Daily Archive

The blog passed, earlier this evening, 1,000 views (by WordPress’s count) for the month. It took only 6 days. While that trend might indicate 5,000 views for the month, a good proportion of that came over the past two days with all my blogging about Texas and Ohio, and primary-related posts (like my superdelegates post). I’ll certainly try to keep up the trend, but I don’t expect to get 5,000 views for the month. But it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Thomas.

Where to for Barack Obama? What does he need to do to ensure that he goes to Denver, Colorado, and the Democratic National Convention, with the most pledged delegates and enough momentum to sway the superdelegates that will decide this race?

While I’ve said that the schedule is favourable to him, we know that one bump is enough to set things off that would lead to a disastrous result. With that said, let’s take a look at what the schedule holds, and how he can use it to his advantage.

Wyoming is on March 8 - not far from here. Obama needs to turn around everyone who is looking at the Hillary Clinton ’success’ on March 4 to look at him once again, and quickly. Before this state heads to their caucuses. And he needs this state to be the early stop to any ‘momentum’ Clinton might gain from her March 4 results. The fact that there are only 121 delegates (and 6 superdelegates) up for grabs doesn’t help. But the trend that he has shown in winning states with caucuses that are traditionally Republican will mean that he stands the best chance at winning the state. If he can turn the win into a big win (60%+) then I think, even with such a small delegate count, it will take some wind out of the sails.

Mississippi is on March 11, and not long at all after Wyoming, or even now. If it were a state that Obama would normally struggle in, and needed time to build in-roads, then there would be some serious problems for his campaign. But Mississippi is a state that Obama is expected to go well in - because of location and demographics. Obama has won the southern belt of states right above Florida thus far - Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. And all of these by double-figures. South Carolina was a 55%/27% split to Obama, Georgia 66%/31%, Alabama 56%/42%, and Louisiana 57%/36%. These Southern states vary to the Southern states that Clinton has won. The Hispanic population in the Arizona, New Mexico, Texas belt that Clinton has won is quite high, with a lower African-American population. On the other hand, the African-American population in the Obama-belt is quite high, with a low Hispanic population.

Mississippi is the same as the rest of the Obama-belt. In the 2005 U.S. consensus, 37.24% of the Mississippi population was African-American, while the Hispanic population was less than 2% and the Asian population less than 1%. This is the highest proportion (for African-Americans) of population that any state has in the U.S. Obama has a clear advantage here, as even in Ohio and Texas, states that Clinton won, Obama still registered the clear winner among the ‘black’ vote. In Texas, he had a figure of 85% of the ‘black’ vote. The rest of the population is ‘white’, and while prior to yesterday Obama had a majority among white men, and was splitting white women, he managed to lose easily with women in Texas and Ohio, and did lose (though not nearly as bad) white men too. If we accept that that might be a ‘fluke’, and not a trend, then Obama should have Mississippi in the bag.

The fact that Mississippi is more rich in delegates than Wyoming does help the Obama campaign, as well as the state has primary voting. There are 33 tied to the vote, and 7 superdelegates. Another convincing win of 60%+ would take the remaining wind out of the Clinton momentum sails, and bring the campaign back to square one. What is square one? It’s before March 4, when Obama was on a winning streak and had a 100+ delegate lead. We can predict the 100+ delegate lead quite easily.

Assume that Obama manages these 60%/40% wins. Wyoming with 12, Mississippi with 33. For Wyoming, Obama wins 7.2 delegates with 60%, with Clinton getting 4.8. Now because Obama wins in the highly populated areas, where there are more delegates, all rounding goes to Obama. That leaves Obama with 8, Clinton with 4. For Mississippi, Obama gets 19.8 with 60%, Clinton 13.2. Again, with the rounding, Obama gets 20, Clinton 13. I also think that Obama might get a better result in Mississippi than in Wyoming, so I’ve adjusted that to a 22/11 split his way. That brings the counts to Obama with 1,550, Clinton with 1,439. Assuming that these figures are correct, and that no superdelegates pledge, then this is where the candidates will stand come March 12.

From there, 41 days must go by until the next state votes. That state is the very delegate rich state of Pennsylvania. There are 158 delegates tied to the voting there, with a further 30 superdelegates watching their state’s results. Unfortunately for Obama, Pennsylvania is a Clinton-esque state. It borders New York, New Jersey, and Ohio (all states that Clinton has won). Perhaps the Obama campaign can take some solace in the fact that the state also touches borders with Maryland, Delaware (2 states that Obama has won), and West Virginia (a state that Obama stands a reasonable chance in). It’s also a state that is similar to Ohio in terms of local economics. Like Ohio, Pennsylvania was affected by N.A.F.T.A. and the economic downturn of recent years in the U.S. Ohio was probably more hit by it, and yet, even with pledged support of the treaty, Obama couldn’t close a 10% gap with Clinton. Yes, there were some shock twists and turns at the end, but there were some mistakes somewhere along the line if the state couldn’t be turned off Clinton and her pro-N.A.F.T.A. stance.

The demographics slightly favour Clinton as well. The African-American population constitutes 12%, while the Hispanic only 4%, and the Asian 3%. So Obama has an advantage here. But the state has the 3rd highest population of 65+ peoples - a demographic that Clinton still is winning. The poverty rate is also quite high - 11.9% - which shows that the economy is hitting hard economic times. Yet the gross state product ranks the state 6th in the U.S., and the economy is so large that it ranks 17th in the entire world (ahead of Belgium, behind the Netherlands). The per capita gross state product however ranks the state at 26th. This is all because of the high concentration of blue-collar jobs. Only 10 states in the U.S. are more ‘industrialised’ than Pennsylvania. And with Clinton holding a bit of an advantage in the blue-collar and lower-class voters over Obama, she has the advantage here.

A bit of trivia: There is a county in Pennsylvania called ‘The King of Prussia’ - named after an inn in the area.

So with the large amount of delegate at stake with Pennsylvania, and Clinton’s relative advantage, is Obama looking at an unavoidable defeat? Not necessarily. I think that we are looking at another Ohio - but now, Ohio has come and gone, and Obama and his campaign team will have learned from their mistakes. Also, there is the time factor. There are 41 days until voting in the primaries begin. Unfortunately it’s not a caucus, or else we’d be looking at something totally different. Obama fares better when he has period of time to familiarise himself with the voters. He had time between the Hawaii and Wisconsin (February 19) and Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island (March 4) and he was able to peg back 2 20%+ leads that Clinton had and turned one into a 3% win for Clinton and another into a 10% win for Clinton.

The latest polls coming out of Pennsylvania (February 26) show a better prospect for Pennsylvania. 46% to Clinton, 42% for Obama; 49% for Clinton, 43% for Obama. Accept that these will change since the March 4 results. I’d say that Clinton will go up to, say, 52%, Obama down to maybe 40%, in the next poll to be released. But let’s assume, seeings I’ve said they are so much alike, that we get a replication of the Ohio results - 55%/43% split, with a Clinton win. Clinton then gets 91 delegates from the vote, Obama 67. I don’t think that will be the result, I think that it’s going to be a <5% difference either way (depending who has the better 41-day campaign). But let’s run with the Ohio results as the worst case scenario - the delegate count returns to a comparable level that we have now. 1,617 delegate for Obama, 1,530 delegates for Clinton. A 73 delegate difference (we have a 70-80 difference (Obama’s way) at the moment).

I’ll move onto the rest of the race in another post, because it’s getting long now. What I’ll do is finish up with what Obama needs to do for the next week and then the 41-days leading to Pennsylvania. In Wyoming, he can rely on his superior organisation on the ground for caucus, with additional campaigning. He needs to continue his message that has won him the mid-West (Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri) - economics knowledge, nothing radical, and the base message. Probably touch on national security and immigration, but not sit on his Iraq war argument, nor foreign policy, and maybe not that heavy (though do mention it) on the health care debate.

Come Mississippi, he needs to go back to his popular message - hope, inspiration, and change. Talk about universal health care, talk about immigration, and talk about the base message. Here he can rest of his trend of winning the ‘black’ vote, and then try and appeal to the ‘white’ vote in the state. The Iraq war, and his stance on it, should play very well in this Southern state among his targeted voters, so I expect to hear a bit about it. Obama needs to craft his foreign policy image, and provide some real counters and evidence to Clinton’s claims that he has nothing in this field. So I expect to see some about that. I think that the campaigning in Mississippi will be a more of what won him the 12-straight in February.

What I know will happen is that Clinton, after perceiving victory in attacking Obam, will continue it up until next Tuesday, and then stop it. The question is whether Obama will change his campaign (of not relying on attack, rather on message and presentation) for the next 5 days, or will he stay true to his former campaign. I expect some bite from him (some attacking), but seeings he needs to win these next states, and they are the sorts of states he has won before (though he tried and tested campaigning) then he won’t change things around.

Come the lead up to Pennsylvania, I would expect Obama to try the whole attacking campaign. He has enough time to try it, and if he fails, revert back to his old style in time to still make up ground. I think Clinton’s attacking will die off, but come maybe a fortnight from the Pennsylvania vote, it will start up again. If Obama does come out attacking her then I expect she will start up early. If he has well-crafted and good attacks on her, then he will make strong in-roads to Pennsylvania. If not, and they are as superficial as Clinton’s have been, then I expect them to be the 41 most dirty campaigning days on record. What happens after, with the vote, will be too hard to call then.

The good attacks for Obama is calling attention to her support of N.A.F.T.A. (but he does have to defend himself against a memo that ‘people’ (Clinton) are ‘claiming’ says he doesn’t intend to get tough on N.A.F.T.A. at all; he is just positioning himself better). Similarly, in Pennsylvania, I expect to hear the word ‘Iraq’ quite a bit. But also Obama should come out and attack Clinton on universal health care. This has been her topic for a while, but I can see a hole in her argument. For Clinton, you must sign up to a health care provider. Everyone, with no exception. If you don’t, you will be fined. Of course, if you can’t afford to sign up for the health care, you get fined anyway - making it harder to afford. For Obama, he wants universal health care, but isn’t about to fine you if you don’t sign up. He will only make it mandatory for parents to cover children - not that bad of an idea I think. Anyway, Obama should send out an ad that show people not being able to afford the health care, then getting a fine on top of that. What is Clinton’s comeback going to be for that? An ad that shows children getting treated? She’s got nothing, and Obama takes the issue back.

Also, the Obama campaign (and Obama himself) has already started making a big thing about Clinton and her tax returns - specifically, she not letting anyone see them. She must have something to hide if she and her husband had them sealed away in the Clinton Presidential Library, and is stalling the process to get them out in the open. I’m actually very interested to see what they contain now. I wouldn’t have cared had she released them in a timely manner. But now it’s different. She tried to hide them. Obama managed to turn this into the argument that she hasn’t been vetted properly. Many times Clinton has said Obama hasn’t been vetted, while she has been vetted for the past 15 years (which is laughable). With Obama pointing out that no one has seen her tax returns, he is accurately point out that here is something she hasn’t been vetted on, while he has. He can go pretty far with this.

That’s just my theorising about what’s to come. I’ll follow up with the rest of the primary race, from Pennsylvania to convention, in a later post. But for now, this is what I think will happen. I’ll be keeping tabs to see how right (or wrong) I am. But suffice to say, it will be an interesting race for some time. That’s not the best result for the Obama campaign, but here’s an approach that might just get the next best thing.

Thomas.

I was saddened to see the the news this morning reporting that Patrick Swayze is battling pancreatic cancer. I quite like the him as an actor and a person - bar one incident, you never saw him in the news for stupid or bad reasons. He was in a some good movies, and stared in one of my personal favourites Donnie Darko. He had a great performance in that film with a character that was genuinely difficult to portray. I’m glad to hear that his treatment seems to be going well, and hope that it continues. With fortune, he will be back in action soon. He deserves it.

Thomas.

Well, it looks like the Democratic party is in for one real fight - both with itself and then with the Republicans. While some people think that a Democratic president is a definite at the next election, I am less confident. I think that for each day Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are fighting against one another, it gets more and more difficult to beat John McCain in the general election.

How do we know this? How do we know that one of the candidates won’t be dropping out any time soon? By some of the rhetoric that is being thrown about, and by who is saying it. First, there’s the candidates. After the states were called (bar the Texas caucus), the candidates came out to do their speaking and spinning. While Clinton proclaimed that her victories justified hers staying in the race all the way to the end:

For everyone here in Ohio or across America who has been counted out but refused to be knocked out, and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you. The people of Ohio have said it clearly – we’re going on, we’re going strong and we’re going all the way.

If there was any doubt that she would stay in past Texas and Ohio, even with no real delegate gains, those doubts should be gone now. It’s incredibly disloyal to the party that she is supposed to be serving considering it is no easy feat to catch Obama. Barack Obama sort to reiterate this fact when he essentially claimed that he would be the Democratic nominee regardless of the March 4 results:

No matter what happens tonight, we have nearly the same delegate lead that we had this morning and we are on our way to winning this nomination.

And:

We still have what is close to an insurmountable lead in terms of winning pledged delegates.

It’s good to see confidence, but I really hope that he and his campaign haven’t got carried away after their February performance. Yes, they are in the best position to get the nomination, and yes, they have a good schedule from here-on-in, but I don’t want them to have lost sight on running the race, not running to the end.

You expect both candidates to come out and say that they won’t be giving up until the very last vote. I didn’t expect some of the heavyweights of the Democratic party to come out and say they will let it go to the very end though. Howard Dean is probably the most powerful Democratic figure in an ‘office’ these days. Al Gore is probably the most, but he isn’t exactly in ‘office’ anymore. It has fallen on Dean’s shoulders to attack John McCain, considering his party doesn’t have a candidate to do the attacking. This is a sad fact, but someone has to attack the Republicans to turn some of the attention away from the Democrats attacking each other.

Next on the hierarchy of power brokers is Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives. She should, theoretically, be able to get the House to sway either way seeings she is part of the majority. It’s assumed that the Democrats will continue their majority hold over the House (and maybe actually do something with it) after the general election. So having the Speaker on your side is a hefty political weight. But having control of the House means that she can either make of break policies and papers of a President, as well as the ability to block items that the President might want to go through. So she’s got so clout, which solidifies her spot in the list of people that could broker a deal between the Democratic candidates before the convention.

She won’t be doing that though. She’s said it publicly before, and also said that superdelegates shouldn’t ‘interfere’ and decide the process. But that was some time ago. She has unfortunately reiterated her position since the March 4 results became known:

The electoral process has to work its way. There are still many voters unheard from yet, and I think that our candidates both have the capacity to inspire, to bring out a big vote that will hold us in good stead in November, and I think that now is not the time for anybody to weigh in.

I wonder if she realises the damage a continued campaign does to the party and to the nominee? I also wonder if she’s one of these disillusioned people that think a Democratic president is a lock. It isn’t, and someone should tell her that.

Pelosi’s views are also shared by other powerful Democrats. House Majority Whip James Clyburn and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen have also stated similar things. Clyburn first:

It’s crazy to think that way, and it’s crazy to act that way. What our role is supposed to be is to extend the will of the people, not reverse it.

And then Van Hollen:

I do think it would be a huge mistake for the superdelegates to try and somehow overturn the judgment of the voters throughout the country.

This approach works well for Obama in the long run because he has a near-on insurmountable lead in terms of pledged delegates when you factor in his future wins too. But it still means we are waiting until August till he can begin his campaign against McCain. And by then, don’t think that McCain will have figured out the perfect campaign against either candidate in the 6 months he will have had touring and promoting himself.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, however, has split from the opinions of Pelosi, Clyburn, and Van Hollen:

The superdelegates were created, in my view, to bring their judgment, their experience and their commitment to success in the general election, and to bring that judgment to bear on how best we can accomplish the most success.

Superdelegates should exercise their conscience, regardless of what the pledged delegate totals might be at convention time. [Superdelegates] should bring their experience to bear on the question of the nominee. The superdelegates didn’t do a bad job with Abraham Lincoln. They didn’t do a bad job with Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson or even Harry Truman.

While this is a good idea, he’s allowing them to wait until the convention. And what’s worrying is that he doesn’t think the pledged delegate count really matters. So while he is speaking some sense, he is sounding like a fool also. Why wait until the very end to override the voter’s decisions? If you’re going to do that, best that you do it before everyone has voted, and you have a clear ‘winner’ by that standard.

So while I want the whole thing to finish up early, I am more in favour of leaning towards Pelosi & Co.’s ideas of having the superdelegates go with the candidate with more pledged delegates. It seems like the best way - more people have voted for a particular candidate, thus more people would want that candidate nominated. I know that this opinion would come as no surprise, but it really does seem like the best way of conducting business.

Anyway, that’s how we know we are in for a long fight here. There isn’t a party ‘elder’ really left to sit the two candidates down and figure something out. Nor is there much of a will from anyone. The Democratic party and candidates all seem content to let the primary race run out to the very end. Not a smart decision while you opponent is starting to campaign already. What will happen at the convention doesn’t seem to be any clearer either. How the candidate will be decided, seeings it’s impossible for either Obama or Clinton to reach the magic 2,025 number, is still up in the air. Hopefully the party can at least decide before the Democratic National Convention so that we all know.

Thomas.

A lot of political news to cover, so I’ll get right into it. Super Tuesday II is all but over now, and while counting for the Texas caucuses for the Democrats is still going, the rest of the primary voting has come in. I think it’s safe to say that Barack Obama supporters (like myself) will be a little disappointed in the voting results. While he won in Vermont (59% to 39%, 9 delegates to Obama, 6 delegates to Clinton), as expected, he lost in Texas, which was a bit unexpected. Obama was standing so well in the state over the past week, that his loss in the primary vote to Hillary Clinton by that margin (3%) was disappointing. If anything, a reverse was what many were hoping for, considering how strong she was supposed to be, and then how easily any lead she had was cut down.

With the caucus still out, the final delegate distribution is still undecided. But the primary distribution is still known. Clinton won 65 delegates, while Obama won 61. That’s a good result if you were only hoping to split the delegates, but I suspect that the Obama campaign was hoping to gain some from Texas. Of course, I think we have to do something that we did back when Super Tuesday version 1 came around, and Obama didn’t clean house as the last week of polls was predicting. Before he had started to really pick up in the polls, people were hoping for the results he got. When February ‘ended’, and March 4 was coming closer, people were hoping for a result like this in Texas. So being disappointed in the result might show signs of supporters getting ahead of themselves, and maybe it will bring them (us) back into a line of sight that shows Obama is still the underdog competing against the veteran Clintons.

At the moment, 40% of the Texas caucuses are reporting in, and Obama is leading 56% to 44%. With 67 delegates tied to the caucus results, with this figure, Obama is looking like picking up roughly 38, while Clinton picks up 29. And that would tip Texas to Obama on the delegate count - a prediction I made. Anyone who asked me will remember that said Obama should win Texas on the delegate count. I had begun to worry about his chances in the primary vote, but expected a repeated success in the caucuses. Of course, this result will turn the next day or two into a spin-fest as each campaign tries to claim victory in Texas. Seeings it’s a race for delegates, I think it’s obvious who wins.

Just looking a little closer at Texas, Obama continued his trend of winning the urban counties, while Clinton was left to win the rural counties. Obama won Dallas and its three surrounding counties (Tarrant, Denton, and Collin), Harris (in which Huston sits in) and the surrounding counties of Fort Bend, Waller, Washington, and Brazos, and he won Travis (which is home to Austin), and the adjoining Williamson, Bell, Hays, Blanco, Gillespie, Kendall, Kerr, and Guadalupe. And other than 6 other counties, that was is. With 254 counties going to the vote, Obama won the important and big ones. Clinton only won off the back of non-urban vote. This is a continuing trend in nearly every state.

Ohio was a little disappointing I have to say. Even when I predicted, to everyone who asked me, a 55% to 45% loss to Obama, I was hoping that it would firm up to a 5% difference, rather than a 10%. The final result was 54% to 44%, Clinton’s way. Once again, a while ago, the Obama campaign and its supported would have been rather happy with this result. Clinton was leading the state by 25%+ in regular polls. So Obama was successful in making himself a viable option to Clinton in a state that was expected to be hers. All 141 delegates were tied to the primary vote, of which 71 fell to Clinton and 59 to Obama. A 12 delegate difference isn’t so bad, but it’s enough to have Clinton come out ahead in terms of delegates won over the whole day.

Rhode Island went to Clinton, as expected - 58% to 40%. That’s just a result. Not good, not bad. Obama has 12 of those in his pocket over the history of February. So the fact that Clinton finally pulled out a ‘big’ win (in Rhode Island of all places) is probably more surprising than the actual result. 13 delegates fell to Clinton, 8 to Obama. What was interesting though was how close it got in some of the counties there. In the Washington and Newport county, the results were 51% for Clinton, 48% for Obama.

What do these results mean for the future of the Democratic primary race? That’s what I’ll tell you in the next post.

Thomas.