As Pennsylvania's primary creeps closer, more and more people will be making delegate predictions. I would like us to focus on what the key values are for the different districts. Using GreenPapers as my starting point, I calculated the following cut-off points for Candidate X to receive Y net pledged delegates by district in Pennsylvania. I am also using the 85% rule so that if a candidate wins 85% of the popular vote in a Congressional District, they win all the available pledged delegates even if using the formula of the larger remainder, their opponent would have been entitled to one pledged delegate. Any errors of calculation are mine and mine alone.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Murtha's Endorsement of Clinton
Hillary Clinton's superdelegate endorsement drought ended today when she scored an expected but needed coup in picking up the endorsement of John Murtha, Democratic Congressman who represents PA-12. PA-12 is an Appalachia district that is a bit convoluted in shape as it takes in the eastern and southern reaches of the Pittsburgh city region.
Murtha's district is a five pledged delegate district. It is also a fairly conservative Democratic district with a small African American population, and a small creative class population. It is an area of Pennslyvania that is similiar to the west of I-81 which is where Clinton cleaned up in the Virginia primary. I would be shocked if Obama only loses this district by 18 points which is what he needs to do to hold the district to a 3:2 split for Clinton.
Murtha is throwing his support in the same direction as his distrct. Not a big surprise.
Murtha's district is a five pledged delegate district. It is also a fairly conservative Democratic district with a small African American population, and a small creative class population. It is an area of Pennslyvania that is similiar to the west of I-81 which is where Clinton cleaned up in the Virginia primary. I would be shocked if Obama only loses this district by 18 points which is what he needs to do to hold the district to a 3:2 split for Clinton.
Murtha is throwing his support in the same direction as his distrct. Not a big surprise.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Can Obama win Pennsylvania?
My good buddy Kyle Moore at Comments from Left Field asked me that question this morning via e-mail. I live in Pennsylvania and I think I have a decent feel for Democratic politics around here, and I think it depends on several definitions of winning...
Can Barack Obama accumulate 50%+1 votes --- extremely unlikely, but plausible if Clinton withdraws or meltdowns
Can Barack Obama accumulate 50%+1 pledged delegates --- unlikely but much more plausible than winning the popular vote due to delegate allocation rules.
Can Barack Obama do what he needs to do to maintain his overall edge over Clinton in Pennsylvania --- highly likely.
Can Barack Obama accumulate 50%+1 votes (5% chance)
6 weeks out of the election, Barack Obama is trailing Hillary Clinton by approximately 14 points accordnig to Pollster.com's combined polling measure. He has been closing against Clinton since approximately September/October 2007 where his gradual uptrend inflected to a much greater slope. So can he close the remaining fourteen points in the next five and a half weeks? I don't think so.
We can count on Obama to continue to consolidate his African American base, as Rasmussan has him up 79-13 in this demographic. SurveyUSA has Obama winning the African American vote 76:22. If we project that he continues to win the black vote by roughly 90-10 margins, and that African American voters make up 15% of the Democratic Primary universe, then he can expect to close the 14 point gap by four net points.
He then needs to pick up a net of ten points from white voters. There is significant space for him to grow among self-identified liberal Democrats and voters who consider Iraq and foreign policy the areas of greatest importance. However there is most likely significant overlap within these subgroups. Clinton will roll-up the conservative Democrats in the central part of the state (excluding State College) and do well with the white working class voters in Northeastern and Southwestern Pennsylvania. If she continues to hammer on NAFTA and has the press throwing up its hands in frustration over how confusing the Canadian side of the story is, she'll do very well here, and Obama can not count on making significant in-roads.
I think the most likely outcome is that the Clinton campaign (which is doing a good job of organizing its likely voters in SW PA at least) will break even with Obama's ground game, and grind out a healthy six to eight point win in the state, so my call is 52: 46 with 2 points going to 'other'.
Can Barack Obama accumulate 50%+1 pledged delegates
Unlikely, but plausible (10%-15% chance)--- The distribution of support for Obama and Clinton need to be arrayed in a very precise, heterogenous pattern that is minimally impacted by both campaign's strategic interactions. RuralVotes is projecting a Clinton blow-out, but I don't think this is likely given the make-up of the districts. Chris Bowers is also projecting a Clinton delegate win but by much smaller and to my local eyes, more reasonable numbers. For Obama to win the delegate count, he needs to win Philadelphia by massive margins (PA-1 and PA-2 by 80:20 margins (unlikely, but plausible) to rack up large SE PA delegate counts, win PA-14 by 19 points for a three delegate pick-up, and then run no more than 10 to 12 points behind in all of the even delegate districts and keep it within 15 to 18 in the remaining odd-delegate districts so that the splits are either 2:1, or 3:2 for Clinton. He would need a lot of things to go right, but if we assume a 90/10 African American vote split for Obama, as I did earlier in the post, the base for urban blow-outs is present.
Can Barack Obama do what he needs to do to maintain his overall edge over Clinton in Pennsylvania (90%)
As I see it, he just needs to avoid being blown out in the pledged delegate count, and the popular vote. The schedule becomes more favorable to him after Pennsylvania, and the number of outstanding delegates left to be won is shrinking rapidly. If Michigan and Florida are resolved without a do-over, he'll be leaving May with a string of victories for local momentum and a very solid pledged delegate lead, and at current trends, breaking even with Hillary Clinton in the superdelegate race. He will not have hit the magic number, but he'll be much closer. In Pennsylvania, he needs to do decent and not stick his hand or other appendage into a buzz-saw in order to do what he needs. And given the past history of his campaign, I am confident that a minimized loss operation is highly likely.
Can Barack Obama accumulate 50%+1 votes --- extremely unlikely, but plausible if Clinton withdraws or meltdowns
Can Barack Obama accumulate 50%+1 pledged delegates --- unlikely but much more plausible than winning the popular vote due to delegate allocation rules.
Can Barack Obama do what he needs to do to maintain his overall edge over Clinton in Pennsylvania --- highly likely.
Can Barack Obama accumulate 50%+1 votes (5% chance)
6 weeks out of the election, Barack Obama is trailing Hillary Clinton by approximately 14 points accordnig to Pollster.com's combined polling measure. He has been closing against Clinton since approximately September/October 2007 where his gradual uptrend inflected to a much greater slope. So can he close the remaining fourteen points in the next five and a half weeks? I don't think so.We can count on Obama to continue to consolidate his African American base, as Rasmussan has him up 79-13 in this demographic. SurveyUSA has Obama winning the African American vote 76:22. If we project that he continues to win the black vote by roughly 90-10 margins, and that African American voters make up 15% of the Democratic Primary universe, then he can expect to close the 14 point gap by four net points.
He then needs to pick up a net of ten points from white voters. There is significant space for him to grow among self-identified liberal Democrats and voters who consider Iraq and foreign policy the areas of greatest importance. However there is most likely significant overlap within these subgroups. Clinton will roll-up the conservative Democrats in the central part of the state (excluding State College) and do well with the white working class voters in Northeastern and Southwestern Pennsylvania. If she continues to hammer on NAFTA and has the press throwing up its hands in frustration over how confusing the Canadian side of the story is, she'll do very well here, and Obama can not count on making significant in-roads.
I think the most likely outcome is that the Clinton campaign (which is doing a good job of organizing its likely voters in SW PA at least) will break even with Obama's ground game, and grind out a healthy six to eight point win in the state, so my call is 52: 46 with 2 points going to 'other'.
Can Barack Obama accumulate 50%+1 pledged delegates
Unlikely, but plausible (10%-15% chance)--- The distribution of support for Obama and Clinton need to be arrayed in a very precise, heterogenous pattern that is minimally impacted by both campaign's strategic interactions. RuralVotes is projecting a Clinton blow-out, but I don't think this is likely given the make-up of the districts. Chris Bowers is also projecting a Clinton delegate win but by much smaller and to my local eyes, more reasonable numbers. For Obama to win the delegate count, he needs to win Philadelphia by massive margins (PA-1 and PA-2 by 80:20 margins (unlikely, but plausible) to rack up large SE PA delegate counts, win PA-14 by 19 points for a three delegate pick-up, and then run no more than 10 to 12 points behind in all of the even delegate districts and keep it within 15 to 18 in the remaining odd-delegate districts so that the splits are either 2:1, or 3:2 for Clinton. He would need a lot of things to go right, but if we assume a 90/10 African American vote split for Obama, as I did earlier in the post, the base for urban blow-outs is present.
Can Barack Obama do what he needs to do to maintain his overall edge over Clinton in Pennsylvania (90%)
As I see it, he just needs to avoid being blown out in the pledged delegate count, and the popular vote. The schedule becomes more favorable to him after Pennsylvania, and the number of outstanding delegates left to be won is shrinking rapidly. If Michigan and Florida are resolved without a do-over, he'll be leaving May with a string of victories for local momentum and a very solid pledged delegate lead, and at current trends, breaking even with Hillary Clinton in the superdelegate race. He will not have hit the magic number, but he'll be much closer. In Pennsylvania, he needs to do decent and not stick his hand or other appendage into a buzz-saw in order to do what he needs. And given the past history of his campaign, I am confident that a minimized loss operation is highly likely.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Primary Update
By Cernig
Down here in San Antonio, with 3% reporting, Clinton leads Obama by 6%. Across Texas as a whole, it's neck and neck with only 40,000 or so votes separating the candidates after 11% reporting. So much for Texas being a Clinton safe haven, eh? You have to worry that it shows up an electability problem.
Meanwhile, Texas has given McCain enough delegates to become the GOP's nominee. Amazingly, 30% of Texas Republicans still thought evolution-disbelieving Mad Mick was the right choice to lead the world's most scientifically advanced nation. Anecdotally, at my local Denny's about the same percent of the regulars would rather see Texas secede than suffer Clinton as president.
Vermont went massively to Obama and Rhode island went to Clinton by a smaller margin. As Libby says, it's not over.
Update Clinton pulls out a win in Texas. As usual, my horse-race predictions were wrong. Even though early results showed a 6% lead for Obama, as the night wore on Clinton caught and passed him.
Down here in San Antonio, with 3% reporting, Clinton leads Obama by 6%. Across Texas as a whole, it's neck and neck with only 40,000 or so votes separating the candidates after 11% reporting. So much for Texas being a Clinton safe haven, eh? You have to worry that it shows up an electability problem.
Meanwhile, Texas has given McCain enough delegates to become the GOP's nominee. Amazingly, 30% of Texas Republicans still thought evolution-disbelieving Mad Mick was the right choice to lead the world's most scientifically advanced nation. Anecdotally, at my local Denny's about the same percent of the regulars would rather see Texas secede than suffer Clinton as president.
Vermont went massively to Obama and Rhode island went to Clinton by a smaller margin. As Libby says, it's not over.
Update Clinton pulls out a win in Texas. As usual, my horse-race predictions were wrong. Even though early results showed a 6% lead for Obama, as the night wore on Clinton caught and passed him.
Election Day!
by shamanic
Well, I think we know what's going to eat the entirety of the next few news cycles, so let's get a head start:
Barack Obama has had what is probably his first really bad week of news in the campaign thus far, what with his adviser chatting up the Canadians about NAFTA on the eve of Ohio's primary and his former "associate", which I think is code for "friend", Tony Rezko going on trial for various financial shenanigans.
The Clinton campaign has aggressively pushed the narrative that the media has gone light on Obama, and I think there's truth in that. But really, what could they do? Clinton (both of them) are known quantities, and I think the sad fact is that there just isn't too much dirt on Obama up to this point. When confronted with bad acts, he corrects the situation as best he can and says things like, "that was a boneheaded move", which is about as disarming as you get. The picture that develops is someone who tries to stay within the bounds of propriety, which is a pretty strong contrast to the picture that develops if you listen to Clinton's advisors for five minutes or so. She's got a stable of people who came of age in a time when "propriety" was the moral high ground that losers could cling to, and her campaign is stamped with that.
So today the people of Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont vote. I have no idea what's going on in Rhode Island, but I imagine it a state of elderly white yankee biddies and assume a landslide for Clinton there. Vermont I am similarly ill informed about, but the granola image and blanketing whiteness of the state make me think it's an Obama stronghold. We'll see. I was surprised by New Hampshire.
The prizes, of course, are Texas and Ohio. Cernig, who lives in Texas, thinks Obama now has the upper hand there, and polls suggest he might be right. Ohio, which is apparently facing a massive ice storm in much of the state, seems to be solid Clinton country.
I've seen plenty of calls for Clinton to drop out if she loses both of the big prizes, but I think she's pretty certainly going to take Ohio and if she loses Texas, it won't be by much. She's in through Pennsylvania at least, so our Philly and Pittsburgh-area readers better get ready for the daily barrage of campaign coverage on your local news.
One of the biggest stories of this election that won't get the kind of coverage and analysis it deserves until the horse race is done is the fact that two campaigns are each apparently generating in excess of $1M a day from small donors contributing via the Internet. This is the dream for those of us who want corporate influence on politics reduced, and it appears that it is a dream shared by enough Democrats that we're able to fund two credible campaigns through an extended primary. Does anyone doubt that we'll fund the eventual nominee to a lesser degree?
What is public financing if not that? Both of you, opt out now and quit making it a campaign issue. Let McCain and his lackluster fundraising enterprise struggle. Trust the base that has already given so generously and take the White House in our name. It's what we're paying you for. Good luck with the weather Ohioans, and everybody get out and vote!
Well, I think we know what's going to eat the entirety of the next few news cycles, so let's get a head start:
Barack Obama has had what is probably his first really bad week of news in the campaign thus far, what with his adviser chatting up the Canadians about NAFTA on the eve of Ohio's primary and his former "associate", which I think is code for "friend", Tony Rezko going on trial for various financial shenanigans.
The Clinton campaign has aggressively pushed the narrative that the media has gone light on Obama, and I think there's truth in that. But really, what could they do? Clinton (both of them) are known quantities, and I think the sad fact is that there just isn't too much dirt on Obama up to this point. When confronted with bad acts, he corrects the situation as best he can and says things like, "that was a boneheaded move", which is about as disarming as you get. The picture that develops is someone who tries to stay within the bounds of propriety, which is a pretty strong contrast to the picture that develops if you listen to Clinton's advisors for five minutes or so. She's got a stable of people who came of age in a time when "propriety" was the moral high ground that losers could cling to, and her campaign is stamped with that.
So today the people of Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont vote. I have no idea what's going on in Rhode Island, but I imagine it a state of elderly white yankee biddies and assume a landslide for Clinton there. Vermont I am similarly ill informed about, but the granola image and blanketing whiteness of the state make me think it's an Obama stronghold. We'll see. I was surprised by New Hampshire.
The prizes, of course, are Texas and Ohio. Cernig, who lives in Texas, thinks Obama now has the upper hand there, and polls suggest he might be right. Ohio, which is apparently facing a massive ice storm in much of the state, seems to be solid Clinton country.
I've seen plenty of calls for Clinton to drop out if she loses both of the big prizes, but I think she's pretty certainly going to take Ohio and if she loses Texas, it won't be by much. She's in through Pennsylvania at least, so our Philly and Pittsburgh-area readers better get ready for the daily barrage of campaign coverage on your local news.
One of the biggest stories of this election that won't get the kind of coverage and analysis it deserves until the horse race is done is the fact that two campaigns are each apparently generating in excess of $1M a day from small donors contributing via the Internet. This is the dream for those of us who want corporate influence on politics reduced, and it appears that it is a dream shared by enough Democrats that we're able to fund two credible campaigns through an extended primary. Does anyone doubt that we'll fund the eventual nominee to a lesser degree?
What is public financing if not that? Both of you, opt out now and quit making it a campaign issue. Let McCain and his lackluster fundraising enterprise struggle. Trust the base that has already given so generously and take the White House in our name. It's what we're paying you for. Good luck with the weather Ohioans, and everybody get out and vote!
Monday, March 03, 2008
The future for Mark Penn
by shamanic
If Hillary Clinton manages to pull out the nomination and wins the White House, might I suggest that her first act as president be to have Mark Penn shipped off to Gitmo for some "enhanced vacationing"?
Even for the notoriously slimy business of politics, Penn is really something else entirely. Do it, Hillary. No one will mind. Quite the contrary, you would have the thanks of a grateful nation.
If Hillary Clinton manages to pull out the nomination and wins the White House, might I suggest that her first act as president be to have Mark Penn shipped off to Gitmo for some "enhanced vacationing"?
Even for the notoriously slimy business of politics, Penn is really something else entirely. Do it, Hillary. No one will mind. Quite the contrary, you would have the thanks of a grateful nation.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The value of Pennyslvania's potential relevance
I just got a forward from a good buddy and political contact of mine who is an Obama supporter. He lives just north of Pittsburgh and is getting inundated with Obama campaign material including most interestingly confirmation of paid field organizers who are hitting up the list of local highly connected activists for a Saturday training, canvassing and voter registration event. That is the first time I have ever seen a Presidential campaign hit up Pennsylvania before the Pennsylvania primary.
And this is why I think the ongoing race is a good thing. I was at Pittsburgh Drinking Liberally last night and besides catching up with some old buddies, listening to their new wives dish dirt and enjoying a good burger and wings, we talked politics and watched the debate. Everyone within this self-selected group of self-identifying liberals and progressives were reasonably happy with both candidates. Almost everyone had a preference but the other candidate was acceptable. And we were all excited that Pennsylvania may be relevant, and that the organizing that either/both campaigns unleash will be reinvigorating.
Right now the Southwestern Pennsylvania Democratic machine is the best organization out there for Democratic GOTV. In either narrowly cast elections with favorable demographics, or secondary elections (judgeships for instance) the progressive/reformer coalition is not that far behind, but the Democratic machine is still a superior organization.
However better does not mean 'good.' I know when I worked for America Votes in the fall of 2006, we were canvassing Democratic voters who had never been canvassed, never been GOTV-ed called and had not realized that there were other Democrats who lived six houses down from them or the next cul de sac over. Due to funding, manpower, and legal constraints (AmericaVotes PA could only work to directly support state legislaturers due to the legal underpinnings of the organization) we could only target a narrow geographic stretch in three or four swing State House districts around Pittsburgh. There is plenty of untapped Democratic strength that a primary campaign with sufficient resources should be able to unearth.
And this is why I think the ongoing race is a good thing. I was at Pittsburgh Drinking Liberally last night and besides catching up with some old buddies, listening to their new wives dish dirt and enjoying a good burger and wings, we talked politics and watched the debate. Everyone within this self-selected group of self-identifying liberals and progressives were reasonably happy with both candidates. Almost everyone had a preference but the other candidate was acceptable. And we were all excited that Pennsylvania may be relevant, and that the organizing that either/both campaigns unleash will be reinvigorating.
Right now the Southwestern Pennsylvania Democratic machine is the best organization out there for Democratic GOTV. In either narrowly cast elections with favorable demographics, or secondary elections (judgeships for instance) the progressive/reformer coalition is not that far behind, but the Democratic machine is still a superior organization.
However better does not mean 'good.' I know when I worked for America Votes in the fall of 2006, we were canvassing Democratic voters who had never been canvassed, never been GOTV-ed called and had not realized that there were other Democrats who lived six houses down from them or the next cul de sac over. Due to funding, manpower, and legal constraints (AmericaVotes PA could only work to directly support state legislaturers due to the legal underpinnings of the organization) we could only target a narrow geographic stretch in three or four swing State House districts around Pittsburgh. There is plenty of untapped Democratic strength that a primary campaign with sufficient resources should be able to unearth.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Ah, that's it exactly!
by shamanic
Seconding what John Cole said: "Hillary is a great candidate, but she has a terribly flawed coterie of scummy advisors."
This captures my views on the subject perfectly.
Seconding what John Cole said: "Hillary is a great candidate, but she has a terribly flawed coterie of scummy advisors."
This captures my views on the subject perfectly.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Pennyslvania Primary Update
Right now with Obama closing hard in Texas and Bill Clinton stating in the New York Times that he believes that Hillary Clinton needs to win both Texas AND Ohio to be the nominee, Pennsylvania is receding slightly in its chance to be the decisive state. But there are still a few tidbits.
First it looks increasingly likely that short of a massive gaffe/flub/case of potty mouth, Obama should win Pennsylvania if it is a contested state. Recent polling and trends at Pollster.com are showing that Obama is beginning to close the large Clinton lead that had been held mainly be inertia and institutional power. Today's Franklin and Marshall poll has him down twelve which is well within striking distance if both campaigns camp out in Pennsylvania for six weeks straight. Combine a better ground organization with the defensive wielding of the Teamsters and other 'tough' union endorsements to defuse some cultural resistance to voting for Obama, and this state is looking good for Obama. He would lose if voting was held tomorrow, but he has eight weeks to make up ground, and he has been a better mid-distance runner than Clinton.
Second, my Congressman Mike Doyle had an extended conversation with the Pittsburgh City Paper concerning his role as a super-delegate:
I am surprised that Congressman Doyle has not been aggressively lobbied by the Obama campaign as I think that Congressman Doyle should be a categorized as at least a 2 on a five point persuadable scale based on Iraq and environmental record, as well as his District's primary electorate demographics. They favor Obama in my opinion. Clinton's campaign in this case is the aggressive, competent and well run campaign even if they are categorizing Doyle as a tougher than median 'get.' They are making an extensive effort and as anyone in politics knows,the best way to get someone's vote is to actually ask for it.
First it looks increasingly likely that short of a massive gaffe/flub/case of potty mouth, Obama should win Pennsylvania if it is a contested state. Recent polling and trends at Pollster.com are showing that Obama is beginning to close the large Clinton lead that had been held mainly be inertia and institutional power. Today's Franklin and Marshall poll has him down twelve which is well within striking distance if both campaigns camp out in Pennsylvania for six weeks straight. Combine a better ground organization with the defensive wielding of the Teamsters and other 'tough' union endorsements to defuse some cultural resistance to voting for Obama, and this state is looking good for Obama. He would lose if voting was held tomorrow, but he has eight weeks to make up ground, and he has been a better mid-distance runner than Clinton.
Second, my Congressman Mike Doyle had an extended conversation with the Pittsburgh City Paper concerning his role as a super-delegate:
Gov. Ed Rendell and Philly Mayor Nutter are backing Clinton, while U.S. senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry are for Obama. (Doyle himself says he's undecided.)....
Anyone who thinks we can't wait to chomp on our cigars and get in a smoke-filled room and make a deal, that's crazy," he says. "We want to leave unified," and that means making it clear "somebody won fair and square."....
Still, Super Mike has been enjoying his moment in the sun. He's been phone-tagging with Hillary, and he got a call from Hillary's Super Hubby, who was hanging out on Super Bowl Sunday with Super Mike's previous favorite, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. "They first called a few hours after Richardson had dropped out," Doyle says. "That's how good they are."...
Super Mike has not received a call from Obama. He says he might be influenced if there's a big tilt among primary voters in his district. He says he might be influenced by a candidate's commitment to getting out of Iraq soon. Doyle had the balls to vote against the war in the first place, unlike a certain White Chick.
I am surprised that Congressman Doyle has not been aggressively lobbied by the Obama campaign as I think that Congressman Doyle should be a categorized as at least a 2 on a five point persuadable scale based on Iraq and environmental record, as well as his District's primary electorate demographics. They favor Obama in my opinion. Clinton's campaign in this case is the aggressive, competent and well run campaign even if they are categorizing Doyle as a tougher than median 'get.' They are making an extensive effort and as anyone in politics knows,the best way to get someone's vote is to actually ask for it.
Winning dirty
by shamanic
I hate the idea that Hillary Clinton's campaign now seems to be predicated on winning dirty, since it chumped the early primaries, blew Super Tuesday, and has now fallen behind.
I know it's politics and that politics is a nasty business, but really: this approach to it is exactly why a guy like Obama has caught on. I'm sick to death of scorched earth, win at all costs, to hell with the divisions we create politics.
The next few weeks are going to suck.
I hate the idea that Hillary Clinton's campaign now seems to be predicated on winning dirty, since it chumped the early primaries, blew Super Tuesday, and has now fallen behind.
I know it's politics and that politics is a nasty business, but really: this approach to it is exactly why a guy like Obama has caught on. I'm sick to death of scorched earth, win at all costs, to hell with the divisions we create politics.
The next few weeks are going to suck.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Hillary rules out losing
By Libby
I actually think Hillary's new website geared to changing the primary rules is a great idea. I'm all for it. Our present system is an archaic, convoluted mess that no longer serves the needs of the party or the people. It needs a major overhaul. I think we need more uniform rules and a more equitable calendar so all states get a chance to come into play.
I do have this little problem with her timing though. A challenge before the primaries started, or a call for a big revamp after November would have impressed me greatly. Maybe enough to have endorsed her. This attempt to change the rules for this election, in mid-stream, to benefit only her own interests, impresses me as nothing more than crass opportunism.
If there's an argument to be made for this strategy, I don't see it. She might as well put up a neon sign that says "I cheat to win" because that's how it will be perceived by the general electorate.
I actually think Hillary's new website geared to changing the primary rules is a great idea. I'm all for it. Our present system is an archaic, convoluted mess that no longer serves the needs of the party or the people. It needs a major overhaul. I think we need more uniform rules and a more equitable calendar so all states get a chance to come into play.
I do have this little problem with her timing though. A challenge before the primaries started, or a call for a big revamp after November would have impressed me greatly. Maybe enough to have endorsed her. This attempt to change the rules for this election, in mid-stream, to benefit only her own interests, impresses me as nothing more than crass opportunism.
If there's an argument to be made for this strategy, I don't see it. She might as well put up a neon sign that says "I cheat to win" because that's how it will be perceived by the general electorate.
Hillary Clinton; Plausible Paths and the Samson Option
BJ at Northman's Fury asks whether or not Hillary Clinton is trying to destroy the Democratic Party if she is not the nominee. He is concerned about the new 527s, the shenanigans concerning super delegates, pledged delegates and trying to seat Michigan and Florida at the convention.
I think this question is being asked too early. We must remember that the both the primary and general election contests are winner take all propositions with weak agreement enforcement mechanisms. The winner gets the prize and the attendant power that comes with being the nominee (controlling the party machinery and the lead groups within the coalition) or President while the loser has little real or effective means of retribution.
The incentive to stay in the race as long as resources remain available to pursue a plausible path towards victory is strong for all candidates. In the 2004 cycle, the only Democrat who did not follow this incentive structure was Dennis Kucinich, as all other candidates dropped out as their road map to win was destroyed by reality. In 2008 all other Democrats dropped out fairly quickly when it became apparent that they could not win due to lack of money, lack of organization and lack of votes. The same applies to the Republican side where even Ron Paul dropped out when it became apparent that he could not accomplish his objectives. The only signifcant 2008 exception to the plausible path continuation theory is Mike Huckabee as it is nearly impossible for him to win the nomination. Although if one wishes to be morbid, Huckabee has a chance at the nomination if McCain's health fails and he plays Last Man Standing.
And I think we can all agree that Hillary Clinton still has a plausible path of winning the Democratic nomination even if that path is a low probability path. Here is her plan with all of the contingent statements in it.
IF the combination of the 527 attacks, McCain attacks and Hillary campaigning can bring Obama down OR IF Obama screws up royally in the next two weeks then Clinton wins Texas and Ohio big time.
IF Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, that may provide some momentum, money and positive press for her, as well as negative pressure on the Obama campaign to make unforced errors which will allow her to not get wiped out in any of the small contests
IF Clinton can start pulling even by Pennsylvania on the national polls with both Obama and McCain, she wins Pennsylvania on the basis of the Democratic machine and a closer primary.
IF by the end of May, Obama and Clinton are effectively tied in pledged delegates,Clinton can play hardball from June to the second day of the convention and turn some delegates over at both the pledged and super levels as well as get Michigan and Florida favorably seated.
IF all of this happens she wins the nomination....
Yeah, there are whole lot of IF statements in this scenario and she needs all of them to be fulfilled for her to have a chance at winning the nomination, but this is a plausible path that has a 15% to 20% chance of happening according to Intrade. I would not worry about Hillary Clinton adapting a Samson option unless and until she loses the pledged delegate count in either Texas or Ohio.
If she loses the pledged delegate count in Texas and/or Ohio and does not drop out within the week then I think this is an extraordinarily relevant question. But until then, this campaign season has been very clean compared to the pre-Iowa anti-Dean attacks in 2004, or the Bush campaign in South Caroline in 2000. The first 527 ad is a benign and probably ineffective contrast piece, and I don't think they'll get that dirty. So no worries yet
The whole win whatever the cost, whatever the rules that have to be broken, whatever the bridges that must be burned, or who has to be thrown under the bus.
I can only hope that the Democratic Party itself doesn't allow such tactics to prevail, that the leadership decides to honour the will of the voters and not to enable the Clinton's personal crusade for power. Because if Obama walks into the convention with a considerable lead in pledged delegates and walks out having lost because of backroom dealings, it will tear the party to pieces and hand McCain the presidency.
I think this question is being asked too early. We must remember that the both the primary and general election contests are winner take all propositions with weak agreement enforcement mechanisms. The winner gets the prize and the attendant power that comes with being the nominee (controlling the party machinery and the lead groups within the coalition) or President while the loser has little real or effective means of retribution.
The incentive to stay in the race as long as resources remain available to pursue a plausible path towards victory is strong for all candidates. In the 2004 cycle, the only Democrat who did not follow this incentive structure was Dennis Kucinich, as all other candidates dropped out as their road map to win was destroyed by reality. In 2008 all other Democrats dropped out fairly quickly when it became apparent that they could not win due to lack of money, lack of organization and lack of votes. The same applies to the Republican side where even Ron Paul dropped out when it became apparent that he could not accomplish his objectives. The only signifcant 2008 exception to the plausible path continuation theory is Mike Huckabee as it is nearly impossible for him to win the nomination. Although if one wishes to be morbid, Huckabee has a chance at the nomination if McCain's health fails and he plays Last Man Standing.
And I think we can all agree that Hillary Clinton still has a plausible path of winning the Democratic nomination even if that path is a low probability path. Here is her plan with all of the contingent statements in it.
IF the combination of the 527 attacks, McCain attacks and Hillary campaigning can bring Obama down OR IF Obama screws up royally in the next two weeks then Clinton wins Texas and Ohio big time.
IF Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, that may provide some momentum, money and positive press for her, as well as negative pressure on the Obama campaign to make unforced errors which will allow her to not get wiped out in any of the small contests
IF Clinton can start pulling even by Pennsylvania on the national polls with both Obama and McCain, she wins Pennsylvania on the basis of the Democratic machine and a closer primary.
IF by the end of May, Obama and Clinton are effectively tied in pledged delegates,Clinton can play hardball from June to the second day of the convention and turn some delegates over at both the pledged and super levels as well as get Michigan and Florida favorably seated.
IF all of this happens she wins the nomination....
Yeah, there are whole lot of IF statements in this scenario and she needs all of them to be fulfilled for her to have a chance at winning the nomination, but this is a plausible path that has a 15% to 20% chance of happening according to Intrade. I would not worry about Hillary Clinton adapting a Samson option unless and until she loses the pledged delegate count in either Texas or Ohio.
If she loses the pledged delegate count in Texas and/or Ohio and does not drop out within the week then I think this is an extraordinarily relevant question. But until then, this campaign season has been very clean compared to the pre-Iowa anti-Dean attacks in 2004, or the Bush campaign in South Caroline in 2000. The first 527 ad is a benign and probably ineffective contrast piece, and I don't think they'll get that dirty. So no worries yet
Monday, February 18, 2008
Note to the Clinton Campaign
by shamanic
The only way to win is to compete. If you cede the bulk of the country to your opponent, you don't get to be president.
The polls have tightened considerably in Wisconsin because Hillary Clinton has chosen to contest it. She may still become the nominee. If she runs the general election the way she's run this primary though, we're screwed. Obama -- advantaged with a lot of cash and enthusiastic supporters -- has fought for every vote on every inch of soil all across the country.
She's got to make some miracles happen to win at this stage. Her strategy, a standard political strategy of focusing on the big states and ignoring the smaller prizes, has finally been revealed as the loser it always was. I question her wisdom and her management skills, and unless she radically turns things around and fast, I can't think of a single reason to support her quest for the nomination.
The only way to win is to compete. If you cede the bulk of the country to your opponent, you don't get to be president.
The polls have tightened considerably in Wisconsin because Hillary Clinton has chosen to contest it. She may still become the nominee. If she runs the general election the way she's run this primary though, we're screwed. Obama -- advantaged with a lot of cash and enthusiastic supporters -- has fought for every vote on every inch of soil all across the country.
She's got to make some miracles happen to win at this stage. Her strategy, a standard political strategy of focusing on the big states and ignoring the smaller prizes, has finally been revealed as the loser it always was. I question her wisdom and her management skills, and unless she radically turns things around and fast, I can't think of a single reason to support her quest for the nomination.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
CNN and women
by shamanic
Right now, CNN is reporting on whether women want a woman president. What a ridiculous story! How inane to suggest that I should support a candidate exclusively because of his or her (and my) gender!
I want a president who will raise America to a new state of greatness that will rival anything that has come before. If I thought Hillary could do that, I would support her without reservation. I just don't think she's that candidate. I think she represents a continuation of the bloodlust of our recent politics. I'm over it. I'm done with it. I'm not just voting against that, I'm voting for something better.
Right now, CNN is reporting on whether women want a woman president. What a ridiculous story! How inane to suggest that I should support a candidate exclusively because of his or her (and my) gender!
I want a president who will raise America to a new state of greatness that will rival anything that has come before. If I thought Hillary could do that, I would support her without reservation. I just don't think she's that candidate. I think she represents a continuation of the bloodlust of our recent politics. I'm over it. I'm done with it. I'm not just voting against that, I'm voting for something better.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Washington Blade endorses Hillary
by shamanic
Concluding that "Clinton has earned the support of gay voters in 2008," gay weekly the Washington Blade endorses her bid for the White House.
In so many ways, elections these days are simple for gay voters. One party will work against us in crass and hurtful ways, and the other party will basically leave us alone. If you're a (straight, old school) Republican, you might recognize the dichotomy and understand why gays overwhelmingly turn out for Democrats.
But is Hillary the best candidate for us? The Blade is right to note her experience, her political ability, and her willingness to build alliances with her political opposites, but to me all of these point back to the old Clintonian willingness to toss gays and lesbians under the bus when it is expedient to see us flattened.
If we are a community that seeks to be left alone, Hillary Clinton might be the right candidate for that. But 2008 seems likely to bring with it a widely expanded Democratic majority in the Congress, and the time for us to dream of what a government that takes us into account looks like is upon us.
Hillary Clinton, for all the ways that she is incredibly courageous, is not the candidate who will advocate for us when it matters. She's a Clinton, and she learned from the master.
2009-2010 is likely to be a congressional session when we can have almost anything we want. Eleven months out, every poll and pundit I've seen for the last year has predicted a broad victory by Democrats at every level. The repeal of DOMA is on the table, and that long-standing smear on gay families crafted by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich may finally be erased from the books. Unlike the other Dem candidates, Hillary Clinton doesn't support a full repeal of DOMA, only one piece of it.
This classically Clinton approach -- caution and incremental change -- is not what is needed from what may be the most gay-friendly congress in history. Gay and lesbian Americans today need a leader who will advocate sensibly and speak to those who may not have come all the way around on these issues. We have a real opportunity to make the kinds of legislative changes we've been dreaming of for decades. We shouldn't squander it by supporting a careful candidate who's spent those decades being tutored in the art of triangulation.
Concluding that "Clinton has earned the support of gay voters in 2008," gay weekly the Washington Blade endorses her bid for the White House.
In so many ways, elections these days are simple for gay voters. One party will work against us in crass and hurtful ways, and the other party will basically leave us alone. If you're a (straight, old school) Republican, you might recognize the dichotomy and understand why gays overwhelmingly turn out for Democrats.
But is Hillary the best candidate for us? The Blade is right to note her experience, her political ability, and her willingness to build alliances with her political opposites, but to me all of these point back to the old Clintonian willingness to toss gays and lesbians under the bus when it is expedient to see us flattened.
If we are a community that seeks to be left alone, Hillary Clinton might be the right candidate for that. But 2008 seems likely to bring with it a widely expanded Democratic majority in the Congress, and the time for us to dream of what a government that takes us into account looks like is upon us.
Hillary Clinton, for all the ways that she is incredibly courageous, is not the candidate who will advocate for us when it matters. She's a Clinton, and she learned from the master.
2009-2010 is likely to be a congressional session when we can have almost anything we want. Eleven months out, every poll and pundit I've seen for the last year has predicted a broad victory by Democrats at every level. The repeal of DOMA is on the table, and that long-standing smear on gay families crafted by Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich may finally be erased from the books. Unlike the other Dem candidates, Hillary Clinton doesn't support a full repeal of DOMA, only one piece of it.
This classically Clinton approach -- caution and incremental change -- is not what is needed from what may be the most gay-friendly congress in history. Gay and lesbian Americans today need a leader who will advocate sensibly and speak to those who may not have come all the way around on these issues. We have a real opportunity to make the kinds of legislative changes we've been dreaming of for decades. We shouldn't squander it by supporting a careful candidate who's spent those decades being tutored in the art of triangulation.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Pardon the contributors
by shamanic
News broke today that three people who were pardoned by Bill Clinton have donated, between the three of them, about $5,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign. It's a weird story to read.
As for charges that it's "inappropriate" for the men to contribute to Clinton's campaign, I would say a line is only crossed if they were solicited for funds based on her husband's benevolence to them. That would be massively inappropriate, and I would hope it would verge on the criminal, but there's no suggestion that such solicitation happened.
Let's explore my mixed feelings about this. Given the disparity in pardoning between Clinton and Bush (Bush is the stingiest pardoner of the modern era), the argument could be made that it's inappropriate for someone pardoned by Clinton to contribute to any Democrat. After all, they are more or less funding administrations that would issue more pardons, thus making them a type of unregistered lobbyist for those seeking pardons.
But that's ridiculous, of course. They are free and clear of the criminal justice system with all rights and liberties restored to them, and they are private citizens. They can contribute to whomever they please.
There's already a movement in the media to hunt down Clinton fund raising improprieties, the old (Clinton rules) "where there's smoke there's fire" scandal apparatus is again heating up. I would be curious to learn whether anyone pardoned by Reagan or Bush Sr. ever contributed to George W. Bush's campaigns (Bush did give several of them jobs in his administration, but who's counting?), for instance, but obviously fund raising problems only happen among Democrats who take money from recently naturalized Americans and so forth. When George Bush uses bundlers to raise $145 million from rich white dudes, it's all good, right?
It's November 2007 and I'm already bored and annoyed with the Clinton scandals of the next election. Iowa and New Hampshire, please don't make the country go through this again.
News broke today that three people who were pardoned by Bill Clinton have donated, between the three of them, about $5,000 to Hillary Clinton's campaign. It's a weird story to read.
As for charges that it's "inappropriate" for the men to contribute to Clinton's campaign, I would say a line is only crossed if they were solicited for funds based on her husband's benevolence to them. That would be massively inappropriate, and I would hope it would verge on the criminal, but there's no suggestion that such solicitation happened.
Let's explore my mixed feelings about this. Given the disparity in pardoning between Clinton and Bush (Bush is the stingiest pardoner of the modern era), the argument could be made that it's inappropriate for someone pardoned by Clinton to contribute to any Democrat. After all, they are more or less funding administrations that would issue more pardons, thus making them a type of unregistered lobbyist for those seeking pardons.
But that's ridiculous, of course. They are free and clear of the criminal justice system with all rights and liberties restored to them, and they are private citizens. They can contribute to whomever they please.
There's already a movement in the media to hunt down Clinton fund raising improprieties, the old (Clinton rules) "where there's smoke there's fire" scandal apparatus is again heating up. I would be curious to learn whether anyone pardoned by Reagan or Bush Sr. ever contributed to George W. Bush's campaigns (Bush did give several of them jobs in his administration, but who's counting?), for instance, but obviously fund raising problems only happen among Democrats who take money from recently naturalized Americans and so forth. When George Bush uses bundlers to raise $145 million from rich white dudes, it's all good, right?
It's November 2007 and I'm already bored and annoyed with the Clinton scandals of the next election. Iowa and New Hampshire, please don't make the country go through this again.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
"It's getting to be midnight"
by shamanic
Gotta agree with Donna Brazile, who tells Dem candidates, "I want to see if John Edwards will say to Hillary Clinton in front of everyone: 'You're not electable, and you know it, and you're going to hurt people down the ballot. It's time to stop whispering. It's getting to be midnight."
Often, elections go to the candidate who wants it more, and if there's another Democrat who wants it more than Hillary, it's past time to step it up. This is part of the reason why the Obama-Donnie McClurken-South Carolina controversy is so bad, because it's mired him in lousy headlines among a natural constituency for a week at a critical time in the campaign. I don't know if Digby is right that Obama is trying to Sister Soljah gays in order to reach African American voters in South Carolina, but if it costs him votes in other places (and it could cost him mine here in Georgia. Last night I was considering a protest vote for Kucinich, who is as uncompromising in his support of gay equality as he is hopeless in the election) then I don't know if he's gained.
Then again. our election system is so weird that maybe a strong showing in SC is necessary to save him, and a quick shout out to gay haters is a key element of his strategy. I'm hugely disappointed, and Kucinich looks like an easier primary vote by the day.
Gotta agree with Donna Brazile, who tells Dem candidates, "I want to see if John Edwards will say to Hillary Clinton in front of everyone: 'You're not electable, and you know it, and you're going to hurt people down the ballot. It's time to stop whispering. It's getting to be midnight."
Often, elections go to the candidate who wants it more, and if there's another Democrat who wants it more than Hillary, it's past time to step it up. This is part of the reason why the Obama-Donnie McClurken-South Carolina controversy is so bad, because it's mired him in lousy headlines among a natural constituency for a week at a critical time in the campaign. I don't know if Digby is right that Obama is trying to Sister Soljah gays in order to reach African American voters in South Carolina, but if it costs him votes in other places (and it could cost him mine here in Georgia. Last night I was considering a protest vote for Kucinich, who is as uncompromising in his support of gay equality as he is hopeless in the election) then I don't know if he's gained.
Then again. our election system is so weird that maybe a strong showing in SC is necessary to save him, and a quick shout out to gay haters is a key element of his strategy. I'm hugely disappointed, and Kucinich looks like an easier primary vote by the day.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Hillary & Women
by shamanic
Admittedly, Clinton pollster Mark Penn talks to more people than I do, but I don't believe for a second that Mrs. Clinton would grab the votes of 24% of Republican women drawn in by the "emotional appeal" of electing the first female president.
And I don't believe that the trend is as evident in the south as it is elsewhere. Nope. Not for a second.
Among the much smaller sample group I'm familiar with, friends, colleagues, family members, she's equally looked down upon here by people from both parties as well as independents.
Over the course of this cycle, my own view has changed. Initially, I was dead set against ever voting for Hillary Clinton for president, but her ability to ooze competence in all situations (so far, which is a real achievement) has won me over at least to the point that I won't sit the election out if she's the nominee.
But 24% of Republican women? You've gotta be kidding me.
Admittedly, Clinton pollster Mark Penn talks to more people than I do, but I don't believe for a second that Mrs. Clinton would grab the votes of 24% of Republican women drawn in by the "emotional appeal" of electing the first female president.
And I don't believe that the trend is as evident in the south as it is elsewhere. Nope. Not for a second.
Among the much smaller sample group I'm familiar with, friends, colleagues, family members, she's equally looked down upon here by people from both parties as well as independents.
Over the course of this cycle, my own view has changed. Initially, I was dead set against ever voting for Hillary Clinton for president, but her ability to ooze competence in all situations (so far, which is a real achievement) has won me over at least to the point that I won't sit the election out if she's the nominee.
But 24% of Republican women? You've gotta be kidding me.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
I have to agree with Hillary
by shamanic
It pains me to say it, but Hillary Clinton really stole the show the other night, and her campaign is correct that Barack Obama blew this answer.
I guess it's good that I'm finding a way to feel some level of comfort with her, because if the Hillary who was on stage the other night is the Hillary we see for the next 15 months, she's our next president. Furthermore, she'll be a really good president. She's relaxed, comfortable, highly intelligent, and thoroughly engaged these days.
I look at the withered field of useless Republicans and I think I can deal with that.
It pains me to say it, but Hillary Clinton really stole the show the other night, and her campaign is correct that Barack Obama blew this answer.
I guess it's good that I'm finding a way to feel some level of comfort with her, because if the Hillary who was on stage the other night is the Hillary we see for the next 15 months, she's our next president. Furthermore, she'll be a really good president. She's relaxed, comfortable, highly intelligent, and thoroughly engaged these days.
I look at the withered field of useless Republicans and I think I can deal with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)