Wednesday, 03.12.08
The Road From Mississippi
Photo by JEMAL COUNTESS/Getty Images
The most important number for Hillary Clinton coming out of last night's defeat in Mississippi isn't twenty-three (Barack Obama's margin of victory, in percentage points) or five (the number of delegates he'll add to his almost certainly insurmountable pledged-delegate lead), but 98,589 -- his margin in the popular vote, which will be tacked on to his pre-existing edge of roughly 646,000. For Clinton to have any chance at persuading the Democratic superdelegates to put her over the top at the convention, this is the lead she needs to reduce or wipe away.
Clinton's only plausible path to the nomination is to cast herself as the candidate of democracy -- the people's choice -- by arguing that Obama's delegate lead has been built on caucus victories, and that her greater strength in primary contests means that she enjoys broader popular appeal. The argument isn't crazy -- caucuses are less democratic than primaries -- but it would be vastly more persuasive if Obama were up by only a hundred thousand votes in the popular tally, rather half-a-million or more. Which is why it's not enough for Hillary to win Pennsylvania, or to win the re-votes that may take place in Michigan and Florida. She needs to win big enough to make Obama's popular-vote lead drop toward statistical insignificance. And her rival's 99,000-vote margin in Mississippi makes that task all the harder.
Statistical tieJonathan Cohn tallies up votes, predicts a statistical dead heat, and urges superdelegates to choose the candidate most likely to "serve the party best, in the election and beyond." |
My head hurtsNPR's Melissa Block inspires mathematical vertigo, trying to make sense of the vote counts. |
Popularity contestMark Schmitt can't find "a scenario where Clinton comes out of this with more popular votes than Obama." |
(4)
However the popular vote is unknown and unknowable since it wasn't tallied in the caucus states.
It seems to me that the Clinton campaign is attempting to direct focus to this mythical popular vote in order to disenfranchise residents of the caucus states.
Obama's lead has been extended by caucus victories, but it was built on primary victories. The lion's share of Obama's delegates-- over 1,100-- have been earned in primaries. He has earned more delegates in primaries than Clinton. He has won more primaries (16) than Clinton (13), and he has won six primaries in states that are among the 20 largest in the country. So don't believe the fiction that Obama can't win primaries in big states.
On a related note, what is the point of the bogus "Clinton-wins-big-states" argument? If Clinton is given the nomination by virtue of winning 5 or 6 of the biggest states, what was the point of holding contests in the other states?
What is most repulsive about Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is that she wants to win at all cost, even at the detriment of the democratic party. The American politics is something of soap opera, that those of us that are not Americans like to watch. But the Clintons narcism has turned that around, it is now a turn off. And i change the tv channel whenever Hillary is on. Folks here would say that it does not matter because i am not an American, but it does matter. She always talks about how she can win the big states, what about the small states? I use to be a fan of the Clintons, and we even bought their books...but not anymore.
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
I think you're right about the popular vote. Obama made up for the popular vote gap from Texas last night.
Looks like BHO will also grab 5 pledged delegates from last night (not just 3).
Posted by cbg | March 12, 2008 10:49 AM