Tough Math on the Democratic Side

[no name 1]

March 06, 2008

By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat with a math problem. But the arithmetical difficulty that Barack Obama faces is fundamentally different from Clinton's: She doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to the nomination. He doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to a Democratic victory in the fall.

The spin-of-the-day from the Obama campaign on the morning after Clinton's victories in three of the four states holding primaries on Tuesday is that the New York senator cannot possibly overtake her rival's lead in "pledged" delegates -- that is, those won in primaries and caucuses -- and therefore has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

The arithmetic conveniently leaves out an essential part of the equation: Neither Obama nor Clinton can secure through the primaries and caucuses the 2,025 delegates necessary to win at the Denver convention without the votes of the superdelegates. And Clinton's stunning performance on Tuesday, particularly in Ohio, makes Obama's argument that superdelegates should automatically back the will of the voters -- and not use independent political judgment about who can best compete against Republican John McCain in November -- look like an awfully simplistic calculus.

Add up all the states he has won in his historic drive to become the nominee, including all of those small and deeply "red" Republican states where the Obama supporters boast of their candidate's transcendental appeal, and so far Obama has won in places representing 193 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Add up Clinton's victories thus far and she has triumphed in states representing 263 electoral votes.

Of course, some states in Clinton's column -- Texas comes most readily to mind -- that have a large trove of Electoral College votes are highly unlikely to wind up Democratic in the fall. But the same holds true for Obama, whose strength in southern Democratic primaries has rested on the huge margins he has run up among African-American voters. African-Americans are a crucial constituency for Democrats, but their votes in recent contests haven't been enough to win such states as Alabama, South Carolina or Georgia.

In a new memo, Clinton strategists Mark Penn and Harold Ickes point out that the 2004 Democratic nominee, John Kerry, lost these states and several others in which Obama has won primaries by 15 points or more. In Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas and Alaska -- all states the Obama forces point to with pride as evidence of an emerging "50-state strategy" -- no Democrat has won the general election since 1964.

So how has Obama fared in those states that are the crucial building blocks of a Democratic general election strategy? He's won his home state of Illinois, plus Wisconsin, Washington and Minnesota. Together, these states account for 51 electoral votes. Clinton has won her home state of New York, as well as California, New Jersey and Ohio, representing a total of 118 electoral votes. This sum deliberately leaves out Ohio and Michigan, which will be hotly contested in the fall.

There is a reason some states are called general election "battlegrounds." It is because partisan identification is roughly even, or because certain groups in the electorate, such as Catholics, Hispanics or blue-collar whites, switch their allegiances -- or split their votes. That's why Clinton made so much in her victory speech about the "bellwether" nature of Ohio: "It's a battleground state. It's a state that knows how to pick a president. And no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary," she said.

There is no papering over the depth of the problem Obama faced there. He won only five of the state's 88 counties, an inauspicious foundation for a general election campaign. Clinton trounced him among Catholic voters, 63 percent-36 percent, according to exit polls. She beat him among voters in every income category and bested him by 14 points among those making less than $50,000 annually.

This is why Pennsylvania, which is demographically similar to Ohio -- and a must-win state for Democrats in November -- is considered such fertile ground for Clinton on April 22.

The Democratic Party is indeed developing a general election problem, and it's only partly because Obama and Clinton will be sniping at one another for the next seven weeks. Obama, the leading candidate, still hasn't shown he has appeal in a large battleground state that will be pivotal in the fall. In this sense, Pennsylvania is where Obama's back, and not Clinton's, is up against the wall.

link

[Dan J 277]

This is pretty pointless really. As there will be many more taking part in the general election than did in the primary.

About 10% of voters in Minnesota took part in the caucuses, which is a lot greater than the past, of only 2-3%. But general election turnout is in the 60-70% range. Most of these people haven't really decided who they will vote for yet.

[no name 1]

This is pretty pointless really. As there will be many more taking part in the general election than did in the primary.

About 10% of voters in Minnesota took part in the caucuses, which is a lot greater than the past, of only 2-3%. But general election turnout is in the 60-70% range. Most of these people haven't really decided who they will vote for yet.

They missed out on deciding their nominee then.

The point of the article is to show neither can win it now, without FL & MI - not to dicuss turnout.

[mawilson 2,133]

It always cracks me up when I see basic first-grade arithmetic referred to as "math", let alone

"tough math", as if they were computing supersingular elliptic curves over p-adic fields.

[Dan J 277]

This is pretty pointless really. As there will be many more taking part in the general election than did in the primary.

About 10% of voters in Minnesota took part in the caucuses, which is a lot greater than the past, of only 2-3%. But general election turnout is in the 60-70% range. Most of these people haven't really decided who they will vote for yet.

They missed out on deciding their nominee then.

The point of the article is to show neither can win it now, without FL & MI - not to dicuss turnout.

Many primaries/caucus were closed. You would have to declare yourself a supporter of the party before the primary date.

After McCain took quite a lead, I have no doubt there were Republicans and other voting in the open primaries for Hillary, because they saw her as easier to beat.

[no name 1]

This is pretty pointless really. As there will be many more taking part in the general election than did in the primary.

About 10% of voters in Minnesota took part in the caucuses, which is a lot greater than the past, of only 2-3%. But general election turnout is in the 60-70% range. Most of these people haven't really decided who they will vote for yet.

They missed out on deciding their nominee then.

The point of the article is to show neither can win it now, without FL & MI - not to dicuss turnout.

Many primaries/caucus were closed. You would have to declare yourself a supporter of the party before the primary date.

After McCain took quite a lead, I have no doubt there were Republicans and other voting in the open primaries for Hillary, because they saw her as easier to beat.

Based on your own special feelings?

Deflection from the original topic as well.

[Dan J 277]

This is pretty pointless really. As there will be many more taking part in the general election than did in the primary.

About 10% of voters in Minnesota took part in the caucuses, which is a lot greater than the past, of only 2-3%. But general election turnout is in the 60-70% range. Most of these people haven't really decided who they will vote for yet.

They missed out on deciding their nominee then.

The point of the article is to show neither can win it now, without FL & MI - not to dicuss turnout.

Many primaries/caucus were closed. You would have to declare yourself a supporter of the party before the primary date.

After McCain took quite a lead, I have no doubt there were Republicans and other voting in the open primaries for Hillary, because they saw her as easier to beat.

Based on your own special feelings?

Deflection from the original topic as well.

I know some of Hillary's support comes from people who think she is easily beatable. The question is how much, it would be difficult to get data on that.

Do you want to actually discuss anything, or like metta, you just rather repost blog posts that have opinions you agree with.

[no name 1]

This is pretty pointless really. As there will be many more taking part in the general election than did in the primary.

About 10% of voters in Minnesota took part in the caucuses, which is a lot greater than the past, of only 2-3%. But general election turnout is in the 60-70% range. Most of these people haven't really decided who they will vote for yet.

They missed out on deciding their nominee then.

The point of the article is to show neither can win it now, without FL & MI - not to dicuss turnout.

Many primaries/caucus were closed. You would have to declare yourself a supporter of the party before the primary date.

After McCain took quite a lead, I have no doubt there were Republicans and other voting in the open primaries for Hillary, because they saw her as easier to beat.

Based on your own special feelings?

Deflection from the original topic as well.

I know some of Hillary's support comes from people who think she is easily beatable. The question is how much, it would be difficult to get data on that.

Do you want to actually discuss anything, or like metta, you just rather repost blog posts that have opinions you agree with.

Why don't you stick to the topic at hand & discuss that? Coming in random threads & posting your own .02 doesn't make your point any more valid.

It might be a blog but it contains very real facts. I know its; hard to take that Obama has math problems too, but the truth is the truth.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This is pretty pointless really. As there will be many more taking part in the general election than did in the primary.

About 10% of voters in Minnesota took part in the caucuses, which is a lot greater than the past, of only 2-3%. But general election turnout is in the 60-70% range. Most of these people haven't really decided who they will vote for yet.

They missed out on deciding their nominee then.

BS. There are many independent voters out there - in terms of not being registered either way. In many states, those cannot vote in the primaries but will vote in November. Winning or not winning the Democtratic primary in any state is no indication whether the Democrats can win this state in the general election. You Clintonites really have some fuzzy math and freaky logic going on here.

[Dan J 277]

While this article is based mostly on speculation, Survey USA has released a couple of maps based on polls.

Both are predicted to be able to win over McCain. With Obama having the slightly higher margin.

There are specific limitations to this exercise. The winner’s margin in each state is not always outside of the survey’s margin of sampling error. Rather than show states where the results are inside of the margin of sampling error as “leaning” or “toss-ups,” SurveyUSA for this illustration assigned Electoral Votes to the candidate with the larger share of the vote, no matter how small the winner’s margin. The Democratic nominee is not yet known. Running mates on neither side are known. These are not surveys of likely voters, these are surveys of registered voters. Those caveats stated, the exercise is a remarkable foreshadowing of how contested, and how fiercely fought, the general election in November may be, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. And the exercise speaks to which states may vote one way or the other, depending on who the Democrats nominate.

The sources with more explanation and charts:

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03...276-mccain-262/

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/03...280-mccain-258/

[Niels Bohr 72]

When did politics became a math problem?