Why the Supers Will Demand a Joint Ticket
8 Comments Published by Billy Joe Mills on Tuesday, April 29 at 5:25 PM.
Here is another very brief post from Craig "Mr. Stallion" Kline. His alternative title for this article is: "Why the Supers Will Demand a Joint Ticket and Mr. Stallion Will Demand a Joint."
Here is what the superdelegates will no doubt be considering:
.........................SOLIDLY DEMOCRAT........................................
states.....................electoral votes.......outcome (or likely outcome)
California -.................55...................Clinton
New York -.................31...................Clinton
Pennsylvania - .........21...................Clinton
Illinois - .....................21.....................................Obama
Michigan - .................17 ..................Clinton
New Jersey - ..............15...................Clinton
Massachusetts -........12 ...................Clinton
Washington - .............11.....................................Obama
Maryland - .................10.....................................Obama
Minnesota - ................10....................................Obama
Wisconsin - ................10 ...................................Obama
Connecticut - ..............7.....................Clinton
Oregon -......................7.....................................(Obama)
Rhode Island -.............4......................................Obama
Maine -........................4.......................................Obama
Hawaii - ......................4.......................................Obama
DC - ............................3.......................................Obama
TOTAL: ...............................................158................84
The Blue State analysis will cut two ways: HRC will argue that she is the safest bet in the Blue States, and Obama will argue that he will carry all of them anyway.
Obama supporters may question whether the primaries between Obama and Clinton tell us anything about the general election against McCain, but the exit polls and general election polls provide a large body of evidence. Current polling suggests that HRC would win the general election by a larger electoral vote margin than Obama, and exit polls suggest that more Obama supporters would support HRC than vice-versa. Now I do not think either of these polls are due much credence, but they flavor the background against which Obama has to argue both: that he is the safer bet against McCain and that he can rally a larger base. Note that the argument will not be about whether Obama can carry enough blue states to win, but about whether he can carry the blue states better than HRC to ensure a safer and larger win, that will ensure down ticket victories and a public mandate for change.
HRC supporters will point out her demonstrated strength, vis-a-vis both McCain and Obama, in California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New England. Traditionally that is a winning hand. There is a strong precedent in brokered conventions to focus the floor discussion and reports on who will be the safest bet in the big blue states. Obama will have to overcome this precedent, but he has the unique advantages of having locked up the pledged delegate count, and the nearly singular support of the african-american portion of the democratic constituency. .
.............................BATTLEGROUND...........................................
Florida - ......................27 ..................Clinton
Ohio - .........................20 ...................Clinton
Georgia -.....................15....................................Obama
Missouri -...................11................................... Obama
Tennessee -.................11...................Clinton
Arizona -.....................10....................Clinton
Louisiana -.................. 9 ...................................Obama
Colorado -....................9....................................Obama
Kentucky -...................8 ....................(Clinton)
Iowa -...........................7 ....................................Obama
Arkansas - ..................6......................Clinton
Nevada -.......................5......................Clinton
West Virginia - ...........5.....................(Clinton)
New Hampshire - .......4.......................Clinton
TOTAL: ................................................96 ...............51
The Battleground State results will also be difficult for Obama to use to his advantage. Right now he can point out the polling data, which shows him doing roughly as well, some-times better, some-times worse in Battleground States. The problem for Obama is the large Battleground States of Ohio and Florida, places with diverse obstacles for Obama. Those two States alone constitute 1/3 of the Battleground electoral votes; and a good number of the other battleground states have challenging demographics for Obama: like Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Nevada, and Arizona.
Colorado, Louisiana, and Georgia will be key symbolic States for the Obama argument to the superdelegates: those are the reddest states Democrats have won since Carter, and Obama can probably win them while HRC would probably lose them. Jimmy Carter is expected to endorse Obama “officially” fairly soon, and this could play well with some older democrats and particularly well in Georgia. If Colorado, Louisiana and Georgia are Blue for Obama, then he can credibly suggest he would fair well in the even more traditionally red states.
HRC's argument starts with Ohio and Florida. She carries the rust belt and Appalachia areas, as evidenced partly by Ohio. This has long been prime democrat territory, with deep catholic sympathies to the Kennedy populism. Somehow, HRC has been able to appeal to that demographic, and the imminent Edwards endorsement will strengthen her support base. But Clinton's appeal to the moderates and quasi-conservatives ends here: it does not extend to the northwest or the prairie states like Obama's appeal. In this sense, Colorado, Louisiana et al might become symbolically important, and the general election polls of these states should give us a good read about the battleground state arguments. If HRC has no chance in those states, then she has no chance anyplace redder: and what you see is what you get. If Obama is leading in those states, then he can make a credible argument about his red state appeal and changing the new democratic coalition, or a new post partisan politics, etc. Obviously, if he is struggling in these states vis-a-vis McCain, his position is difficult.
Obama can put some of the redder battleground states in play, but HRC has the argument that she is the safer bet in the big battleground states and the traditionally 'democrat friendly' battleground states.
........................SOLIDLY REPUBLICAN............................
Texas - .......................34....................Clinton
North Carolina - ........15....................................(Obama)
Virginia - ...................13.....................................Obama
Indiana - ....................11....................(Clinton)
Alabama - ..................9......................................Obama
South Carolina - ........8......................................Obama
Oklahoma -.................7......................Clinton
Kansas - .....................6......................Clinton
Mississippi - ..............6 .....................................Obama
Nebraska - .................5......................................Obama
Utah - ........................5 .....................................Obama
Idaho - ...................... 4......................................Obama
Montana - ..................3....................................(Obama)
Alaska - .....................3.....................................Obama
South Dakota - ..........3.....................................(Obama)
Wyoming - ................3......................................Obama
TOTAL: ....(TEX: HRC)........................58.. ...........77
...................(TEX: OBAMA).................24..............111
Obama totally dominates in red states, projected to win 12 out of 16, and he can make a partial argument regarding Texas. Despite his dominance elsewhere, Obama's red state argument, which is crucial to his candidacy, will center on Texas. Bill Clinton was right when he said that Texas was critical for the nomination.
Obama will have difficulty arguing that he won Texas because primaries are much better predictions of the general election vote than caucuses are. Nevertheless, current polling in Texas shows Obama doing better (though not winning ) against McCain than HRC: and these polls are probably on to something, because a huge percentage of the Ron Paul anti-war camp is located in Texas. The Ron Paul camp hates Hillary, and won't vote for McCain, the question with these voters is whether Obama can sufficiently distance himself from his backers like George Soros, Zbigneiw Brzezinski, Anthony Lake et al. If Obama can demonstrate his obvious advantage with the anti-war movement in Texas, then he can make a credible argument that his 'grassroots', 'on-the-ground' caucus victory in Texas is due considerable credit. If he can convince the supers that he won Texas, than he can use a much move favorable electoral vote metric for both red states and the general election:
Obama's 111 to HRC's 24 in Red States, and Obama's 246 to HRC's 282 in total electoral votes. That is a close enough margin in electoral votes, and a large enough margin in Red States, that Obama can credibly argue a new democratic coalition and the legitimacy of his pledged delegate count and 'number of states' victories.
If HRC's argument regarding Texas holds up, that primaries are far more reliable indicators of electoral support than caucuses, then she will be able to use the following metric:
Obama's 77 to HRC's 58 in Red States, and Obama's 212 to HRC's 316 in total electoral votes. If that metric is used, Obama is in big trouble. And despite current polling, there is a fair likelihood that the Texas primary will be given more credence than the caucus. If brokered convention history tells us anything, it is that caucuses, current polling and Red State success are disfavored as basis of arguing advantage. Obama needs to make all three arguments in regards to Texas, and no matter how plausible these arguments are, there are diverse obstacles he needs to overcome in order to gain a hearing on the merits. Obama will need to demonstrate that he can carry white rural voters and latinos, in order to make a credible argument about Texas. He can demonstrate improved strength with white rural voters by placing close in WV, Kentucky while and winning North Carlina and the Northwest states.
Obama really only has three chances at demonstrating strenght with latinos: 1) roll out a comprehensive immigration reform policy more favorable and specific than HRCs (risky); 2) have Richardson take on a more visible roll in policy, administrative commitments and political events (probably not going to cut it); or 3) have a re-do in Florida and finish within 10%(too late and little chance of funding).
Obama aids would be wise to keep Florida options open, as the popular vote argument becomes more important and the need to demonstrate some strength with Latinos may swing the analysis regarding Texas.
Quick notes:
Perhaps HRC will win North Carlina after all.
The media has been hostile, and Obama himself has been aloof, towards the marvelous speeches of Rev. Wright during these past few days. Wright obviously must have the green light from the Obama camp to try to repair his image to some, while Obama tries to stay distanced in the eyes of others. This sort of triangulating has not yet been a strength of Obama's.
Edwards sure is being a dramatic prom queen about his endorsement. This means, of course, that his endorsement will be a media parade that will dominate a day or two of the media coverage, possibly with political events that will provide HRC timely momentum. I would guess the endorsement comes this Friday.
If Obama loses North Carolina, he needs to consider a re-do in Michigan. I have long since thought that a re-do is completely unrealistic, the sort of things pundits talk about when their only agenda is to confuse people new to politics. The (non-private) funding was never in place, the national parties and the state parties are having the exact same fights they have had all year, etc, etc.
But if Obama loses North Carolina and Indiana, a re-do is more realistic than his shot at the nomination. At that point, he would have lost 3 out of the 4 largest Red State primaries.
Joint Ticket an absolute certainty
Here is why, and it is simple: the supers will decide the nominee. They have been, this whole time, asking and sometimes demanding a joint ticket. Many of the 'undecideds' are insisting on it. Nancy Pelosi does not represent the majority on this issue, but her statements provide key insight into what she is reacting to. The supers realize that a joint ticket will maximize the democratic voting base and financial coffers: and this will bring the most voters out on election day ensuring a huge trickle down victory. Democrats in the east are worried about losing the support of HRC's 'Reagan democrats' or Obamas african americans, and Democrats in the west are worried about losing HRC's latinos or Obama's progressives.
And then there is the money. HRC is out-raising McCain 2 ½:1. Obama is out-raising McCain 3:1. Neither has dipped into their general election funds, while McCain already has. Democrats don't just want to win: they want to win big. A joint ticket offers exactly what Obama promises: a new democratic coalition. There are many pressuring Obama to commit to a joint ticket for this reason: it is consistent with what he has promised. HRC has already committed to a joint ticket, say friends on the staff in back in Westchester, NY.
Furthermore, a popular vote victory by HRC ensures a joint ticket. Any other result will allow the Republicans to claim a party split, no matter what happens. The supers know this, and they know that the only way to defeat the theme of a party split is a joint ticket. Therefore, they are 'undecided.'
At the end of the Convention, a majority report sponsored by HRC will argue she should lead the joint ticket.
Eventually, the red-blue-battleground analysis will probably be discarded, and the joint ticket demographics will be considered. HRC's head-to-head electability argument will probably have given her the presumptive lead, but that presumption will have to be supported by the joint ticket analysis. It is hard for me to guess what the analysis will look like at that point, but if Obama is unable to get a re-do in Florida, HRC's California-Florida-New York victories will probably win her the nomination, unless Obama can show that he, and only he, could top a winning ticket in Texas.
Commentary on the chart: I used the maps from the past four presidential elections and came up with 3 categories of States; "Solidly Democrat" voted Democrat each time, "Battleground" had mixed votes, and "Solidly Republican" voted Republican every time. The reason I used the last 4 general elections, as opposed to the last 5, 6, or 10, is because the Republicans dominated the 80s, and 1976 American demographics are simply incomparable with the modern electorate.
Nevertheless, use of the past four election cycles has a built-in bias for HRC, because the States that Bill won in 1992 and 1996 become "Battleground" states. Yet this advantage is not just an advantage in my chart...HRC has a chronological advantage due to the recent success of Bill. This advantage is not just in the minds of voters, but deeply integrated into the concepts of modern politics, including what many superdelegates will consider blue states and battlestates.
The problem for Obama, is that these general election polls are using 5-year averages to calculate the party-split parameter. Consider: 70% of the country is against the war, 70% of the country is against G.W., but 50% of the country is gonna vote for McCain?? That's impossible. Polls do not always use the party-split parameter splits when inquiring about war approval, President approval, and the like: but the party-split parameter is always used in electoral polls. Obama needs to disprove the fantasy that McCain has any chance: while HRC needs to perpetuate this myth.
....of course, the superdelegates are probably all bought and sold by Clinton, as Obama probably is too.
But there are many many reasons to expect a joint ticket, even if Obama isn't bought and sold by Clinton. As long as the myth of a close race remains, the Democratic nominee will be hard pressed to pass up the general election funds of the other candidate. Amongst all the theatre about HRC's campaign being broke (the New Yorkers are really chuckling at this, "Clintonian downplaying of expectations"), it is rarely mentioned that, of course, neither candidate has dipped into their general election fund yet. They both have record breaking general election war chests, and if either candidate passes up the other, they will almost certainly blow their chances at a landslide.
A 1964 type "public mandate" is available for the Democrats to take. If the superdelegates and the Democratic establishment have any say in this election, there will be a joint ticket.
-Mr. Stallion
Here is what the superdelegates will no doubt be considering:
.........................SOLIDLY DEMOCRAT........................................
states.....................electoral votes.......outcome (or likely outcome)
California -.................55...................Clinton
New York -.................31...................Clinton
Pennsylvania - .........21...................Clinton
Illinois - .....................21.....................................Obama
Michigan - .................17 ..................Clinton
New Jersey - ..............15...................Clinton
Massachusetts -........12 ...................Clinton
Washington - .............11.....................................Obama
Maryland - .................10.....................................Obama
Minnesota - ................10....................................Obama
Wisconsin - ................10 ...................................Obama
Connecticut - ..............7.....................Clinton
Oregon -......................7.....................................(Obama)
Rhode Island -.............4......................................Obama
Maine -........................4.......................................Obama
Hawaii - ......................4.......................................Obama
DC - ............................3.......................................Obama
TOTAL: ...............................................158................84
The Blue State analysis will cut two ways: HRC will argue that she is the safest bet in the Blue States, and Obama will argue that he will carry all of them anyway.
Obama supporters may question whether the primaries between Obama and Clinton tell us anything about the general election against McCain, but the exit polls and general election polls provide a large body of evidence. Current polling suggests that HRC would win the general election by a larger electoral vote margin than Obama, and exit polls suggest that more Obama supporters would support HRC than vice-versa. Now I do not think either of these polls are due much credence, but they flavor the background against which Obama has to argue both: that he is the safer bet against McCain and that he can rally a larger base. Note that the argument will not be about whether Obama can carry enough blue states to win, but about whether he can carry the blue states better than HRC to ensure a safer and larger win, that will ensure down ticket victories and a public mandate for change.
HRC supporters will point out her demonstrated strength, vis-a-vis both McCain and Obama, in California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New England. Traditionally that is a winning hand. There is a strong precedent in brokered conventions to focus the floor discussion and reports on who will be the safest bet in the big blue states. Obama will have to overcome this precedent, but he has the unique advantages of having locked up the pledged delegate count, and the nearly singular support of the african-american portion of the democratic constituency. .
.............................BATTLEGROUND...........................................
Florida - ......................27 ..................Clinton
Ohio - .........................20 ...................Clinton
Georgia -.....................15....................................Obama
Missouri -...................11................................... Obama
Tennessee -.................11...................Clinton
Arizona -.....................10....................Clinton
Louisiana -.................. 9 ...................................Obama
Colorado -....................9....................................Obama
Kentucky -...................8 ....................(Clinton)
Iowa -...........................7 ....................................Obama
Arkansas - ..................6......................Clinton
Nevada -.......................5......................Clinton
West Virginia - ...........5.....................(Clinton)
New Hampshire - .......4.......................Clinton
TOTAL: ................................................96 ...............51
The Battleground State results will also be difficult for Obama to use to his advantage. Right now he can point out the polling data, which shows him doing roughly as well, some-times better, some-times worse in Battleground States. The problem for Obama is the large Battleground States of Ohio and Florida, places with diverse obstacles for Obama. Those two States alone constitute 1/3 of the Battleground electoral votes; and a good number of the other battleground states have challenging demographics for Obama: like Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Nevada, and Arizona.
Colorado, Louisiana, and Georgia will be key symbolic States for the Obama argument to the superdelegates: those are the reddest states Democrats have won since Carter, and Obama can probably win them while HRC would probably lose them. Jimmy Carter is expected to endorse Obama “officially” fairly soon, and this could play well with some older democrats and particularly well in Georgia. If Colorado, Louisiana and Georgia are Blue for Obama, then he can credibly suggest he would fair well in the even more traditionally red states.
HRC's argument starts with Ohio and Florida. She carries the rust belt and Appalachia areas, as evidenced partly by Ohio. This has long been prime democrat territory, with deep catholic sympathies to the Kennedy populism. Somehow, HRC has been able to appeal to that demographic, and the imminent Edwards endorsement will strengthen her support base. But Clinton's appeal to the moderates and quasi-conservatives ends here: it does not extend to the northwest or the prairie states like Obama's appeal. In this sense, Colorado, Louisiana et al might become symbolically important, and the general election polls of these states should give us a good read about the battleground state arguments. If HRC has no chance in those states, then she has no chance anyplace redder: and what you see is what you get. If Obama is leading in those states, then he can make a credible argument about his red state appeal and changing the new democratic coalition, or a new post partisan politics, etc. Obviously, if he is struggling in these states vis-a-vis McCain, his position is difficult.
Obama can put some of the redder battleground states in play, but HRC has the argument that she is the safer bet in the big battleground states and the traditionally 'democrat friendly' battleground states.
........................SOLIDLY REPUBLICAN............................
Texas - .......................34....................Clinton
North Carolina - ........15....................................(Obama)
Virginia - ...................13.....................................Obama
Indiana - ....................11....................(Clinton)
Alabama - ..................9......................................Obama
South Carolina - ........8......................................Obama
Oklahoma -.................7......................Clinton
Kansas - .....................6......................Clinton
Mississippi - ..............6 .....................................Obama
Nebraska - .................5......................................Obama
Utah - ........................5 .....................................Obama
Idaho - ...................... 4......................................Obama
Montana - ..................3....................................(Obama)
Alaska - .....................3.....................................Obama
South Dakota - ..........3.....................................(Obama)
Wyoming - ................3......................................Obama
TOTAL: ....(TEX: HRC)........................58.. ...........77
...................(TEX: OBAMA).................24..............111
Obama totally dominates in red states, projected to win 12 out of 16, and he can make a partial argument regarding Texas. Despite his dominance elsewhere, Obama's red state argument, which is crucial to his candidacy, will center on Texas. Bill Clinton was right when he said that Texas was critical for the nomination.
Obama will have difficulty arguing that he won Texas because primaries are much better predictions of the general election vote than caucuses are. Nevertheless, current polling in Texas shows Obama doing better (though not winning ) against McCain than HRC: and these polls are probably on to something, because a huge percentage of the Ron Paul anti-war camp is located in Texas. The Ron Paul camp hates Hillary, and won't vote for McCain, the question with these voters is whether Obama can sufficiently distance himself from his backers like George Soros, Zbigneiw Brzezinski, Anthony Lake et al. If Obama can demonstrate his obvious advantage with the anti-war movement in Texas, then he can make a credible argument that his 'grassroots', 'on-the-ground' caucus victory in Texas is due considerable credit. If he can convince the supers that he won Texas, than he can use a much move favorable electoral vote metric for both red states and the general election:
Obama's 111 to HRC's 24 in Red States, and Obama's 246 to HRC's 282 in total electoral votes. That is a close enough margin in electoral votes, and a large enough margin in Red States, that Obama can credibly argue a new democratic coalition and the legitimacy of his pledged delegate count and 'number of states' victories.
If HRC's argument regarding Texas holds up, that primaries are far more reliable indicators of electoral support than caucuses, then she will be able to use the following metric:
Obama's 77 to HRC's 58 in Red States, and Obama's 212 to HRC's 316 in total electoral votes. If that metric is used, Obama is in big trouble. And despite current polling, there is a fair likelihood that the Texas primary will be given more credence than the caucus. If brokered convention history tells us anything, it is that caucuses, current polling and Red State success are disfavored as basis of arguing advantage. Obama needs to make all three arguments in regards to Texas, and no matter how plausible these arguments are, there are diverse obstacles he needs to overcome in order to gain a hearing on the merits. Obama will need to demonstrate that he can carry white rural voters and latinos, in order to make a credible argument about Texas. He can demonstrate improved strength with white rural voters by placing close in WV, Kentucky while and winning North Carlina and the Northwest states.
Obama really only has three chances at demonstrating strenght with latinos: 1) roll out a comprehensive immigration reform policy more favorable and specific than HRCs (risky); 2) have Richardson take on a more visible roll in policy, administrative commitments and political events (probably not going to cut it); or 3) have a re-do in Florida and finish within 10%(too late and little chance of funding).
Obama aids would be wise to keep Florida options open, as the popular vote argument becomes more important and the need to demonstrate some strength with Latinos may swing the analysis regarding Texas.
Quick notes:
Perhaps HRC will win North Carlina after all.
The media has been hostile, and Obama himself has been aloof, towards the marvelous speeches of Rev. Wright during these past few days. Wright obviously must have the green light from the Obama camp to try to repair his image to some, while Obama tries to stay distanced in the eyes of others. This sort of triangulating has not yet been a strength of Obama's.
Edwards sure is being a dramatic prom queen about his endorsement. This means, of course, that his endorsement will be a media parade that will dominate a day or two of the media coverage, possibly with political events that will provide HRC timely momentum. I would guess the endorsement comes this Friday.
If Obama loses North Carolina, he needs to consider a re-do in Michigan. I have long since thought that a re-do is completely unrealistic, the sort of things pundits talk about when their only agenda is to confuse people new to politics. The (non-private) funding was never in place, the national parties and the state parties are having the exact same fights they have had all year, etc, etc.
But if Obama loses North Carolina and Indiana, a re-do is more realistic than his shot at the nomination. At that point, he would have lost 3 out of the 4 largest Red State primaries.
Joint Ticket an absolute certainty
Here is why, and it is simple: the supers will decide the nominee. They have been, this whole time, asking and sometimes demanding a joint ticket. Many of the 'undecideds' are insisting on it. Nancy Pelosi does not represent the majority on this issue, but her statements provide key insight into what she is reacting to. The supers realize that a joint ticket will maximize the democratic voting base and financial coffers: and this will bring the most voters out on election day ensuring a huge trickle down victory. Democrats in the east are worried about losing the support of HRC's 'Reagan democrats' or Obamas african americans, and Democrats in the west are worried about losing HRC's latinos or Obama's progressives.
And then there is the money. HRC is out-raising McCain 2 ½:1. Obama is out-raising McCain 3:1. Neither has dipped into their general election funds, while McCain already has. Democrats don't just want to win: they want to win big. A joint ticket offers exactly what Obama promises: a new democratic coalition. There are many pressuring Obama to commit to a joint ticket for this reason: it is consistent with what he has promised. HRC has already committed to a joint ticket, say friends on the staff in back in Westchester, NY.
Furthermore, a popular vote victory by HRC ensures a joint ticket. Any other result will allow the Republicans to claim a party split, no matter what happens. The supers know this, and they know that the only way to defeat the theme of a party split is a joint ticket. Therefore, they are 'undecided.'
At the end of the Convention, a majority report sponsored by HRC will argue she should lead the joint ticket.
Eventually, the red-blue-battleground analysis will probably be discarded, and the joint ticket demographics will be considered. HRC's head-to-head electability argument will probably have given her the presumptive lead, but that presumption will have to be supported by the joint ticket analysis. It is hard for me to guess what the analysis will look like at that point, but if Obama is unable to get a re-do in Florida, HRC's California-Florida-New York victories will probably win her the nomination, unless Obama can show that he, and only he, could top a winning ticket in Texas.
Commentary on the chart: I used the maps from the past four presidential elections and came up with 3 categories of States; "Solidly Democrat" voted Democrat each time, "Battleground" had mixed votes, and "Solidly Republican" voted Republican every time. The reason I used the last 4 general elections, as opposed to the last 5, 6, or 10, is because the Republicans dominated the 80s, and 1976 American demographics are simply incomparable with the modern electorate.
Nevertheless, use of the past four election cycles has a built-in bias for HRC, because the States that Bill won in 1992 and 1996 become "Battleground" states. Yet this advantage is not just an advantage in my chart...HRC has a chronological advantage due to the recent success of Bill. This advantage is not just in the minds of voters, but deeply integrated into the concepts of modern politics, including what many superdelegates will consider blue states and battlestates.
The problem for Obama, is that these general election polls are using 5-year averages to calculate the party-split parameter. Consider: 70% of the country is against the war, 70% of the country is against G.W., but 50% of the country is gonna vote for McCain?? That's impossible. Polls do not always use the party-split parameter splits when inquiring about war approval, President approval, and the like: but the party-split parameter is always used in electoral polls. Obama needs to disprove the fantasy that McCain has any chance: while HRC needs to perpetuate this myth.
....of course, the superdelegates are probably all bought and sold by Clinton, as Obama probably is too.
But there are many many reasons to expect a joint ticket, even if Obama isn't bought and sold by Clinton. As long as the myth of a close race remains, the Democratic nominee will be hard pressed to pass up the general election funds of the other candidate. Amongst all the theatre about HRC's campaign being broke (the New Yorkers are really chuckling at this, "Clintonian downplaying of expectations"), it is rarely mentioned that, of course, neither candidate has dipped into their general election fund yet. They both have record breaking general election war chests, and if either candidate passes up the other, they will almost certainly blow their chances at a landslide.
A 1964 type "public mandate" is available for the Democrats to take. If the superdelegates and the Democratic establishment have any say in this election, there will be a joint ticket.
-Mr. Stallion
Labels: Craig Kline, presidency
Son of a bitch, this analysis is brilliant. Offer this guy a job.
He's absolutely right.
Tom
the real question will be who's at the top of the ticket at this point unfortunately. It looks like Clinton might just pull it off partly on the assumption that Obama can always run again in 2016
It does appear more and more likely that there will be a unity ticket. But the question is why do you think Hillary will be on top of the ticket? Since Obama will likely win in all metrics (except, possibly the popular vote, and even that is so close and fraught with problems that it is probably at best a wash for Hillary), why would they push her to the top rather than force her to take the second spot? Wouldn't forcing Obama to take second place piss off just as many of his supporters as nominating a ticket with Hillary and not Obama?
Mike:
I disagree that "Obama will win all metrics." He will win three metrics: more pledged delegates, more states won, and more electoral votes in red states.
Never before in the history of brokered conventions, has a candidate ever won on the basis of the pledged delegate count. Similarly, no candidate has won on the basis of winning unfriendly (red) states. In every case, the floor reports and discussion has focused on who the safest candidate is in the friendly (blue) states.
The argument that a candidate "won the most states" has minimal value if any at all, and will not be a bargaining chip for Obama.
HRC is likely to win all the other important metrics: majority of the popular vote, majority of the superdelegates, majority of the blue state electoral votes, majority of the battleground state electoral votes, and majority of electoral votes.
As I explained above, it will be very very difficult, and a complete break from historical precedent, for Obama to convince the superdelegates that he is the safest choice given the primary results and the electoral vote analysis.
HRC will top the ticket because the nomination will be decided by negotiation.
HRC can argue that she is the safest candidate, if each candidate goes up against McCain by themselves. She will win that argument because of the blue-red-battleground argument above.
So, because she wins the head-to-head analysis, she would be the presumptive nominee at that point in the negotiation. If Obama can then rebut this presumption, by demonstrating, factually, that he is the better candidate to top the ticket...then he could perhaps top the ticket.
But it would be very very hard to imagine how Obama would demonstrate that he is the stronger candidate to top the ticket. He would need to make his argument using primaries he has won, and supplement his primary victories with compelling arguments about Texas, Ohio, Florida and other large states (that he lost). Obama will have to find some compelling reason, why he is safer candidate to top a joint ticket despite the fact that he is the weaker (or at least, less safe) candidate to go up against McCain one-on-one.
Again, if you do not believe that the one-on-one matchup favors HRC, please see my blue-red-battleground analysis above.
Despite the constant lies by the CIA-owned corporate media, Obama has basically a 0% chance at winning the nomination.
Young liberals now get to experience the same disappointment an disillusion that idealistic, young republicans have experienced for 8 years:
everything the liberal media (MSNBC) is sayint is a lie, designed to play off of the better intentions of liberals, such that the liberals expect to see their agenda pursued: but in reality, power politics is the only game in DC.
When all this is over, young liberals will understand that MSNBC is very much like Fox. MSNBC is owned by GE, which is owned by the same European and Anglo-American families that supported Hitler, and sponsored an attempted coup in America.
see: GE sponsored fascist coup in America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_plot
Arthur Schlesinger, not a person to take things lightly, wrote about the Business Plot extensively. This is a proven historical fact, not some kind of paranoid fantasy. If you'd just like to click, rather than cut and paste it, here's a direct link to the wiki page.
That was a close one--we could have ended up as part of the Axis if that one had occurred. I may do a parallel universe SF story sometime about it.
Tom
"Obama has basically a 0% chance at winning the nomination"
There is a lot of nearly risk-free money out there waiting for you to claim it in the futures markets. Every dollar you can get down on Hillary to win the nomination will return a profit of close to $4.
In fact, depending on just how close to 0% you mean, the mathematical variance (riskiness) of such a bet is even lower than that of even keeping money in that bastion of safety and risklessness - a bank account (accounting for typical fluctuations in the value of the USD).
thetodd:
i have thousands of dollars already bet on the election. (including a lil wager with mr. billy joe mills)
but I am making much easier money by abandoning dollars all together.
converting dollars to euros, or swiss francs, and investing in european money markets yields nearly 11% a year. 6 % in the money market, and 5 % in euro gains on the dollar.
the dollar is going down, and it will never bounce back.
haha whooops.
I left 3 states out of the chart and analysis: although the impact is minimal.
Vermont (3 electoral votes), Delaware (3), and North Dakota (3) all got misplaced at the bottom of my chart during editing. All three went for Obama, and strengthen his argument accordingly.
Vermont and Delaware belong in the Blue State category, creating the new metric:
HRC blue state electoral votes= 158
Obama blue state EV= 90
While North Dakota is red state:
HRC red state EV= 58
Obama red state EV= 80
HRC red EV -TEXAS= 32
Obama red EV +TEXAS= 114
HRC total EV= 316
Obama total EV= 221