Clinton Flips on Superdelegates
Tom Edsall has the scoop: The Hillary Clinton campaign is urging superdelegates not to endorse anyone. It is obviously afraid of a cascade to Barack Obama. And rightly so, given the latest Quinnipiac poll in Pennsylvania, which shows Clinton leading Obama among primary voters by only 49 to 43 percent. That looks just about the same as Clinton’s current lead in Ohio.
This suggests the following situation if on March 4 Clinton wins in both Ohio and Texas--a dicier proposition every day, given the Texas numbers. As I’ve explained, she’s unlikely to get any significant delegate advantage out of such victories unless her support rises sharply in the next six days. And the Pennsylvania numbers suggest she’s not likely to get much delegate advantage out of an Ohio-size victory there. Pennsylvania selects 55 delegates statewide by proportional representation and 103 delegates by proportional representation in congressional districts. In addition, there are 14 “soft, unpledged” delegates. Including those delegates, a 49-to-43 percent victory would give Clinton a 29-to-26 advantage in statewide delegates. Six of the 19 congressional districts with 26 delegates have even numbers of delegates: probably no delegate advantage for either candidate there; score it 13 to13. The two black-majority districts in Philadelphia have 16 delegates: probably an 11-to-5 Obama advantage. If you assume Clinton carries each of the 11 remaining districts, all with odd numbers of delegates, she gets a 43-to-32 advantage there. Final score: Clinton 90, Obama 82.
In the 2000 race, Bill Bradley, after a big loss in Iowa and a narrow loss in New Hampshire, found it impossible to sustain his campaign for the five weeks before the next contest. He withdrew. The Pennsylvania numbers suggest Clinton would face the same problem, even if she wins both Ohio and Texas. A win in Pennsylvania would not be assured and would in any case not deliver a significant delegate advantage. Obama would have a big money advantage. Yet how could she justify withdrawing after just winning the nation’s second- and seventh-largest states?
A real dilemma for her and her party, which they will be spared if she loses Texas.
Tags: presidential election 2008 | Hillary Clinton | superdelegates
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (22) | Print
Reader Comments
Florida and Michigan - Still in Play
There is another important variable in Sen. Clinton's favor - two actually: Florida and Michigan. I remain surprised at how little discussion there is of this issue in the media, with over 300 delegate at stake between the two states.
Pro-Obama Democrats, many of whom to this day have not ceased shrieking about "rules" taking precedence over "votes" in the 2000 Florida re-count, seem not to be overly distraught that millions of Democrats in Florida and Michigan are being shut out of the nominating process due to party rules.
These are clearly very important states in the general election, and I find it hard to imagine a situation in which the powers-that-be in the DNC can, with a straight face, suggest the voices of voters in those states just don't matter. It would be fun to watch how the party officials completely deny the voters in those states a voice in the process.
Both states lean toward Sen. Clinton (she won both primaries), and it would seem foolish if she threw in the towel before the decision on how to deal with those two states is resolved.
Last Days in the Clinton Bunker
As her absolutely last chance, Hillary would now need huge landslide victories in BOTH Texas and Ohio, and everybody knows THAT is never going to happen. After March 4 it will be mathematically impossible for her to win, even if they threw in Florida and Michigan.
What will probably happen on Tuesday is a narrow victory in one, and a narrow the defeat in the other state, with delegate gains more or less cancelling each other out. Will she face reality then, or set yet another firewall? If she cannot make tough decisions, maybe she should not be President.
Research Matters?
Adam, Barry, & Ellen,
I respect your accomplishments in life, and the fact that you feel you've made an educated decision when choosing your candidate. But as you suggested Barry, research matters. I did some of my own about Senator Obama and his so called campaign of change.
In Neverland Senator Obama does not take money from registered federal lobbyists and pacs. This makes him pure, new, and different. But here in the real world Senator Obama does in fact take money from lobbyists and pacs. It was well documented in the LA Times last year. But since the media, and the citizenry in general, like theatre more than reality they've let Obama have a free pass (as has the Clinton campaign for some reason).
In the real world the candidate of hope and change is in fact a duplicitous liar and a fraud, who has exploited every loophole he can to violate his own pledge while maintaining his pose of purity (so much for your character argument Ellen). Read all about it since you obviously haven't (I assume this as you claim to be educated and have done research; but I find it hard to believe that a rational, educated person would support a candidate who violates the central principle of his campaign on a daily basis).
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681/
Senator Obama is not going to change Washington. He likes it just the way it is; especially if it gets him into the White House.
Yes, research does matter. It's too bad that the 10 million plus Americans who voted for him didn't seem to do much of it.
I'm not thrilled with the choices we have left. The substantive candidates; Biden, Dodd, and most notably Bill Richardson, were forced out of the race as the media started running with the Clintbama show in January of 2007, as if they were the only candidates that mattered. Now we're stuck with two candidates who are woefully under qualified to be President; who will both inspire Republicans to crawl over broken glass to vote against them.
I was really excited about this election cycle. I was thrilled about the prospect of getting the Shrub out of the White House. I was excited about Bill Richardson; the most qualified candidate that has run for President in my lifetime, and one that could handily beat any Republican. Instead, I'm already looking forward to 2012, and will probably end up voting for my cat in November. At least then I won't feel like a schmuck for voting for Obama.
I've always considered myself a Jeffersonian. But the more I read the comments on blogs like this, the more I think John Adams was right about the mob.
advertisement
