CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
April 3, 2008 – 3:15 a.m.
Hillary Clinton’s New Math
By Madison Powers, Guest Columnist
Most people view Barack Obama as the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic nomination.
Obama himself makes the case on three grounds. He has the most pledged delegates. He has won the most states. He also leads in the popular vote count nationwide in states where party-sanctioned primaries and caucuses have been held. The math is on his side, however you calculate it.
In addition, the Obama campaign has worked hard to inoculate itself against the prospect that superdelegates, who count for almost 20 percent share of the convention delegates, might be tempted to alter the outcome of the primary process. Obama and many others have made a powerful case that there is a considerable risk of voter backlash should they overturn the decision of the voters in caucuses and primaries.
It is now clear that the Clinton camp is not prepared to concede this point. Instead, she is saying that there are established rules that allow the superdelegates to exercise their independent discretionary judgment and that we should let the process go forward.
Moreover, Clinton has now made it equally clear that she is prepared to let the credentials committee at the national convention decide whether, and to what extent, the results of the unsanctioned Florida and Michigan primaries will count toward determining the party’s nominee.
Other Democrats and some independent observers have suggested that she cannot win, or that she has but a slim chance of winning, or that she can only win at the cost of a deeply fractured party heading into an ultimately unsuccessful general election.
Clinton’s spin machine is selling the story that there is no front-runner. In their alternative reality, it is a virtual tie, and the race remains wide open.
Never mind that numbers gurus like MSNBC’s Chuck Todd tell us that Clinton can’t catch up, or that a recent column in The Politico thinks it’s utter fantasy on the part of the media to continue to act as if it’s a toss up.
To be sure, there is not much doubt about who has the front-runner status as long as Obama can recite the holy trinity of most delegates, most states and most popular votes.
It might seem that Clinton’s only way to the nomination is through an ugly floor fight over Florida and Michigan and the undemocratic intervention of the superdelegates. Indeed, Clinton has served notice that she is prepared to go that route if necessary.
Some Clinton supporters, however, have been searching for a different narrative by which she might be portrayed as the genuine democratic choice. They hope to find a path to victory that does not rest on persuading the party oligarchs to ignore the electoral math.
Some of the more exotic forms of the Clinton camp’s new math have been rehearsed on cable news programs and political Web sites.
One formula suggests that only the big, historically Democratic states should count, and so the big state primary winner is said to have the clear edge and has earned the mantle of real Democrat support.
One of many problems with the big-state formula is that it rests on the wildly implausible assumption that states such as New York and California will end up in the McCain column if Obama, rather than Clinton, is the nominee. Never mind that it also treats Democratic voters from red states and small states as irrelevant or extraneous to the process.
Sen. Evan Bayh , D-Ind., even suggested that we measure front-runner status by the primary state victories that provide the most Electoral College votes. For all the Democrats with bitter memories of Bush vs. Gore in 2000, this newly acquired taste for a winner-take-all approach to assessing the various statewide results is as unwelcome as it is unwise.
Is there, then, any other path to victory still available but with a more plausible claim of democratic legitimacy?
Clinton’s best hope is to find a way to argue to superdelegates that she is the front-runner by winning the popular vote nationwide. If she could accomplish that feat, competing claims of more states and more delegates would smack of what so many Democrats found unpalatable about the 2000 outcome.
Whatever else, more overall votes is easy to portray as trumping all other calculations.
It is mathematically possible that in the remaining 10 primaries Clinton can overtake Obama’s popular vote lead, but the margins of victory would have to be extraordinary. Also, the failure so far to engineer a re-vote in Florida and Michigan is widely seen as effectively closing the door on that prospect.
Clinton trails in popular vote by an estimated 700,000 or more votes. (Some official vote tallies are outstanding). But what Clinton has to do to close the gap depends on how you do the math.
If you count Florida, where both candidates agreed not to compete, the margin shrinks to just over 400,000. If you count Michigan, where Clinton but not Obama was on the ballot, the lead is further reduced to just over 100,000. Once more official votes are reported the gap may be larger, but the gap begins to close dramatically once these two states enter the equation.
By now, the hidden significance of a post hoc validation of the Michigan and Florida votes comes into clearer focus. The point is not just to ensure that Clinton comes close enough to Obama in pledged delegates and superdelegates such that she could then tout her momentum or argue that there is a virtual tie at the end.
If the popular vote gap is recalibrated at 100,000, she has a considerably smaller deficit to make up in upcoming primaries. She would be in the position to lay claim to a lead in the popular vote nationwide and argue that it would be undemocratic to follow the delegate count.
The arguments for counting Florida and Michigan are not just about pledged delegates. This move is a Trojan Horse strategy: if you count the voting results for these two states for the purposes of assigning pledged delegates, then along with it comes validation of the argument that the popular vote totals also get added.
Of course, right now she is not staking the case for her candidacy on achieving that goal, but if she does close the gap, as it gets redefined, then she ends up in a very different position than the one everyone is expecting her to take at the convention.
Clinton’s new math may seem far-fetched, but no more so than her claims that she won Florida and Michigan, or that counting their votes is what democratic values require.
Can’t you just see Bill Clinton leaning into the camera and wagging his finger as he makes the argument?
Madison Powers is Senior Research Scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University. His column appears regularly on Thursday in CQ Politics. For other columns by Madison Powers, click here.
Comments
"Hillary" once vociferously advocated the outright abolition of the Electoral College. Now her Hoosier Lapdog Pal Bayh trots out the notion of Electoral College vote supremacy. I say have both of them either committed or moonbeamed!
"only the big, historically Democratic states should count, and so the big state primary winner is said to have the clear edge and has earned the mantle of real Democrat support." Isn't Florida a historically Republican state? Furthermore, I thought she wanted 'all votes' to count, not just the ones that were convenient to her. I'm so sick and tired of this BS. Regardless of who you favor, this is not a good way to show how you would lead if you were President. You cannot change the rules of the game in THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME! I've lost all respect for the Clintons now. If she is anywhere on the ticket, President or VP, I will vote 3rd party.
Let's face it. Obama is unelectable. And Hillary CLinton actually has a bout a 1 million vote lead from Democrat voters over Obama. That is right, she has received more votes from Democrats than Obama has. The Florida and Michigan delegates will be counted and seated. Hillary will win in PA and several of the remaining contests by large margins. She is the best person for the job and the strongest candidate for the GE. Obama just does not have the support to win in November. Hillary does. New polls show that McCain would defeat Obama in PA and in FL, while Hillary Clinton would defeat both Obama and McCain in PA and FL. The Superdelegates are lie party elders who should decide who is the strongest candidate to win in Novembber. David Axelrod has also said this. Therer is a youtube video of his statements that the Super Ds should vote for the strongest candidate. Hillary Clinton is the best choice. She is electable. Looking forward to voting for Hillary Clinton, as are MANY of my friends and colleagues. Go Hillary!
HIllary Clinton is a disgusting hypocrite and anyone who supports her but bashed GW has no self-respect at all. Obama '08 for a better USA, for a better tomorrow.
If the DNC and super deligates fail to do their job then we will have McCain for 4 years. Even I a lifetime democrat will vote for McCain as well as post signage in my yard across from the voting poll. This is not a game and democrats will lose if Obama is nominated. Obama claims that he has won 1) the most states...this is not in any way counted nor should it be as the number of states makes no difference especially when most of his states are red states that he has no chance of carrying in the general election. 2) the most deligates....the deligate count is close but even closer when FL and MI are counted as they should be in this of all years. Obama agreed not to campaign in FL but then ran 10 days of campaign ads and still lost to Clinton. He removed his name from the MI ballot because he knew he would lose and wanted to use the "but my name wasn't on the ballot" whine....and also sent people to campaign against voting Hillary in MI and asked that they vote undecided.....that's campaigning so it is obvious that he broke his promises twice and then wants to cry about it. Both states should be seated as they voted. 3)the most popular vote...obviously with FL and MI the popular vote is tied and even without FL and MI, the PA voting will most likely erase Obamas lead in the popular vote. This game is not over but if it ends with Obama on the top of the ticket I and literally millions of people like me will vote McCain. It is not I as a woman over 40 that needs to be concerned with how the next 2 suoreme court justices are replaced by McCain becaus it is not women over 40 that need to worry about abortion rights....it is all of you young women that voted on who you would like to party with instead of who was qualified to run this country.
You know, assuming all of this does NOT happen, and Obama is nominated as expected, it would make a fascinating basis for an alternative or counter-factual history. Fascinating, and also horrifying.
The Clinton argument that because she has won many big states she is more electable in the general election has little merit. This ignores states where Obama has won and ignores the fact that the big states where Clinton has won, such as New York and California, are just as likely to go Democratic with Obama heading the ticket. There is no correlation between victory in primaries, many of which she won by a narrow margin, and winning in the general election. In general Clinton's support is limited to Democrats. In contrast, Obama has long had the support of many independents and some Republicans. As a result, he is likely to win the blue states which Clinton has won as well as being far more competitive in the battle ground states and even in some red states.
(US Veteran, Chapel Hill, NC) If I did not know better, I would say that you are Hillary yourself writing what you wrote. You speak her language without flaw. The fact is, you cannot take Michigan and Florida as they stand. Obama has made up ground, sometimes considerable ground in every single state that he campaigned in. To use numbers from states that he did not campaign in, or that his name did not even appear in is not logic, it is simple foolery. You also pulled up a couple of polls that you read yesterday, but you ignored all of the polls that show Obama ahead of Clinton around the country, Obama leading everyone around the country, Obama winning or contesting red states that Hillary cannot win. You also said Democrat voters instead of Democratic voters, you just may be Rush Limbaugh in here trying to screw things up again. Nice try.
Jodi, there are more of you (people that would leave the Democratic vote) on Obama's side than Hillary's side. I am one, and so are MANY of my friends. They do not trust Hillary, they do not like the fact that she forced so much negativity into a possible positive campaign, they do not like the NAFTA and bullet dodging lies and they do not like every rule being changed that does not favor Clinton. You cannot deny any of these things.
To argue that Obama is unelectable in April is crazy. It ignores the facts that despite the worst distortions of Wrights' sermon, he wasn't hurt after his speech. Today, his campaign announced they raised $40 mil with 218,000 new donors. The margin of victory in PA has narrowed to single digits, and superdelegates keep coming in. With 8 years of Bush Sr, 8 years of Bill, then 8 of W and 7 of Hillary in the Senate, there have been enough Clintons and Bushes in Washington to last a lifetime! Why argue about the future, it will take care of itself. The fact of the matter is at the present, Obama leads in all the areas that count. While the party has stated they will seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan, they will still probably have to be split 50/50 since no one but Hillary was on the ballot when they were held. She did support the party's position at the time since she was leading the in the election. That's changed now, so now the rules should change to suit her. I supported the Clintons, but frankly this election has reminded me how tiresome their constant fights and bickering and defending themselves became.
Technically, and that's what all this BS about stripping FL and MI of their constitutational rights to vote are, technicalities, FL's and MI's votes DO count. The DNC has no authority to strip votes, only delegates.
Mike Janczy writes : "The Clinton argument ..has little merit" You obviously have not seen the latest polls in the big battleground states. Clinton beats McCain. Obama is looks weak. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
Referring to the youtube aftermath of Rev. Wright, Joann writes "Obama...wasn't hurt after his speech." Isn't that nice. He makes it all better with a speech. Against the war in Iraq? Make a speech.( don't actually do anything about, just make a speech) So if he gets in , don't worry, whatever mess he gets us into, he'll just make a speech and we'll all feel better.
What's missing from this interesting piece -- and from virtually all other analysis in the media-- is recognigtion of the fact that under the DNC's own Delegate Selection Rules, the votes in Florida and Michigan need to be counted. The Rules, adopted on August 19, 2006 and posted on Party's website, http://www.democrats.org/a/convention_2008/delegate/, permit early caucuses and primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, with all remaining caucuses and primaries to be held between the first Tuesday in February, and the second Tuesday in June (Rule 11). The sanction for violation of these "timing" provisions is specified in Rule 20(C)(1)(a): a state which holds a primary outside the specified primary season "shall" have the number of its pledged delegates "reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of its alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent." There is nothing to suggest that the primary votes in non-conforming states are a nullity. The Rules and By-Laws Committee, apparently following the lead of Donna Brazile, came to the conclusion that the specified sanctions were insufficient, and voted to strip Michigan and Florida of all their delegates. But the Rules Committee determination in no way invalidated the primaries themselves, and the Credentials Committee of the Convention -- if it has any commitment to fairness and orderly procedure -- will certainly overrule the Rules Committee determination. Any fair calculation of the calculation must necessarily reflect the will of the voters in Florida and Michigan.
I wonder if some wise mathematician would count the numbes if the caucuses were dropped from the count? A caucus is an exhausting experience that is really open to people who have hours to commit to the process, senior citizens like my 96 year old mother and myself are not likely to participate - but we do vote. I think caucuses slant the numbers and give a picture very different from what could happen in a real election. Also, we vote in Michigan. Our votes should count and should count with equal weight to the votes of any other voters. Obama was as much on our ballot as Clinton , only he too the name of "other" so he could collect all of the anti-Hillary votes - and his people did campaign here.
Do we really want to put the Clintons back in our lives for the next four plus years. Having them around for this last year has been too much. Time for change. Vote Obama!
Jodi, Your comments are ripe with ignorance, as are all the Hillary or Bust attitudes out there. So you would rather have four more years of Bush policy than have Barack Obama as your president? There is no logic or reasoning to support your highly emotional response. The words "sore loser" come to mind. Your comments are either stupid, racist, sexist or any combination of the three.
No Terry B the votes don't count. I don't know if you remember but Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan because he did what every other candidate except Hillary did, removed his name from the ballot. In terms of absolute fairness, those votes don't count, and shoudln't count. The notion that they should is rather absurd.
In the final analysis, it is the electoral college math in the general election that should count. The Democrats have come oh so close in the last two Presidential elections. Gore carried 20 states (and DC) that totalled 267 electoral votes; but (officially) lost by a whisker in Florida. Kerry carried 19 states (and DC) that totalled 252 electoral votes. In 2004, the focus was on Ohio, but Bush prevailed in the Buckeye State 51 to 49%. The two elections were surprisingly similiar. Only 3 states were different: New Hampshire (with four electoral votes), Iowa (7) and New Mexico (5). Gore carried Iowa and New Mexico, but lost New Hampshire. Kerry won New Hampshire, but lost Iowa and New Mexico. All three States are battleground states. With at least 10 other States, they form the battleground for the general election. In contemporary parlance, they are the "purple" states -- everything else is either red or blue. The biggest states -- California, Texas and New York are almost irrelevant; It is assumed that the GOP will carry Texas; and the Dems will win in Cal and NY. Furthermore, the donkey party has to maintain their lock on Illinois and the Northeast -- every state from Maryland to Maine. The GOP has to hold on to the Old South; as well as border states like West Virginia and Kentucky, plus old reliable Indiana. Hillary Clinton's general election strategy is a traditional one. She wants to win big states like Florida (27) and Ohio (20) and finally put the Democrats over the top. Her strength is generally in states east of the Mississippi. Her strength is with more traditional Democratic voters nationwide and return them to the fold if they have left the flock in the past. Barack Obama is employing a different, almost revolutionary strategy, In this years' primaries & caucuses, he has shown his ability to attract new voters, Independents as well as many disaffected GOP voters. He has a broader appeal. He has shown surprising strength in states west of the Mississippi. Obama wants to win a majority of the States, and at least keep the GOP occupied in their safe zones. He counts on the West. He wants to win not only Iowa & New Mexico, but also Missouri (11), Colorado (9), and Nevada (5). No State is too small for Barack -- he'll go after Montana and North Dakota, both with just the minimum three votes. He will even spend time in McCain's home state of Arizona. As the old saying goes, there are several ways to skin a cat. A lot depends on the cat itself. It is looking like the the Democrats are picking the cool cat, regardless of his skin. The other cat? It appears she's just hot to handle.
Clinton (both of them) shamelessly continue to changes the rules and re-set the goal post to whatever is convenient to them at the moment. If It were not for the background of prior White House residency, and all the political capital (read: favors) accumulated, they would not be able to finagle this long. Apparently, they care litttle about the damage to their reputation or to the Democratic Party. Oh well, Obama was honorable enough to say "Sen. Clinton can run as long as she wants..." I concur. Let them (the Clintons) get the complete meltdown they so stubbornly call for. Then everyone will have to admit "Rocky" was knocked-out fair and square.
I agree Mr. J. Let them run as long as the Clintons can stand the humiliation and can afford to. The only thing is we all know that Hillary backers will never admit she got knocked out fair and square. They will whine about FL and MI (Hillary made a formal pledge that they didn't count for anything when she was in front. Funny how things change when she is losing and desperate), and a vast conspiracy against her, while trying to blame the defeat on ANYTHING and EVERYONE rather than Hillary, and her campaign's shortcomings and failures. Forget that she led, and screwed things up so badly that she is in her current situation. She can't strategize, she doesn't know the rules, she lies about everything, and is her own worst enemy. If she can't run a campaign, she can't run the country. You can't argue against that. Why in the heck do I want a sleep deprived misspeaker answering the phone (let alone anything else) at 3AM? If she were to answer it, she would just hand the phone to Bill anyhow, since her supposed "35 years experience" has all proven to be a sham.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: