out that according to their polling, the Democrats have 190 electoral votes they can count on, including New York and California. The Republicans have 189 in their column, including Texas. So, where are the battleground states? Here is the list of 13 where the fall election will be lost or won. They have a total of 159 electoral votes: Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, and New Hampshire.

Note that both Michigan and Florida are on the list, providing another reason to consider finding a way to hold proper primaries in each state. But what is most striking, otherwise, is that the Deep South is not going to be in play. Rather, the election will be won or lost in the middle of the country, with 85 votes in the contiguous states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Iowa and Minnesota, plus 19 electoral votes in the mountain, desert west (Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico), and 55 in four quite different outlier states, Virgina, Missouri, Florida, and New Hampshire.

Looking at that list, it seems clear that Hillary's endlessly repeated claim that only she can win the big states only has some force, because some of these big states are safely in one column or other other. But nevertheless, it is true that some big states are up for grabs, notably the 58 electors from Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Another way to look at the list is to ask how Obama and Clinton did in these states, and this reveals a close contest, with Obama a bit ahead.

Clinton (54): Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New Mexico

Obama (60): Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado
No Valid Primary (44): Michigan, Florida

One could say that Clinton's whole argument comes down to Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Looking toward November, this list of swing states strongly suggests that the ideal Democratic vice-presidential candidate is not someone from the South, where the Republicans are strong, but a popular governor in one of the Midwestern swing states - someone from Ohio, perhaps. Ted Strickland seems ideal for the job, from a polling point of view. He would also appeal to centrist voters, with his storng Methodist background, teaching experience, and work as a psychologist. Personally, I would be more excited to see Bill Richardson on the ticket, but there are not enough votes at stake in New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado, and the Hispanic voters in Texas and California seem safely in the Democratic column in any case.

Overall, the Rasmussen polls show another important trend. In the last month the movement has been away from the Democrats, who are far less likely to win the election now than they were in early March. McCain is the only winner in the Clinton-Obama contest so far.

What to do about Florida and Michigan

After the American Century

The news media and the blogosphere are full of discussions about what to do about the unseated delegates from Florida and Michigan. You probably recall that both of these states moved their primaries up before Super Tuesday. They wanted to be important and would not wait, even though the Democratic and the Republican National Committees both warned that they would be punished for this. The Democratic National Committee decided that none of their delegates would count. This was harsh, but the judgement was public, and the two states might have rescheduled their elections to later dates. They chose not to do this, and now have created a difficult situation. 

In the extremely tight race for the nomination Obama and Clinton would love to get some of those delegates, especially Clinton, because she "won" in each state. But there was no campaign, no personal appearances, no shaking of hands, no engagement between the public and the candidates. Indeed, Obama took his name off the ballot in Michigan, as did John Edwards, so Clinton ran unopposed there. This makes it hard to see that she "won" when 45% of the voters still did not choose her. In Florida Obama's name was still on the ballot, but he did not advertise or appear there in any way.

The Clinton campaign wants the vote to count as it stands, while the Obama camp feels that you cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. But both sides are wrong. It is patently unfair to accept these results, and it is also unfair to deny the citizens of these two states any representation at the Democratic National Convention. What should be done?

Step back a moment and consider whether this is not rather like a rained-out sporting event. The contestants did not come into the arena, but the fans there shouted at each other. But there was no real contest. When a baseball game is rained out, it gets replayed later in the season. By analogy, these two primaries need to be played later in the season, to help discover who has won the pennant, or Democratic nomination. Only then do we know who should be in the World Series, or general election in November. 

The two state governors are saying that they might be willing to hold new elections, but that the Democratic National Committee has to pay for it. This is politically motivated nonsense. The two states should be delighted to get all that publicity, all those reporters, all those volunteers spending huge sums on motels and meals and donuts. Are they really going to demand to be paid because they broke the rules and created this problem in the first place? However, Florida's Republican Governor Crist seems quite delighted to have this opportunity to complicate the Democratic Party's problems.

We need to hear from Michigan and Florida voters. They are large states, important states, states with many delegates. But ultimately, they will only give advice. They will not be able to eliminate one candidate in favor of the other. For with two extra primaries, neither Obama nor Clinton will be able to mount a 400 vote lead. That is what one of them needs to do to reach 2025 pledged delegates. Even with a replay of the Michigan and Florida primaries, in the end the 796 superdelegates are still going to make the choice. It is hard to see how either the loser or the American people can possibly feel that it was a fair result. Worse still, some voters might think that a party which is unable to organize and run a system of primary elections, is not ready to run the country. One can only hope that the Democratic leadership finds an elegant way to resolve the crisis it has created.

Clinton Rises from the Mud, But McCain is the Winner

After the American Century

Hillary Clinton has wallowed in the mud and been rewarded for it. No one doubts that her series of dubious allegations and fear mongering in the last week has been decisive in winning Texas and helping her in Ohio. Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater back in 1964 with an advertisement that bluntly asked voters, whose finger did they want on the atomic button. Hillary's advertisement was a bit more subtle, but not much, suggesting that for reasons never stated, she would be more competent to answer a sudden emergency in the middle of the night. Actually, I cannot think of any particular reason why Hillary, who has no military experience at all, and whose record on the Iraq War is uneven, would have better judgement than Obama when half awake in the middle of night. Perhaps we are to assume that she has Bill Clinton beside her to offer his non-existent military experience. The sad fact is that advertisement, effective as it may have been in the short run, undermines both Democrats. If the election really is about who should answer that phone in a military emergency, then most Americans will think of John McCain.

The advertisement is just one of many examples from the last week of how the Obama-Clinton fight runs the danger of damaging the eventual Democratic nominee. Suppose Obama decides to stop being so nice to Hillary? What if he put together an advertisement showing her many sharply different moods, including crying for the cameras? And suppose that advertisement ended with him asking: Is She Stable Enough In a Crisis? Every feminist in the US would rise up in fury, and help convince the electorate that Clinton indeed is unstable. By playing the "angry woman" which was her persona during much of last week, she runs a terrible risk. It worked for a few days, but the Republicans can easily undermine her for being moody if she does not hit and maintain a steady and measured tone, as McCain has been doing for some time.

Clinton's next stunt, yesterday, to suggest that Obama, who is leading, should subordinate himself to her and become her running mate, is calculated, too. There is no example in American politics, ever, of the person with the most delegates giving up like that. Obama should, of course, accept her offer to be his vice-presidential running mate! Which she too would refuse.

Then consider Clinton's successful smear tactics on NAFTA. Even Danish reporters who are following the campaign in the US, like Politiken's Marcus Rubin, are repeating the misrepresentations spread from the Clinton campaign, that Obama gave secret assurances to Canadian officials that he did not really mean what he was saying about NAFTA. Now the Canadians say that this did not happen. But if you throw enough mud just before people vote, then some sticks and is even spread around by reporters long after the lie has been discredited.

Meanwhile, throwing that particular mud at Obama helped voters forget that Bill Clinton championed the NAFTA Treaty and signed it, or that Hillary also supported it for some time. NAFTA should have been a problem for her, but by throwing mud it became his problem. Worst of all, NAFTA is not really the problem. Ohio did not lose its steel industry because of that agreement, nor are its automobile parts plants closed because of it. A far more nuanced debate on jobs and trade never took place.

Or again, Clinton is doing her best to make Obama look as though he was tightly connected to a Chicago wheeler and dealer, now on trial. But that man, in fact, has given campaign money to both Republicans and Democrats for a generation, and Obama gave back all the funds he ever contributed. She wants to make it seem that Obama, who bought his house and an adjoining strip of land at the market price, has committed a crime. Last time I checked, there is nothing illegal about purchasing land at the market price from someone who has legal title to the land. Should Obama reply in kind, and dig up old Whitewater allegations against Clinton? Should he remind the public that the Clintons took quite a lot of White House furniture with them, illegally, when they left in 2001? The Republicans will be ready to do that anyway, but what if it starts already now?

The Clintons headed into the mud with less success in South Carolina. When behind, their instinct is to go negative. We have not seen the end of it, but the consequences can be dire. For these tactics take the gloss off both candidates, and deepen the split between Obama's and Hillary's supporters. Mud slinging will make it harder to unify the Democratic Party later, and it will weaken the party's appeal to the Independents. And don't forget, those swing voters decide every close election.

Meanwhile, John McCain clinched the Republican nomination, as Huckabee withdrew from the race. McCain has not thrown any mud, but remained statesmanlike during his campaign. He was at the White House yesterday, getting the endorsement of President Bush. Republicans are beginning to adjust to the idea of McCain as their leader, and Mrs. McCain has now had a chance to think about how to rearrange the White House furniture. Meanwhile, the Democrats are getting dirty, and no where near the Rose Garden.

Three months ago, many said that 2008 would definitely be a great year for the Democrats, because of Iraq, because of the failing economy, because Bush is so unpopular. But McCain is the strongest opponent the Republicans had available, because he is definitely neither a Bush clone nor a religious, right-wing candidate. He appeals to swing voters. According to polls, still early of course, he would beat Hillary now and is running close to Obama. Think what he might do after some more mud has been thrown, once he has, for the first time some money to campaign with. All in all, it has been a great week for the Republicans.

Crunch Time for the Democrats

After the American Century

Now that we have heard perhaps the last primary debate, the psychology of the Democratic presidential campaign has reached a decisive point. If Obama wins either Ohio or Texas, Clinton is expected to drop out. Many stories in the media are saying this. Symbolically, Senator Dodd has just endorsed Obama, saying that the campaign should not go on too long. Dodd hopefully put himself forward as a candidate, but was one of the early casualties in the primaries. I believe he is the only former candidate to endorse either Clinton or Obama. Even Bill Clinton has said that Hillary must win both Ohio and Texas if she is to go on. Admittedly, he said it a while ago when she had comfortable leads in both states. The latest polls now show that - as has happened in so many other states - Obama has overhauled her in Texas. Two weeks ago Clinton had more than a 10 point advantage, but now she trails by as much as 4 points.

The Obama team smells victory in Texas, and so do the Move.on activists. They are putting together a gigantic nationwide phone-a-thon, getting members to gather on Sunday, bringing their cell phones along, for a massive effort to get out the Texas vote. In the past phoning voters was usually done from a central location, but Move.on is getting people together in smaller groups in their home towns. This demands a high level of organization, getting lists of phone numbers in Texas to each of these calling groups, and organizing tens of thousands of volunteers through Internet communications. If they can pull that off, Obama will get quite a boost. I think it likely he will win Texas. He will also win Vermont, but probably not tiny Rhode Island, where Hillary has been more.

Obama can easily afford to lose Rhode Island, but Ohio is another matter. Hillary still has a lead there of 4 to 6 points, depending on what poll you look at. He has been chiseling away at her, but the shift toward him is more gradual than in Texas. Averaging all the polls together, his momentum might push him into the lead in a couple of weeks, but five days may not be long enough. Today, I note that he has left Ohio for Texas, while she remains in the Buckeye State a bit longer. Still, the difference between them is about the same as the margin of error, so he has an outside chance to win there, too.

Ohio is suffering economically more than Texas. Cleveland has been especially hard hit by teh mortgage crisis, and thousands of homes have been foreclosed there, and neighborhoods are dotted with For Sale signs. There are not likely to be many buyers in Cleveland. That city looked pretty depressed in 2003 when I visited there twice, and it has gotten much worse since then. Judging by the still weakening national economy, Ohio will likely suffer more during the spring and summer. Clinton has appealed to struggling blue-collar areas throughout her campaign, so it is appropriate that she makes what may be her last stand in Ohio. Back in the 1970s Ohio was the heart of the "rust belt" and some parts of the state never entirely came back to full prosperity. The steel mills are mostly gone from Youngstown, for example, and Clinton seems popular with the voters there. Should Obama be the nominee, he will need to find a way to appeal more strongly in such places, because it is a vital swing state. Kerry would have been president had he carried Ohio.

John McCain has a chance to win Ohio in the national election, especially if he can convince blue-collar voters that national security is the central issue of the campaign. He is there now, of course, ostensibly running against Huckabee and Paul, but focusing most of his attacks on the Democrats. Polls show him narrowly defeating Clinton, but trailing Obama by as much as 6 percentage points. McCain surely would prefer to face Clinton, whom the Republicans love to hate, so he spends much more energy running down Obama. (Yesterday he accused him of having a weak, naive approach to Al Qaeda.) I would not be amazed to hear that some Republicans were even giving Hillary contributions now, in hopes of derailing the mesmerizing Senator from Illinois.

With McCain sniping away every day, it is becoming essential for Obama to wrap up the primaries and shift attention to a full scale challenge of the Republicans. If it is crunch time for Obama, however, it is do-or-die for Hillary. She is becoming more shrill and aggressive, but I sense that she becomes unappealing in the process. One has to admire her grit and determination, but the hectoring tone and tired voice begin to wear on the nerves. Worse, the "shame on you" tone may have worked for Bill Clinton, but when she uses the same phrase it does not sound "presidential," but more like an angry mother.

It is not (yet) easy for any woman to run for president. Should Hillary bow out next week, she will have done far more than any previous female candidate, pushing open the White House door for other women. She will remain a force in the Democratic Party and the Senate, and she could also run again in four years time. Then again, this race is not yet over. It's crunch time.

Can Clinton "Come back" in Wisconsin or Hawaii?

After the American Century

Tomorrow the last primaries in February take place in Wisconsin and Hawaii, with 74 and 20 delegates respectively. For Obama, it has been a spectacular month, starting with a strong showing on Super Tuesday, followed by victories in eight straight primaries. The polls suggest that he can make it ten in a row tomorrow, which would give him even more momentum. For Hillary this month was supposed to be a triumph and instead has bordered on disaster. Rather than being crowned as the nominee, she found herself nearly bankrupt, fired her campaign manager, and lost every primary after February 5. If she can win either election tomorrow she can claim it as a second comeback. In New Hampshire she made her first comeback, after coming in third in Iowa. 

In Wisconsin the economy is the main issue for 4 our of 10 voters, while only a quarter of them focus on the War in Iraq. This emphasis is good for Hillary, as voters seem to like her on economic issues. No doubt they remember the prosperous Clinton Presidency. The polls also indicate that the same pattern we have seen before recurs. She is leading Obama among women and older voters. He does better among men, younger voters, and African Americans. Overall, it appears to be a close race. Several different polls puts him ahead by just 4%, which borders on being statistically insignificant, as there is always a margin of error.  Moreover, in another pattern familiar from the previous primaries, 25% of the voters remain uncertain and say they might still change their minds. In short, Hillary might pull off an upset.

On the other hand, the trend in the polls over time suggests otherwise. Clinton consistently led in the Wisconsin polls until Super Tuesday, when she fell behind. Obama appears to have momentum, and he also tends to bring out marginal voters such as young people and African-Americans, who are both under-represented in polling samples, because they often do not vote. Another problem for pollsters is their data bases focus on land-line telephones, which means that voters under 30 - heavily for Obama - may also be under polled. So the margin of polling error may be greater than 4%, and it may favor him, not her.

Hawaii is less problematic, because Obama was born there. He represents the multiracial integration of Hawaii, which has been far in advance of the rest of the United States in developing multicultural harmony. There seem to be no polls for Hawaii, however, where 20 delegates are at stake in caucuses. The local newspapers predict that the turnout will be at least 50% higher than in 2004, and the Democratic Party there fears it will be overwhelmed. Obama has won every other caucus, and it seems hard to believe Hillary has a much of chance. She did send daughter Chelsea out to enjoy the good weather, however, while she slogged on through the heavy snows of Wisconsin. 

Of the 94 delegates at stake, Obama will likely get a few more than Clinton, but neither is likely to gain a decisive statistical advantage from these contests. More important, at this point, is the psychological victory for Obama, if he can make it ten in a row, or for Clinton, if she can make a second "comeback." 

Obama and Clinton: Dangers of a Long Race

After the American Century

Obama has now won a string of impressive victories. Ahead for the first time in the race, however, he faces new kinds of problems. The front runner never gets a free ride. He has been the media's darling, but now they may begin to play a little rougher. Where before the Republicans were busy with their own race, McCain has now begun to attack him directly, by name. Obama has seen the advantage in that kind of attention, and is responding to McCain. It seems to say that Hillary is history. She is not, and Obama will now need to fight them both.

Clinton will likely have trouble winning in either Wisconsin or Hawaii, but when the battle shifts to Texas and Ohio on March 4, she will be in states where polls show her well ahead. Texas has been a Republican stronghold since at least the 1980 presidential elections, and there is little chance that the Democrats can win there in November. But take away the Republican majority, and the voters left include a large Hispanic population that now votes more than in the past, plus a sizable number of working class southerners who are comfortable with the Clinton name. For Obama, it will be an uphill fight in Texas outside of the Black community and college towns. Since Hispanics greatly outnumber African Americans there, Hillary starts with an advantage. However, Obama has been doing better with the kinds of voters who earlier went for Clinton. In Virginia he drew more women voters and started to attract more Hispanics and older Democrats as well. Still, the game for Obama in Texas is probably not to lose by too much, getting as many delegates as possible so that Hillary does not catch up.

In the crucial state of Ohio, Obama needs a better showing. If he can wrest Ohio from Hillary, such a victory might convince super delegates that he is the best standard-bearer for the party. However, if he looses in both Texas and Ohio, then Hillary has a real chance to raise additional money and rally for a showdown in the Pennsylvania primary. Even more than Ohio, Pennsylvania is a place the Democrats must win in November to ensure safe passage back into the White House. But Pennsylvania has a conservative history. It went for Herbert Hoover in 1932, in what was otherwise a Roosevelt tidal wave. Pennsylvanians also liked Ike in the 1950s and Reagan in the 1980s. In recent times the Democrats have carried it (1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004). With more than 12 million people, it is a crucial state, where polls now show Clinton in the lead. Bread and butter issues will be important there, particularly in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and among the remaining steel workers and coal miners.

In short, Obama has had all the momentum of late, but if Clinton holds on to her current leads in both Ohio and Texas, then it will stretch out the decision at least until at least April 22, and do possible damage to the Democratic Party. The super delegates may even wait it out to see who wins what in May.

Granted that neither candidate can attain the magic total of 2025 delegates through the primary process alone, the hope must be that one of them convinces the super delegates that he or she is the best choice. Ideally, whoever that is ought to have won a plurality of the pledged delegates as well. Unfortunately for the Democrats, however, it might not happen that way at all. Obama has the most delegates, but Clinton has the most super delegates. Roughly 390 of them have not made up their minds, and both candidates are wooing them non-stop.

Ominously, in the long gap between primaries from March 4 until April 22, other than vying for super delegates, the festering question will be: What to do about Florida and Michigan? There are no good choices. Playing strictly by the rules, these states held their primaries too early and were sanctioned for it: neither was to get any delegates. Abiding by this decision, Obama did not even get his name on the Michigan ballot. That made it easy for Clinton to win there, since she essentially ran unopposed. Now that she is behind, her camp has begun to call for giving Michigan delegates again. This seems grossly unfair. But if you are from Michigan, it no doubt seems just as unfair to be kept out of a close election. Florida offers almost the same connundrum, except that Obama at least was on the ballot there, though he did not campaign. Should Clinton win the nomination by getting Michigan and Florida seated - reversing the party's earlier decision - then Obama's camp would rightly feel aggrieved. But if they are not seated, Clinton's supporters will feel that two states where she was strong unjustly were excluded. I happen to side with Obama on this one. Don't change the rules in the middle of the game. But watch for unpleasantness on this issue.

Finally, because it is not likely to end soon, the campaigning, especially from Clinton's side, may get negative. That would also be a danger to the Party, not only because it will make it hard to unify for the fall campaign, but in October the Republicans will gleefully repeat whatever charges have the most destructive force. If it is not over, then, the Democrats will have to conduct themselves with some dignity. If it becomes a dogfight, they risk losing to McCain.

Money Talks: Why is Hillary Running Out Of It?

After the American Century

Remember all those news stories about Hillary Clinton amassing a huge campaign fund? More than anyone else? About $100 million. Well, she has used it up. She has had to give $5 million of her own money to keep the campaign going, and even so some members of her staff are not being paid this month. One reads in the press about "donor fatigue," because she has been hitting the same people for funds continually sine 2006.

But this is likely not "donor fatigue." This is money talking, and the smart money is now saying "Obama." Yes, Hillary has more delegates than Obama, if you count the super delegates. But without them (and they can change their minds), she is in a dead heat with Obama. Therefore, she really needs money right now, and the idea that rich donors suddenly are "fatigued" is almost silly. How better to create a political debt than to donate right now?

How bad is it? Until a few days ago Clinton had no campaign staff in the State of Washington, where the largest group of delegates is to be selected on Saturday. So the out-of-state professionals, who have rushed in now, must compete with Obama's office. It has been open for a long time, and it does not have any money problems. With almost 100 delegates at stake in a strange hybrid system that involved a caucus but also later voting, being on the ground early is crucial. Washington State is a likely place for Obama to gain on Hillary.

For Clinton, it gets worse. Louisiana also holds a primary on the same day. After the Bush Administration's flawed handling of the flooding from Katrina, the population there is angry at the Republicans and ready to vote for change. There is also a large Black population there, likely to vote overwhelming for Obama. In short, this state could also go against Clinton.

Finally, there is Nebraska, a Midwestern state that might vote the same way that neighboring Iowa and Kansas did, for Obama.

Is it not possible that Hillary's donors have begun to suspect that Obama can carry the most states, and therefore win the most electoral votes? Are some of her (former) donors also friends of Ted Kennedy? If one assumes that, regardless of who is the candidate, the Democrats will win California, New York, and Massachusetts, as all polls and past elections suggest, then which candidate can win elsewhere, particularly in the swing states? The voting this weekend could establish Obama is the one who can do that, making him the most viable candidate. This might give him the momentum needed to get the nomination.

Then again, even if Obama wins all three states it will only bring him a modest gain, because the Democratic Party rules divide the delegates up roughly proportionally. That is why there seems to be almost no chance that either Hillary or Obama can assemble 2025 delegates before the Pennsylvania Primary in April. One of the most important swing states, because of its 12.4 million population, Pennsylvania calls itself "the keystone state" - certainly an appropriate name in this election.

Hillary will need money for Pennsylvania, and so will Obama. But he has been phenomenally successful raising money from ordinary people. More than 100,000 individuals donated more than $30 million to him in January alone. It may seem a shallow way to compare the candidates, but the ability to raise money and organize an effective campaign might be one measure that helps us to decide who is the better candidate. As Americans say, "Money talks." At the moment, Hillary has to dig into her own pocketbook to be heard.

Super Tuesday

After the American Century, voting statistics updated 11:30 PM

For the Republicans, McCain was the winner on Super Tuesday. For the Democrats, there was no victor, but the results suggest Obama may be a stronger candidate than Clinton.

On the Republican side, McCain won the most delegates, but he did not win a majority of the states. Huckabee won all the Southern primaries yesterday (Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia), and no doubt he would be president of the Confederacy, had the Union not won the Civil War. To the North, reports of Mitt Romney's political death seem to have been announced prematurely. He won a number of western states, not just Massachusetts and Mormon Utah. Bishop Romney also took Colorado and three states along the Canadian border, Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota. With seven states in all, Romney kept himself in the race, especially considering that California, unlike most of the other Republican contests, is not a winner-take-all state.

Nevertheless, the Romney camp is a bit unhappy today, first because they know that McCain is far ahead in the only area that really matters: delegates. Second, because McCain and Huckabee ganged up on Romney in West Virginia in the caucus there. When the early ballot was inconclusive, McCain told his supporters to give their votes to Huckabee. Romney feels he got mugged. McCain won the four biggest prizes of the day, the populous states of California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. He also took Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Arizona,, Oklahoma and Missouri. It you plot the results on a map, Huckabee won the Old South, Romney the plains and Mountain West, and McCain the heavily populated more mainstream states in between.

In terms of delegates, it is too early to make a final count. CNN gives McCain about 680, putting him well ahead of Romney (270), Huckabee (176), and Paul (16). These figures (and those listed below for the Democrats) are still being revised as I write, and the final results will be somewhat different. However, the relative standing of the candidates will not change. McCain certainly looks like the winner, but even he has only about half the delegates needed. Huckabee and Romney insist that they are still in the race. Conceivably each of them hopes that McCain will not be able to sustain this campaign marathon. They would never say it directly, but a front-runner over 70 is vulnerable should any questions arise about his stamina, his heart, or any aspect of his physical condition. Huckabee makes a point of jogging in full view of the press, and Romney radiates good health. In short, McCain will probably win, but he needs to look vibrant and energetic. Apparently, he still has to fight for another month or so.

On the Democratic side, Obama can claim 14 states versus only 8 for Clinton. He can also point to impressive victories in states with virtually no African-American population: Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota, and North Dakota. Recall any African Americans in the film Fargo? A few weeks ago it would have seemed madness to think that a Black candidate could win in these places, but in each case he won by a landslide over Clinton. Obama received an astonishing 80% of the votes in Idaho, more than 70% in Alaska, and more than 60% in Minnesota and North Dakota. Obama also triumphed in Georgia and Alabama, receiving not just the Black vote but a sizable while vote as well, showing that the victory in neighboring South Carolina was no fluke. In Georgia, Obama had more than twice as many votes as Hillary. In addition to the South, Obama can claim victories in all parts of the nation, including New Mexico, Colorado, and Idaho in the West; Kansas, Illinois, and Missouri in the Midwestern heartland; and Connecticut and Delaware in the East. It was an impressive showing. His campaign staff did an excellent job in a complicated contest.

Hillary can also claim victory, even if she won fewer states, and even though she won them by smaller margins. She will get the most delegates because she took the two biggest prizes: her home state of New York and the most populous US state of all, California. Her two areas of strength were the Northeast and a clutch of states in the upper South, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, where Bill was governor. 

In terms of delegates, the precise results will not be worked out until 7 February at the earliest. But as of 5:30 PM (EST) on Wednesday, CNN estimates that Clinton has won 625 at the ballot box, plus 193 super delegates, and that Obama has won 624 delegates, plus 106 super delegates. There are still more than 100 delegates to be awarded, but the fact it is taking so long strongly suggests that they will be divided up pretty equally. Neither will be close to the 2025 needed to win the nomination. Note, too, that there are 75 uncommitted and some also remain formally committed to John Edwards. If the race stays tight, these votes, along with the other super delegates will become crucial.

Strategically, Obama's showing tells party professionals that he has the best chance to win against McCain in November. Hillary won states that the Democrats usually win, notably Massachusetts and New York. However, she showed little strength in the marginal states that must be won to beat the Republicans, such as New Mexico and Colorado. Bush and Cheney triumphed by carrying the South and West, and Obama poses a stronger challenge to the GOP in these areas than she does. The more analytical Democratic managers will read Super Tuesday as proof that Obama can threaten McCain in all areas of the nation, while Hillary is strongest in the areas of their traditional strength. If he is nominated, Obama can no doubt carry traditional Democratic strongholds such as California, New York, and Massachusetts, where Hillary won, but where he also did respectably. If Hillary is the nominee, however, she has less chance than he does of winning the swing states. That matters.

Obama challenges the Republicans in those swing states and even in places they long have taken for granted, like Alaska and Idaho. He has the potential to lead a landslide, fundamentally changing the contours of the Congress. In contrast, Clinton has the potential to win a hard fought, close contest. He is more likely to lead a fundamental change. She can bring a shift in power, but it would likely be a narrow triumph, bitterly won, that could only lead to more partisanship.

To see what such a close struggle might be like, no need to wait. Hillary and Obama will continue to battle for at least another month, probably more.

For an overview of future primaries, see Blog for 3 Feb.

Clinton vs Obama: How Long the Race?

After the American Century

As the candidates make their final appearances before Super Tuesday, it appears likely, judging by the polls, that John McCain will have an insurmountable lead over Romney, Huckabee, and Paul, after the Republican voting. In contrast, the polls also suggest that neither Clinton nor Obama will be anywhere near a majority on February 6. Whether selecting the nominee first is an advantage is the subject of an earlier blog. The question I will take up here is how long the Democrats may have to struggle.

In theory, the nomination process for the Democrats could last until their convention late in the summer. In recent posts I have pointed out that the Edwards delegates and the super delegates would then hold the balance of power. Together, these unpledged votes constitute one fifth of what either Obama or Clinton needs to reach the magic total of 2025. They might be fighting to get those votes all summer, culminating on the floor of the convention. This happened to the Republicans in 1976, when Ford and Reagan battled all the way to the last possible day, with Ford winning by a small margin. The same thing happened to the Democrats in 1960, and there are other examples from earlier decades.

In practice, convention cliffhangers are rare. Usually, the candidates have been chosen through the primary process, and the convention is scripted as a display of unity. That is what any nominee would prefer. However, there are simply not enough delegates being chosen on Super Tuesday to declare a winner to this contest, so, let us look at the contests after 5 February. Seen from a candidate's perspective, what lies ahead is going to be exhausting. It will be long and it will require a great deal of travel, because the states holding primaries on the same day are often far apart. It will also be ferociously expensive.

Here is a summary of what comes after Super Tuesday. Note particularly 4 March when more than 10% of all the delegates will be selected. This might close out the process, but even at this point there will be 650 more delegates to choose in the remaining primaries, plus the uncommitted super delegates. Should Clinton and Obama keep running neck and neck, this race could go all the way into June and still not have a certain winner.

One hopes, however, that either Obama or Clinton will manage to build a majority by 22 April (Pennsylvania) or 6 May (North Carolina and Indiana). By that time, conceivably, one of them will admit defeat and gracefully withdraw. But it might go all the way to the Convention.

Primaries after "Super Tuesday"

9 February, 194 delegates at stake in widely separated Washington, Louisiana, and Nebraska.

10 February, 34 delegates at stake in Maine, up on the Canadian border, as far from the previous three states as it is possible to get.

12 February, 238 delegates at stake in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC. Note that for once the three elections are in contiguous locations.

19 February, 121 delegates at stake in Wisconsin and Hawaii

4 March, perhaps a decisive day with 444 delegates at stake in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

8 March, just 48 delegates, in the widely separated Wyoming and Mississippi.

22 April. If the decision still has not been reached, the primary in Pennsylvania might well be the most important of the entire election, with 188 delegates at stake. The candidates will have ample time to campaign here - six weeks!

6 May. Two weeks later, even more delegates are at stake, 218 in North Carolina and Indiana.

13 May. If the candidate has not been chosen by this point, West Virginia may become an unlikely battleground for just 39 delegates.

20 May. With 125 delegates in Oregon and Kentucky, this is the last time a substantial number of delegates can be won

3 June, the end of the process, with just 47 delegates at stake, in the neighboring states of Montana and South Dakota.

"Super Delegates" May Hold Balance of Power in the Democratic Party

After the American Century

This nomination process is not the result of simple voting, where the nominee is selected directly by the voters. Rather, voters select delegates, and they do so by district. In Nevada, for example, Obama got fewer votes than Hillary Clinton but won in more districts and so has more delegates (13-12). The same sort of thing happened in New Hampshire, where Obama may have lost the popular vote but won one more delegate (12-11). In Iowa, Obama got more votes than she did, but both ended up with the same number of delegates (18).  In South Carolina, Obama won both the popular vote and the most delegates (26-14). Based on those four contests, it seems obvious that Obama should be winning the delegate battle, with 69, vs. 55 for Hillary. 

However, only three out of every four delegates are selected in primaries and caucuses. When the 4049 delegates arrive at the Democratic Convention to select their candidate, 796 of them will be "super delegates." That is, they will be there by virtue of their office or past service to the party. For example, former President Bill Clinton is a super delegate, and so are sitting Democratic governors, Senators, mayors of major cities, and party members who hold seats in the House of Representatives, plus various others. These "super delegates" define the party establishment. They tend to favor the known over the unknown. As politicians, they all have debts and obligations, and it is more likely that they owe a favor or two to the candidates who are well-established. In other words, these elected politicians all know the Clintons, and many are in their political debt. 

Super delegates do not necessarily pledge their support to any candidate in advance, and many wait for the race to develop before backing someone. CNN has prepared a list which shows that when pledged super delegates are included, Hillary Clinton is well ahead, with 232 delegates, vs. only 158 for Obama. By my count, that means he has picked up 89 super delegates, while Hillary has gained 177, almost twice as many. No less than 59 of Hillary's super delegates come from just New York State and California. Will Hillary easily win because of her super delegate support? Perhaps not. For there is another way to look at these numbers. More than half of the super delegates are still up for grabs, either sitting on the fence (368) or committed to Edwards (62), who has dropped out. These 430 super delegates may hold the balance of power, should the primaries fail to give either Obama or Clinton 2025 delegates, the minimum necessary for nomination. 

So much has already happened in this campaign that no one would have predicted. Yet, presumably it is certain that the nominee will need at least 2025 delegates. (Though even here, what about Michigan and Florida and their discounted primaries?) To prevail, Obama will need to do more than narrowly win the popular vote. He probably has to defeat Clinton resoundingly at the polls before he can swing those 430 super delegates (insiders all), to his side. He cannot do it without insider support of this own. Ted Kennedy, who knows most super delegates by their first names, can play a crucial role in getting them to ride the Obama wave.

Does the First Nominee Have the Advantage?

After the American Century

There is a myth floating around in conversations I have heard in the US, that the party which decides on its candidate first has a decisive advantage. In other words, the party that unifies first behind one candidate can then consolidates its troops, while the other side is still fighting amongst themselves. It seems plausible. If true, then the Republicans might have an advantage, because their primaries are often winner-take-all contests, like Florida, where Romney got 31% of the votes but no delegates.

In contrast, the Democrats divide up the delegates from a primary roughly in proportion to the votes each candidate received. I say roughly, because the division is made at the local level, and can lead to small anomalies. For example, Clinton got the most personal votes in Nevada, but Obama got one more delegate (13) than she did (12), because of the way the vote broke down in particular districts. In other words, McCain (or conceivably Romney) might assemble the needed delegates in the next few weeks much more quickly than Clinton or Obama can. The Democratic race could easily take several months after Super Tuesday. If it is really close, then the decision might be made in balloting at the Democratic national convention in the summer. In other words, possibly neither Hillary nor Obama will get a majority, even when the primaries are over. In that case, the delegates who are pledged to Edwards would become crucial. He could be the power broker, deciding who gets to be the nominee, in exchange for something he wants - such as being the Vice Presidential nominee (again).

With that sort of scenario a possibility, the myth of early consolidation sounds appealing, but it is simplistic. The myth may be true if a party's candidates broadly agree on policy and are only fighting for the right to be the nominee. But what if the candidates fundamentally disagree about policy, as they do in the Republican Party right now? McCain is the front-runner, but I have met people who are furious at him, for example because he has a liberal approach to immigration policy. One angry woman told me that all the illegal immigrants should be thrown out, that they should have gotten in line for a green card and not entered the country before then. In her view, and that of millions of other conservative Republicans, McCain is completely unacceptable on that point. They will not much feel like rallying behind him, even if he does sew up the nomination. The question asked on a CNN Poll today was, "Can McCain Bring the Republicans Together"? Three out of four did not think so. There are too many fundamental issues that divide them. In addition to immigration, they disagree on what for them are fundamental moral questions: the theory of evolution, abortion, and gay marriage. Nor do they agree on how to deal with Iraq. Ron Paul's vocal minority wants withdrawal, but McCain will stay as long as it takes. I do not expect to see Huckabee or Paul supporters put much energy into a McCain candidacy. Or, if the candidate is Romney, many McCain supporters will sit on their hands, because he is too conservative for them.

In short, either Romney, or more likely McCain, might get the nomination early, only to find that party support is lukewarm. Weak enthusiasm from the Republican base would not stand up well to either the Clinton machine or the Obama wave. Moreover, the media are not going to give as much attention to an already-selected Republican as they will to a dramatic battle between the two exciting candidates on the Democratic side. And note that Obama and Hillary do not have radically different policy statements. Supporters of either one could in good conscience go out and work for the other.

An interesting historical comparison makes the same point. In 1960, Richard Nixon was the clear, early front-runner and early got the Republican nomination. On the Democratic side a fierce battle for the nomination went all the way to the convention and was only decided on the third ballot. In other words, the Republicans had unified early and, according to the myth, should have won, because the Democrats were fighting each other all summer. Moreover, Nixon could claim far more experience than his younger but less well-known rival. The winner? Jack Kennedy, a charismatic candidate demanding change. His vice-presidentail running mate? Lyndon Johnson, a Southern Senator who had the delegates needed for a majority. It might be "deja-vu all over again."