Clinton’s Chance to Win
Everyone realizes at this point that Clinton’s only chance for securing the nomination is if she can dramatically win the superdelegate battle. We have talked extensively about this kind of “superdelegate scandal,” but now it looks like it is becoming less and less likely. According to this article from the Wall Street Journal, Obama is closing the gap in superdelegates, especially among the superdelegates who hold elected positions. Clinton still holds a decent lead among the superdelegates who are just DNC members, but that lead, too, is diminishing.
Among the reasons cited in the article for Obama’s successes with superdelegates is his “50 state strategy,” in which he plans to battle for the election in all states, including traditionally “red” states. He will certainly have the resources to carry out such a large-scale battle.
So, Hillary, how has that superdelegate battle been going?
“just DNC members”? Typical elitist Obama supporter.
This 50 state business is rather clever on Obama’s part as a way to try and sway superdelegates. Obviously they aren’t really going to heavily invest in all 50 states. Nor should they. That would just be stupid. Expanding the map is Obama’s primary electability argument, but his expanded map should not include Wyoming and South Carolina.
How has the superdelegate battle been going? Well, much better than it was (just like the campaign in general). The tight, well run ship that was the Obama campaign for the first three months of this year has not been so tight or well run lately and the listless circular firing squad that was Team Hillary for those same months has clearly turned around. Too little too late? Maybe. Probably. But the odds are much better than they were in mid February.
*try “over half.”
I think “just” is justified because to most of the public, the whole business of superdelegates is shady and undemocratic. Some of them get some democratic legitimacy because they actually hold office, so it could be argued that they represent their constituents. But there are some who are “just” DNC members, and they are seen as just “party insiders” in the most absolute sense.
Of course, these are the rules of the party, and you won’t find me arguing that superdelegates should not be allowed to make their choice. We are talking about public perception, here. The public does not like superdelegates.
I love the image of the listless circular firing squad, but I’m not sure that they’ve actually gotten the ship turned around. That’s why I thought this graph was so helpful. It shows that Hillary has been steadily losing her initial margin of support, even among superdelegates. Unless there is some outrageous turnaround in the next few weeks, I could see this, her last good argument, drying up for good.
I was referring to the chart graphic (which shows “over half” of Mrs. Clinton’s superdelegates being DNC members).
These dreaded “party insiders” are the ones who make this party run when no one is looking. They’ve dedicated their lives (some professionally, some personally) to Democratic politics, I don’t think its outrageous to reward them with a chance to do what they think is best for the party.
I wasn’t referring to turning the thing around in terms of superdelegates. Rather, I was talking about the media conventional wisdom as to which campaign is running better. After Solis-Doyle was ousted and Maggie Williams took over, there is no question that the Clinton campaign has been much more effective. The waning influence of Mark Penn has also been a huge positive. The Obama campaign has functioned much less effectively post Potomac Primary. Their crisis management skills have been questionable at best (they have not handled Rev Wright well at all), and the fact that Clinton is perceived as having some semblance of a chance shows that they have not won the spin wars. Their tactical planning for a post Super Tuesday world was brilliant, and probably won them this race. But there is little doubt that Clinton’s recent successes (and a more hostile media) have rattled them.
I see what you’re saying.
But doesn’t Clinton’s newly found finesse sort of seem like polishing brass on a sinking ship? I mean, the point of the campaign isn’t to look good and get applause from certain members of the press and political sycophants, the point is to get delegates. Clinton has no statistical hope of catching Obama in the pledged delegates, and the recent evidence suggests that she is losing her former edge in superdelegates as well. I’ll admit that her campaign is doing better now than it was a month ago, but that still doesn’t seem like it will change the overall outcome.
I think that obama is still the likely nominee, especially from the elected delegate counts. However, I think that people are failing to realize is that a lot of the superdelegate’s decisions aren’t written in stone. None of their decisions is techniquely binding until the convention where they actually vote for the nominee and unless they are a high profile surrogate or have a particularly polarized constituency I think they might be open to defection provided certain circumstances. Now I admit this is unlikely but it is a possibility. Clintons chances hinge on the popular vote and I think more importantly electability. For her to get the nomination she has to convince the pundits and the supers that obama has become unelectable and that her popular vote lead justifies them giving her the nomination by overruling the pledged delegates and not disregarding the will of the people. This is the only way I see of hillary getting it and so I understand her strategy of both destroying obamas electability and trying to spin that she is leading the popular vote.
I know there have been a couple of news-making switches – but I think they have all been Clinton superdelegates who changed to support Obama. Is that right or have there been any that have gone the other way?
The other day I saw a link to an article on Howard Dean’s weekend interview.
I truly did a LOL at the title of the link.
It was labeled as something like: “Dean calls for previously unknown ‘Thunderdome’ option to settle nomination process.”
After their WWE attempt, I truly think this is a potential viable solution.
And all the Superdelegates can surround the cage & cheer and avoid having to make any direct political career threatening decisions….
I would love to see a cage match between the candidates. No weapons except for metal folding chairs.
That would be much better than a bowl-off, but not quite as good as just letting the convoluted Democratic process slowly strangle Clinton’s campaign.