Yes, 2016

A comment was left on my blog in regards to a post I had written about the political future of Andrew Cuomo. In it I theorised that he would be well positioned for a possible 2016 presidential run. Of course, making theories about an election in 8 years borders on insanity and/or obsession. But it is enjoyable. The comment, which has spurred on this post, had the author’s own potential list of candidates for the Democrats and Republicans in 2016. The list was:

Democrats:
Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, Deval Patrick, Andrew Cuomo

Republicans:
Jeb Bush, Bob McDonnell, Bobby Jindal, Meg Whitman, John Thune, Marc Rubio, John Kasich, John Corbett, Chris Christie

It’s an interesting list and could likely form the basis of a whole post in itself (which I might get to). But, for the most part, I think it falls short in a few areas. The first issue is age, which I have added following the candidates. The ages shown are what their age will be in 2016:

Democrats:
Joe Biden (74), Hillary Clinton (69), Mark Warner (62), Deval Patrick (60), Andrew Cuomo (59)

Republicans:
Jeb Bush (63), Bob McDonnell (62), Bobby Jindal (45), Meg Whitman (60), John Thune (55), Marc Rubio (45), John Kasich (64), John Corbett (67), Chris Christie (54)

Quite clearly, there is a disparity in the age groups. The Democrats have two candidates who are, now, too old to run and win office (I doubt very much that either will even run, to be honest). And, in this list, there is no ‘fresh blood’ like we see on a Republican list.

There is also a problem with the Republican list in that Whitman, Rubio, Kasich, and Corbett are yet to win the races they are running in for bigger offices – governorship or senator duties. Similarly, Bush has no office. Christie won an election that was at the worst possible time for Democrats, who also had a largely ineffective and corrupt governor. So those two possibilities are, well, if-fy as well.

McDonnell, Jindal, and Thune are, to my mind, serious candidates. I actually think Thune will run and make a serious go of it in 2012. If circumstances go Republican ways, which all indications are they will come this November, then the GOP gets their fresh blood. So there is the possibility that the Republicans will have their ‘fresh blood’.

But where is the Democrat’s fresh blood? No one is really looking at the up-and-coming Democrats as the party proceeds to let down the hopes of the peoples who got them elected. But no one seems to be looking at the people toiling beneath  the surface, trying to get some serious things worked up and passed. This post, then, is just a simple list of people I think, with the right circumstances and the right political moves could make something of a serious play in 2016.

The obvious additions are the more high profile candidates that you’ve probably heard of before. They are in a position, currently that, if they keep them (or even gain some more experience in other higher-up fields) to 2016, they will have a serious platform to run from. Their age in 2016 and current job is listed following the name:

Kirsten Gillibrand – 50 (Senator for New York)
Maria Cantwell – 58 (Senator for Washington)
Claire McCaskill – 63 (Senator for Missouri)
Jay Nixon – 60 (Governor for  Missouri)
Brian Schweitzer – 61 (Governor for Montana – though is only a good candidate assuming he finds a job in politics from 2012 after his term limit forces him out)
Tim Kaine – 58 (Governor for Virginia)
Kay Hagan – 63 (Senator for North Carolina)

That list, however, is a little boring to me at the moment. I mean, there are some interesting candidates and all, and an exciting prospect at getting a President Schweitzer, Cantwell, or McCaskill would be. But these people are all high-stakes players in the current political scene – the current political scene that couldn’t get a strong health care reform bill through, that can’t get (and won’t get) serious finance regulatory reform through, and won’t move on the environment or discriminatory social issues. I understand that they don’t make big steps because they are afraid to lose their jobs, and thus joepardise their chances of this big future that lays in front of them. But I have always thought it would be better to be a one one-term somethings than a two-term, four-term, ten-term ‘meh’.

So the following list is a bunch of people I would keep my eye on if they get a few rolls of the dice that go their way and – most importantly – get some bigger jobs in the political world (at least nationally recognised jobs or executive jobs):

Rahm Emanuel – 57 (Former congressman from Illinois and the current Chief of Staff for President Obama)
Joe Sestak – 65 (Representative from Pennsylvania)
Cory Booker – 47 (Mayor of Newark, New Jersey)
Lisa Madigan – 50 (Attorney General for Illinois)
Patrick Murphy – 43 (Representative from Pennsylvania)
Gabrielle Giffords – 46 (Representative from Arizona)
Stephanie Herseith Sandlin – 46 (Representative-at-large for South Dakota, could though save a run for 2022 (52) or 2028 (56))

Of course, this last list of names stands to be better positioned 2016 or later. Add four years to get to 2020 to the above ages and nearly everyone is still young enough to run for office should a Republican win 2016.

As I said, obsessive and insane to be predicting this sort of stuff this early. But watching a few names, what they do, and how they do it between now and, say, 2013/14 (when things will start to firm up) is something to keep me interested in the whole US political scene.

Because the Democrats’ slow walk towards the cliff’s edge is really not as interesting as you migh think.

Thomas.

Pennsylvania and delegates – who wins what?

I think I’ll run with a draft that I’ve had on the burner for a post, before I move onto Barack Obama’s oratory style tomorrow (as suggested by Ottayan). This post is all about Pennsylvania. It’s not the first time I’ve written about the next primary state. First was a post where I outlined what Obama needed to do to sure up his numbers in Pennsylvania, and listed 4 things to do with the delegate narrative that he needed to have everyone thinking about. Second there was a post concerned with what sort of campaigning you could expect to see from Obama in PA. I was pretty on the button with those two posts, so here’s hoping the third on the state is too.

Also, I used Pennsylvania as an example in my explanation of what ‘delegates’ are. While an interesting post for the explanatory purpose, it also details the margins of victory that Hillary Clinton needs to win by, and what progressively different margins will nett her in terms of Obama’s delegate lead. Suffice to say, 10% and 20% wins for Clinton don’t quite cut it.

So we have Pennsylvania, a state that is diverse and interesting. It favours Clinton on paper – being rural and working class, hitting an economic downturn, and full of white Democrats. It’s quite similar, as I have been saying for some time now, to Ohio – a state that Clinton won with ease. The past few days have been rather rough for Obama in the media. While it probably won’t have any major, lasting effect (until we come to the general election), it will probably hurt Obama’s numbers in PA. Why? Well, I have diagrams to explain that!

But before we get to the pictures, we have to look at a few statistics. Clinton has been ruling in rural areas, while Obama has been unbeatable in urban areas. Clinton has been winning the farming/less-populated/’wide open plains’ when it comes to most states. Of course, Obama has been winning the mid-West, but they are traditionally Republican states, and caucuses, of which Obama has better control over. He has better ground teams, he isn’t a Clinton, and he has been better prepared in these states for longer than Clinton has remembered she is in a primary race. But, in states where there is a contrast between the big city-centres and the rural areas (which we don’t really find in the mid-West states), Clinton has won the rural vote, Obama the urban vote.

That’s why Clinton is favoured to win Pennsylvania – there are large patches of rural counties. For the first picture (all of which you can click on for a bigger and clearer version), I bring you a population density map of PA:

As is obvious, red is the more populated areas, dark green the less. The bulk of the population is in the South-East counties, in Philadelphia and its surrounding suburbs, and in the West, in Pittsburgh and its surrounds. At the end of the day, these are the areas that Obama is going to hope to stay competitive or win the state with:

We have a length of red to the North of Philadelphia, which is Scranton; to the East of Philadelphia, which is Lancaster nearer and Harrisburg further away, and the city of York between and below them; directly North of Philadelphia is Allentown and Bethleham; in the middle of the state we have State College; and right up in the North-West corner is Erie, all of which have higher areas of population, and thus a place for Obama to look for votes.

Obama’s main hope, as I outlined in my first post about Pennsylvania and what he should do in campaigning across the state, was to get victory through winning these areas convincingly, and then try and get some of the surrounding counties as well. Of course, to win the state he had to win these circled areas convincingly, as I said. With his latest comments about “bitter”, I think Obama should hope to win these circles areas and little more. The comments he mad most directly affected people in the rural areas, and begins to speak to the people in the outlying counties to these high-density areas. If the “bitter” remarks aren’t taken care of soon, I think that they will cost Obama the state. Not in as much as he won’t get a “win” (he will keep Clinton to a sub-10% lead – a “win”), but he won’t be able to to actually win the state himself.

So what congressional districts are these areas in, and how many delegates do they have? I’ve jimmied another map (dodgey though it may be) to show you. First, here are the congressional districts that are up for grabs:

Here’s a link to the Wiki page that gives you a closer view of them. Remember, for PA, there are 19 congressional districts up for grabs, with 103 delegates tied to them combined. For those districts that have a higher density of people, there are more delegates up for grabs. And here is the population density (with circles!) thrown on top of that:

So, for the areas that Obama is going to perform well in (and hopefully keep this race close), we are going to be looking at results coming in from all districts other 9. You can see from the map that the circles don’t even encompass and significant part of congressional district 9. Similarly, other than the State College, district 5 isn’t even touched by a circle.

Districts 1 and 2 on the Eastern side are ripe for Obama to win. The same goes for district 14 on the Western side.

While I’ve circled most of districts 6, 7, 8, 13, and 15, and while they do have high population areas, are suburbanite districts, not city-dominated districts. The same can be said for district 18. While it is in the circle on the West, it is composed of suburbs and rural voters, which hurts Obama’s chances even with the flow-on from votes that are going to have been cut off from district 14 (Pittsburgh).

Erie only makes up a small part of district 3, and there are no other population centres there, which will make that district difficult. The same goes for district 12 – I haven’t circles Johnstown, but it’s a populated city, but with little else in the district to help Obama.

Districts 10 and 11are divided down the Scranton column that’s circle up in the North-East, which hurts Obama because the votes will be spread across to 2 congressional districts, instead of pooling in one – sort of a diluting effect with the rural vote.

District 16 has Lancaster and is small, which helps Obama. The same goes for 17, though substitute Harrisburg for Lancaster (though it is a bit bigger than district 16, so this might turn into a worse district that it could be). And once again, the same goes for district 19, though with York as its high-population area.

That’s the situation each congressional district (CD for this paragraph) finds itself in, in my opinion. Now, what about delegates? CD1 has 7 delegates up for grabs, and is Obama favourable: Obama 5, Clinton 2. CD2 has 9 delegates, and is very good for Obama, a tight, packed, inner city district: Obama 7, Clinton 2. CD3, with 5 delegates, only has Erie to help Obama, and a lot of rural votes, so expect to lose the district: Obama 2, Clinton 3. CD4 and 5 delegates, is, again, mainly made up of suburbs and voters that don’t trend Obama, so another loss: Obama 2, Clinton 3. CD5, and while huge and full of rural votes, we know how Obama spurs on the youth vote, and they turn out in droves for him, thus managing him a tie for the 4 delegates here: Obama 2, Clinton 2. CD6 with 6 delegates will be a tie because of the suburban and rural votes going against Obama and the outer-city votes for him: Obama 3, Clinton 3. CD7 is made up of the Philly suburbs again, like CD6, and should be another tie, though with 7 delegates, it can’t be: Obama 3, Clinton 4. CD8 have 7 delegates, and will go exactly the same way as CD7 (should be a tie, but can’t): Obama 3, Clinton 4. CD9 is a Clinton cake-walk, though only has 3 delegates, and thanks to the 15% threshold, Obama is assured 1 delegate at least: Clinton 2, Obama 1. CD10 will be a tie for the 4 delegates there because the urban votes are split between two districts: Obama 2, Clinton 2. CD11 is the district that also has split votes and suburbs, and has 5 delegates: Obama 2, Clinton 3. CD12 is one that Obama won’t be as competitive in for the 5 delegates: Obama 2, Clinton 3. CD13 is in close to Philly, and should be good for Obama, but I suspect that the suburbs will help Clinton get over the line for the 7 delegates here: Obama 3, Clinton 4. CD14 is an Obama favourite for most of the 7 delegates, though with an aging population on the western-side of PA, Clinton will figure in here: Obama 4, Clinton 3. CD15 is the ‘burbs again, and that which will get Clinton the majority of the 5 delegates here: Obama 2, Clinton 3. CD16 will be a tie for the 4 delegates because of the smaller size, Lancaster being more populated, and less suburbs: Obama 2, Clinton 2. CD17 will turn out the same as CD16 thanks to Harrisburg being significantly bigger than Lancaster, making up for the bigger size of this district with 4 delegates: Obama 2, Clinton 2. CD18 is a mix of suburbs and a touch of rural for Clinton, while just the run-off of Pittsburgh’s voters from CD14 for Obama, and with the aging population there too, Clinton’s strengths will show among the 5 delegates: Obama 2, Clinton 3. CD19 with 4 delegates will go the same way as CD16 and 17, a tie for the 4 delegates: Obama 2, Clinton 2.

This brings totals to 51 delegates for Obama, 52 delegates for Clinton. You’ll note that for most of the districts, I erred on Clinton’s side when it came close. That’s because I worked on the basis that she would win by sub-10% at 52% to 48%, and wanted the districts to end up reflecting that. I went slightly in Obama’s favour on CD2 which threw the 52%/48% formula out a little. If it was a uniform 52% anyway, Clinton would get 53 delegates, Obama just 50.

If the 52%/48% is true, then she gets 11 PLEOs and 19 at-large delegates, Obama just 9 and 16, bring their respective totals to 82 and 76. Clinton then netts less than 10 (6 to be accurate) on Obama’s current delegate lead. Considering he will likely win more than 6 more delegates than Clinton in North Carolina, it won’t be surprising to see all the media outlets and Obama campaigners call this a loss.

You can see that my explanation on delegates and distribution from my previous post is true – you can win states just on the highly populated areas alone. Obama has done it before, and while he probably won’t win this state, he makes it a much more tighter race by concentrating on those areas. Of course, if the “bitter” fiasco hadn’t come up, then congressional districts 6, 7, 8, 13, and 15 would all come into play for Obama, and some would have swung to him, and given him a district-level delegate lead (which would have probably translated into a state-wide delegate lead).

And that’s my prediction on Pennsylvania 82 delegates for Clinton, 76 for Obama, at a split of 52% to 48%. I get to these through the explanation in this post on the assumption that Obama will be able to move everyone on from the “bitter” remark. If he can’t, then it will probably move to 55% to 45%, Clinton’s way. But I have faith in Obama that he can do that. Here’s hoping he can!

Thomas.

Barack Obama – What’s next?

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.

Super Tuesday X – The summary, and the next steps

So this will probably be my last post about Super Tuesday. It will would be desperate to blog about it further. But considering I spent most of last night thinking about how the whole day played out, and how it’s going to impact things down the line, for Obama, I thought all that brain power could be put to use in a post.

So here we are, days after the votes were cast. Who is the winner? Who is the loser? Given the shape of the race, who the candidates are, and what the results were, Barack Obama was the winner. Slightly, but he was still the winner. Remember that Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee through all of 2007, and then again after she won New Hampshire and nearly won Nevada. Also remember than Hillary is a Clinton, and the political and people weight that that name carries. Keeping all this in mind, for Obama to win the majority of states and lose (in the total vote) by only 0.4%, I’d say Obama did a damn good job of keeping the race close and tight. He won more states, he won some by huge margins, and he pulled off upsets. That’s only possible if you’re a real contender, and not a hanger-on.

Didn’t you hear? The difference between votes was 0.4%:

By midday Wednesday, 14,645,638 votes were reported cast for either Obama or Clinton on Tuesday. Clinton had won 7,350,238 of those votes (50.2 percent) while Obama captured 7,295,400 votes (49.8 percent).

That, my friends, is a very tight race for someone who was supposed to have the nomination stitched up by midday Wednesday. Don’t believe anything that’s being said to the contrary – the Clinton campaign was expecting to have the nomination the bag bag by today. Or, when things started looking tight, at least have Clinton as the obvious frontrunner. By the close of the day though, all she had done was do the minimum that she had to do. She kept her home states and won California. But New York and California weren’t as big wins as the campaign had expected just a few weeks ago. Had she not delivered on these, then she would have taken a step into 2nd place, become the underdog, and would have handed the nomination over to Obama then and there.

Why would Obama have been the clear nominee had Clinton lost, say, New Jersey or California? Because the news cycles would have been covered with Obama’s face, and then all the stories would have been about ‘giant killer’ Obama. The media would have tossed Clinton aside and written her off. Obama would have obtained so much momentum that there would be no stopping him. Now though, what we have is a tight race that is going to go on for months – and that’s what the media is saying now too. Of course, the Obama campaign has known that if he was to stand any chance, he would have to run a very tight Super Tuesday, split the delegates, then continue through the rest of the schedule that really favours him. The schedule favours him because all of Clinton’s fortresses are out of the way. Where is the next state that you can say “Clinton will walk that in”? Now where. New York, New Jersey, California, Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas. They were all Clinton locks and supposed to be the ammo she used to throw at Obama and put him out of the race.He’s weathered them all and survived quite well. She couldn’t even get the upper hand with them. So now what does she have? Nothing in the immediate schedule.

The schedule, through February, is as follows:

• 9th – Louisana primary, Nebraska caucus, Washington caucus;
• 10th – Maine caucus;
• 12th – Virginia primary, Washington, D.C. primary, Maryland primary;
• 19th – Hawaii caucus, Wisconsin primary

There’s a very good chance that Obama can win all of those. That’s not based on polling data, it’s based on looks at the state. Louisiana has a huge ‘black’ vote voter block which really favors (75% or higher) Obama, while having and a very small ‘Latino’ vote, which will hurt Clinton’s chances. Nebraska, Washington, and Maine are all caucuses. Obama has done extremely well in caucuses (won the Iowa caucus, won all six on Super Tuesday). D.C. too has a huge ‘black’ vote, while also having a comparatively small ‘Latino’ vote. And again, Maryland also has a big ‘black’ vote. Hawaii, another caucus, is Obama’s birth state. Maybe there will be something there for him along that line of approach? Virginia’s primary will have a lot of voters that have regularly come out in support of Obama – educated, higher income voters. Wisconsin is, really, the only state in the process that could go to either candidate, looking at its demographics.

The Clinton campaign hasn’t even taken a serious look at these states though. While Obama is well organised in all of these states, Clinton’s website doesn’t even have a page devoted to the next states. The campaign has completely ignored them, absolutely reinforcing the fact that they thought they would have the nomination sewn up by then. And it’s when this inevitability is removed that Clinton will really begin to suffer. She polls so high on name recognition. If people recognise her name, but are hearing that not only is she not a lock to win the nomination, but her opponent who you haven’t heard of is beating her, then you’re not likely to turn out for her. Maybe you won’t turn out at all, maybe you will go vote for the other guy. But it’s when Clinton is no longer seen as the presumptive nominee that it starts to hurt her, and hurt her bad.

And with all of those states favouring Obama, can you imagine the momentum he would gain posting victory after victory through an entire month, without letting your opponent eve get a shoe in? The momentum will work two ways as well. It helps the chances in the states, sure, but it also sures up superdelegates who want to get onto the ‘winner’. If tere’s a nominee who is going strength to strength and looks unstoppable, then the superdelegates are going to get behind him. Momentum gets superdelegates, and with a lot of superdelegates out, momentum is coveted. A couple of big wins in the February states too, and the delegate count begins to look overwhelming as well. The Clinton campaign has seen this on the horizon for some time, and done nothing about it. Why? Because they expected to have the nomination by now. But now that they haven’t, well, I expect there is a bit of panic around town.

Creating more panic for the campaign I expect is the latest issues surrounded money. Through January, Clinton raised something around $13 million. That’s a good effort in any normal primary race through the first month of voting. But Obama managed to raise a whopping $32 million! Obama’s grassroots are really thriving, while Clinton’s attempts at raising money are faltering. And money is going to be a big issue moving forward.

Let me explain some contribution rules. A donor can only contribute only $2300 to a campaign. Clinton managed to get many $2300 donors early on. But they are instantly maxed out, so they can’t donate again. Obama, either knowing that his supporters wouldn’t be able to give in $2300 hits, or knowing that going about raising money that way was stupid, actually focused on equaling Clinton’s donation by getting 23 $100 donors. Now, come the crunch, Obama’s donors can still donate. They can all donate another $100 for February. Then again in March. They can continue to donate through to the very end. The Obama campaign has said that only 2-3% of their donors have maxed out the $2300 limit. And one third of donors who gave $200+ (the sorts of people that would continue to give significant amounts) have maxed out. Apparently 10,000 people gave amounts of $5-$10, and 90% of his money came from donations of less than $100. They raised $28 million through internet donation in January – more than Howard Dean managed through his entire 2004 campaign. Over 70% of Clinton’s donors are maxed out. That’s how Obama’s going to win the money wars, and Clinton will lose. She has tapped all her big donors, has no small donors. Obama has many small donors who can continue to fund him. Genius.

What wasn’t genius was to get a heap of money fast, and then not be prepared for what happens after Super Tuesday. Again, this supports the fact that Clinton thought they would have the nomination by the end of Super Tuesday.

With that news coming out in January – that Obama’s campaign was raising record amounts – Clinton had to ‘donate’ $5 million of her own money to her campaign. Last month, in that $13 million, was $5 million of her own money.The Clintons are rich, but they aren’t Mitt Romney rich (who has put in something like $35 million dollars of his own money to his campaign), and at some point they have to stop handing over their own money.

On an ironic note though, the Obama campaign announced that they raised $2.2 million in less than 24 hours! They nearly raised half as much as Clinton had to contributed herself in 24 hours.

Why does money matter? In the ‘big’ states to come (like Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio) advertising is very expensive. They both need to get it out there too. Obama will be able to, simply, advertise more. These big states aren’t for a while away, and if she saves her money for them, then she will lose all these ‘middle-to-small’ states in February. And if she does, it won’t matter how much money she has.

Estimates now say she will be ok, at current spending levels, through to early March. But if she doesn’t pick up big bucks soon, she will be broke by then. And everyone is expecting the race to go through April, May, and June. That’s a lot of thin butter. Similarly, there are reports out saying that staffers are now working without pay. The last campaign to try that was Rudy Giuliani’s, and what happened to that? Died, and was ruled a failed campaign. It’s not like the Clinton campaign is about to die tomorrow, but it’s not looking good when your staff is working without pay. It suggests problem.

The Obama campaign, The Clinton campaign, and every pundit knows that the more time Obama spends in a state, the better he goes. It shows in the votes. He won Iowa – a state he spent a lot of time in. Then the gap between Nevada and South Carolina allowed him to spend a heap of time in S.C. and he walked it in there. The same goes for some of these Super Tuesday states. That’s the next factor that comes out of Super Tuesday – there’s no big clusters that doesn’t allow for extended face time. On the 9th, there’s 3 states. Then 1 state, then three states, then two states. With the demographics on his side, face time can be reduced in some areas, extended in others. After the 19th of February, there isn’t one the 4th of March – and that’s the ‘big’ Ohio. He has weeks to show himself to the people of Ohio. And everyone acknowledges that time helps Obama, and hurts Clinton. Then, after March 11, there isn’t another primary until April 22! A huge gap. The schedule is on Obama’s side.

To wrap this up: I said a while ago that Obama just needed to see Super Tuesday out and not let Clinton have established a lead of any serious kind. He did that. That means Super Tuesday is his win. Splitting the delegates was a win, and split them he did. That was the step of Super Tuesday for him. The first step after it is to go very well through the February primaries and caucuses. It’s favourable to him, and the demographics are leaning towards him. The polls will start to come out, the media will get on, and the news cycles will start to propel him further. Can Clinton handle what will become Obamuary? Can she stay in it with money, with states, with votes, and with delegates? Or will her loss at Super Tuesday be the first step towards her dropping off, and eventually dropping out? February will be the biggest month of the primary year I suspect, and not just because of Super Tuesday. It stands as the month that Obama can establish himself as the frontrunner and the Democratic nominee. He just has to play it all right, and work hard at it.

Thomas.

Super Tuesday IX – Some fallout

So what happened? Who were the winners and who were the losers? There’s only one clear winner today, and that’s John McCain. The man has all but stitched up the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney is the only clear loser today. As one man on CNN (who provided, by far, the best coverage of the day) put it “The only thing Mitt Romney can spin about today is that he’s got good hair.” That’s about all that Romney won. Mike Huckabee also came out ahead – streets further than I would have put him at – but it wasn’t enough to challenge the nomination. And, of course, Ron Paul plain old sucked. Really, I want to know where all those Internet people (also known as nerds) got off thinking that Paul had any real chance. While I said that he would be the best Republican candidate, I never for a moment thought he’d win the nomination.

The only murkiness that remains surrounds the Democrats. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have come out of this with any significant lead. Granted, the Obama campaign was never expecting to come out with a significant lead, but I can remember even a month ago that Clinton supporters were claiming she’d have the nomination in the bag by this hour. It must be disappointing for their campaign that she now finds herself in a rather tight race.

What the Clinton campaign will take hope from is the staying power of their candidate. As you read here, there was a late surge by Obama in polls everywhere. In places where Clinton wasn’t campaigning hard, that can be understood. But in places where she was supposed to win, that’s something that’s pretty rare. I had been saying for the past few days that if Super Tuesday actually was Super Friday, Obama would have won hands down. The momentum that he had over the last days of campaigning was huge, and as a results, if there was even two extra days, those surging poll numbers would have translated into actual votes.

Unfortunately, Obama didn’t pick up enough of the crucial states to make a real impact on Clinton. He needed any combination of two of these:

• Win/split the New York delegates;
• Win/split the Californian delegates;
• Win/split the Massachusetts delegates;
• Win/split the New Jersey delegates;
• Win/split the Connecticut delegates

Some of those, going by the polling numbers that were coming in, were very much on the cards. He pulled off a win in Connecticut, which was very welcome, but he needed another North-East state to show that it wasn’t a fluke. I’d be very disappointed in the Massachusetts Democrats – a state where he was endorsed by both Senators (Kennedy and Kerry) and the Governor, and he couldn’t get more than % of the vote. Splitting the vote here should have been an outcome. And California. And New Jersey. The polls pointed towards that as an outcome.

I wonder if the polls were premature or if they scared more Clinton supporters out to the streets. New Hampshire was like that – the Obama win in Iowa actually brought more Clinton supporters to the booths. It’s exactly the same as what will happen if she runs as the Democratic nominee – her presence scares Republicans out to the polls in droves. Either way, it looks like it happened in the pro-Clinton states this time around.

What is good is that Obama won more states than Clinton. This will feed the fires of electability. The argument has been raging, but has received less attention than the who race/sex debate on T.V. so far. The primaries should really be who is more electable. And, if that’s the judge, then from today’s performance, you’d say Obama, and give him the nomination. He won more mid-West states, has won as many Southern states in the whole race (and will likely win more than Clinton), he has snagged a couple of North-East states too. All-in-all, he has delivered in all the different parts of the U.S. at a better rate than Clinton.

However, the biggest disappointment, and probably the only legitimate one, is how he fared in California. I suspect the campaign was expecting a really tight race there so that he split the delegate count. If he had won it, then it would have been a whole new race. But that was never on the cards until the last polls came out. What was always expected was a close race. Closer than what was the outcome – 10% between the two (52% to 42%). A 5% or less difference would have been ideal; a win a dream. But it didn’t fall that way.

Obama’s big percentage wins in Alaska (75% to 25%), Utah (57% to 39%), Colorado (67% to 32%), Idaho (79% to 17%), Minnesota (67% to 32%), Kansas (74% to 26%), North Dakota (61% to 37%), Illinois (65% to 33%), and Georgia (67% to 31%) are what kept the big loss down. Obama has won significantly more delegates than Clinton across all of these, especially Illinois. These states kept his losses in the ‘big’ states to a reduced impact. Those ‘big’ states that Clinton won – California, New Jersey by 10%, Massachusetts by 15%, New York by 17%, Tennessee by 13% – might have hurt a lot more if those large percentage wins in the rest of the smaller states wasn’t so high or frequent. Similarly, those states where the two have split the vote (Connecticut, New Mexico, Missouri) have helped Obama stop any more of a lead that Clinton might establish. And finally, by picking up states that could have, had Clinton won them, created momentum for the opposition (Delaware, Alabama, New Mexico, Missouri), he has created momentum for himself, gained more delegates, and come out with an advantage.

So, to wrap this up. A week ago, if someone had shown me these results, and the end numbers, I would have been quite happy. I guess that when the polls started to suggest something miraculous, I should have been more wary. The day wasn’t an Obama sweep in terms of delegates. But thankfully, neither was it a sweep for Clinton either. And with more delegates to be factored in, though a current delegate count of 825 to Clinton and 732 to Obama (93 difference), I’d say that it was a very good day for Obama. Then remember that he won 13 states, possibly 14, and it turns into a fantastic day for him. Momentum and news cycles going into the next phase of the race. And that phase is in 3 days time, where Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana vote for the Democrats. For the Republicans, it’s the same day, but Louisiana and Kansas. But John McCai, I suspect, won’t be worried. Though Clinton may very well be. The next few states are all favourable for Obama in terms of location, demographics, and delegates. The primary race for the Democrats is far from over. And it’s going to start up again tomorrow.

Thomas.

Super Tuesday VIII – The spin

I’ve been watching the results come in all day. I haven’t missed a minute. Is this the greatest outcome for Barack Obama? No. But it’s a fantastic result for his campaign nonetheless. He has won 12 states (as of this writing) out of the 22 that were available, stands a chance at winning 14, and has proven that he is remarkably electable. He has played in all the demographics (other than the senior vote) in at least a handful of states. He bridged the sex, race, and age (almost) divide all around. Obama proved, with Super Tuesday, that he is more electable than Hillary Clinton.

Ok, that’s one side of the argument that you’re going to hear. The next is that Hillary won big. She has won more delegates. California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts are all delegate rich, and winning by comfortable majorities in those states has, in fact, pushed Clinton closer to the nomination that she will (not) win. This is all that counts, delegates, and winning more delegates is all that counts.

What do you believe? Do you take sides with the electability debate that the Obama campaign will cite as the reason they won the day? Or will you take part in the Clinton campaign’s push of the delegate count. Of course, at the end of the day, Obama won’t be behind by any ridiculous amount (70-ish at the moment, but that doesn’t have hardly any figured in. I suspect it will get to 110 or so), or by any amount that couldn’t be reduced significantly by a good number of superdelegates coming out and endorsing Obama in the wake of winning 12+ states, and gaining more momentum.

The spin is one of the biggest players in the race, without a doubt. The way it is used by each side is an art And the campaign that wins the ‘spin wars’ can thank the media – because they are the ones who decide which ‘story’ is better to tell. And, a lot of the time, the ‘underdog’ story is more popular. That’s Obama this time around – the man who came from no where to the fore, who stands on the edge of destiny, and there is only one thing standing in his way. Granted, that thing is a Clinton, but it’s not something the popular story telling and superdelegates can’t move.

I thoroughly enjoy the spin that plays out. It’s almost as entertaining as the electioneering that happens. Almost, but not quite. The politics of it all is far more interesting – like West Virginia. There, the caucus meeting resulted in no majority for the Republicans. It was split between John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee. After the first round, as I said, there was no majority. So what happened? McCain’s henchmen pulled those people voting for McCain in the meeting aside and told them to vote for Huckabee, break the deadlock and give a man who has no real chance at winning the nomination the state’s delegates. The second round of voting came, McCain’s supporters voted for Huckabee, and all of West Virginia’s delegates went to Huckabee.

Speaking of Huckabee, it looks as though he will be the number 1 name for V.P. come John McCain getting the nomination. He was won more states than I would have ever pegged him for – and they are in the South. And in the states that he didn’t win, he was getting the conservative vote. Huckabee is now a name to be reckoned with. Not for the nomination this year, but for the V.P. spot. I’ll expand on this idea in a later post.

The results are still being released, and this was really a progress post. With no locked-in delegate count, states still being decided, and a whole lot of prospects on the horizon, I’ll be doing a recap post come tomorrow. But for now, it’s been a great day to watch the race finally come to its biggest event. It could have been a little better with even one state changing sides, but things don’t always go the best way in politics. By the end of the day though, there will have only been one clear answer delivered: This primary race will be going on for a while.

Thomas.

Super Tuesday IV – Evolution of the race

The last post may seem redundant to most people. Except me. I outlined that I wanted to document the change and evolution of the primary race between South Carolina and the end of Super Tuesday. Thus, having written the bulk of the last post yesterday, then realising that there had been major changes through the polls, I decided to post the last one, and now bring to the latest news for Super Tuesday. And boy it is good news if you’re a Barrack Obama supporter. A supporter like me – from the beginning.

Connecticut has a poll out about it where Obama is winning!!! This is further progress from when I reported to you Obama and Hillary Clinton in a tie for the state. The SurveyUSA poll has Obama with a 4% lead on Clinton (48% to 44%), with only an 8% uncommitted. This is the first time Obama has lead in the state. How has this happened? Evolution my friends. When the data for poll that said there would be a tie was collected, John Edwards was still in the race. He dropped out, and the race changed. It seems that most of Edwards’ support has filtered through to Obama in the state, while some of those earlier ‘uncommitted’ have chosen Obama in this new race. As I said earlier, Connecticut has always been viewed as a lock for Clinton, so an Obama victory here would be huge.

But not as huge as a win in California would be. And that, my friends, is also on the cards. In the latest Zogby poll, Obama has taken a 4% lead on Clinton – 45% to 41%! This is huge. Really huge. The biggest state in the primary process. A very mixed state where you have to do well in all demographics to win. And Obama can win it in a few days time. That’s what the headlines would be reading as. That’s what all the news cycles would revolve around: Obama winning California.

However, as excited as I might sound, I’m hesitant too. This is one poll. It isn’t made clear whether it takes into account that absentee votes that have already been lodged. From reports, they are going to make up roughly 25% of the primary vote and they support Clinton heavily. If it doesn’t take them into account, then the poll probably should still say a Clinton lead. If it does though, or they have somehow been factored in, then this is worrying, worrying news for the Clinton camp. And it would be the reason why both Hillary and Bill have been holing out in the state for the past few days, trying to drum up support, and leaving the rest out in the dry.

Either way, this is going to be a really tight state race.

New York is Clinton’s “home state”, and a lock for her. New Jersey has been classified exactly the same for as long. It was always hoped that Obama could muster up at least a third of the delegates there, maybe two-fifths at best. That would require a 40% vote – rather high for a New York-esque state. The latest poll, however, says that it’s easily done. Obama has moved up in the poll, and now he is only 1% away from Clinton in N.J. – really, a tie. This is also reported in the Zogby article, but on the wake of other polls suggesting a very tight race (Rasmussen had Clinton at 49%, Obama at 37%; SurveyUSA had Clinton 51%, Obama 39%; G.Q.R. had Clinton 44%, Obama 38%. Clinton was leading N.J. by 30%+ just a few weeks ago too – now she struggles past 10%).

While the California poll might be surprising, the N.J. poll will be so shocking enough to cause headaches for the Clinton campaign. They had banked, invested, and expected returns on New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. They expected big wins there to deliver more delegates than if the campaigns had spread their resources, time, and money in all the other ‘smaller’ states. And they followed this plan to the t – they haven’t bothered with some states at all, and campaigned heavily in the big ones where Obama was competitive to save delegates. Now with Obama looking like he could run extremely close to Clinton, if not win, then Clinton campaign could lose twice – in the big states and the small states.

Also coming out of the Zogby poll, and further enforced by an American Research Group poll and a SurveyUSA, Obama is also in a tie with Clinton in Missouri. I said in Super Tuesday III, that I just put up, which was written Saturday, that it could go either way, and then guessed that it would be Clinton up by 4%. I was right with the either way at this juncture and with the 4%. A tie, which is what the Zogby poll suggests, or the 2% lead the A.R.G. poll indicates for Obama, or the 4% lead Clinton has in the SurveyUSA poll, are all on the cards at this moment. A tie or Obama win, in this state, is significant. It has a reasonable amount of delegates, but it is also close to Ohio and Indiana, in terms of demographics and geography. They vote on the 4th of March and the 6th of May respectively, and there are quite a few delegates up for grabs there too (161 and 84). A win in Missouri would be encouraging for the Obama campaign, and would make big news in these two states. Not to mention that it’s more delegates at the end of Super Tuesday.

Delaware, which I predicted Clinton would win easily, has thrown us a curve-ball too. In another A.R.G. poll, it says Obama again has a lead on Clinton, again 2%. A win in Delaware would be big for Obama – as big as Connecticut. I win in either/both would bring into their column many delegates that they had never counted on – and taken many that Clinton had expected. Obama’s actions these past few days, in the light of what the Clinton campaign had been doing, was to focus on winning the smaller states that Clinton was ‘ignoring’ – Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho, Kansas, Colorado, and Minnesota. May lack-of-polling-data-guess in Super Tuesday III said that, out of those, Kansas would be a Clinton win. I predicted an Alaska and Colorado win for Obama, Minnesota too, and that the mid-West (N.D., Idaho, and Utah) would be up-for-grabs. If Obama continues to focus attention on these states, he will sweep them, along with wins and close finishes in the other ‘big’ states.

Speaking of Utah, the latest poll out of there has Obama up – up in a big way. In what is the first reliable poll from the state, the Desert Morning News has Obama polling at 53% to Clinton on 29%. A huge win here in the mid-West state, and a win will boost the Obama nomination prospects. There is still a fair few states to vote in the mid-West after Super Tuesday, and sweeping most of them can only enhance Obama’s chances of getting the rest.

I’d like to devote a little bit to the Republicans here. Mormon Mitt Romney, in Mormon Utah, is pollinglike crazy. He is at 84%, compared to John McCain’s 4%. That’s sort of a convincing win I guess.

Another mid-West state that has come into play is Arizona. I too was pulled into the 20+ point leads that Clinton was posting through January in this state. The latest poll from Arizona, however, says that she is only leading Obama by 5% now – 46% to 41%. With her big drop, if it turns out to be true, then the racial divide between voters might have been forgotten too. That would do wonders for Obama, for the Democratic party, and for the country.

Alabama I said would be an 8% to 10% Obama win on Saturday. Two polls have come out from the state, one from SurveyUSA that has a tie between Obama and Clinton at 47% a piece, while one from A.E.A. has Obama up by 5%, 40% to 35%. While Alabama is a must-win for Obama in terms of delegates, it’s also a must-win if he is going to have legitimacy in the electability debate. If he can win the South and the mid-West by himself, then he can argue broad appeal in traditionally Republican states.

Georgia, and another Southern state that I predicted a win for Obama in Super Tuesday I. I said Obama win 48% – but that was with John Edwards still in the race. Since he dropped out, I would scale that up to at least 55%, maybe as high as 60%. He needs a convincing win here too to secure the delegates needed to stay in the race with Clinton. The latest poll, from InsiderAdvantage, with a 12% ‘uncommitted’, has Obama at 52%, while Clinton trails well behind on 36%. That ‘uncommitted’ is rather high I think, and I expect Obama to gobble most of it up – especially considering the ‘black’ vote isn’t really polled accurately in these.

Interesting enough though, Tennessee is solidly behind Clinton, if the latest InsiderAdvantage polls are to be believed. Clinton is at 59%, Obama at 26%. I would have thought a much closer race in this state, and it may still be. But, at this late juncture, and with those figures, Obama may just concede the state and focus on winning those other states that he has all-of-a-sudden found himself rather close in.

And what state can I finish on that is a higher note than Illinois? Obama’s home state. Rasmussen’s poll spells out domination. Obama is polling at 60%, Clinton at 24%. 16% are still ‘uncommitted’. That’s only 8% from what Clinton’s vote is at right now. This is how to win a home state – convincingly and uncompromising.

So what do these new polls suggest? That Obamamania is running rampant all over the country. Everywhere Obama is surging in the polls since Edwards dropped out, and endorsements flowed his way. And I still suspect that the South Carolina romp is still having effect. There is one great scenario that is coming out of all these though: If Obama wins big in Illinois, and stays competitive in New York, he could end up getting more delegates out of Illinois that Clinton will from New York. This utterly negates the advantage that New York gave to Clinton. Picking up one or two of the Clinton locks (New Jersey and Connecticut) would cancel out the other in effect. A Georgia win gives more than a Tennessee win, and Alabama, Missouri, and Utah cancel out all the small states that Clinton seems to be polling favourably in. And thus we come back to California. At the end of the day, there’s one scenario that means Obama and Clinton are so close that whoever wins California will have won Super Tuesday on the delegate count. Of course, if Obama is within 200 delegates of Clinton by the end of the day, I think he and his camp would consider the day an Obama win anyway. But there is the prospect of Obama winning the delegate count as well. If that were to happen … of but if it did …

Thomas.

Super Tuesday I – Democrats

Here comes the first post of mine concerning Super Tuesday. I’m sure, as a bazillion polls are released over the next week, that I’ll be blogging more about the monumental day in the primary race, but for now, I wanted to get the ball rolling. For two reasons mainly – to document where we are at now, a little under a week out from the 5th; and to show how the polls change and move around, sort of evidence of political evolution.

There is one thing in the schedule that has the ability to change the polls some. Florida. Yes, it won’t count, but the voting will still happen there for the Democrats. Why? Well, maybe they hope that the D.N.C. will change their mind. Maybe they think that their vote is still important anyway. Whatever happens, the vote will make for some interesting news. Hillary Clinton still polls first among the Democrats, a 20 point lead over Barack Obama, 49% to 29%, in the latest SurveyUSA poll. That number is pretty stable across polls, perhaps a little high, but consistent with the state’s trends over the past months. It has always been a Clinton state by the polls, and for some reason, Obama-fever never really caught on there. But the figure could be inflated, so you never know how close a race it could be there.

I will now turn my attention to report now, after the fallout from the South Carolina vote, and in the wake of the Kennedy endorsements, on the polls for a dozen (or so) states that fall into the Super Tuesday basket.

And first up, the grand-daddy of them all: California. It’s the biggest state that’s up for grabs in the primary. 441 delegates up for grabs in total, with 370 tied to the primary vote, and without the ‘winner takes all’ system, each candidate is likely to get a slice of the action. The latest poll, SurveyUSA, from this state have Clinton up by 11% against Obama, 49% to 38%. Coming in 3rd is John Edwards at 9%, leaving a 4% uncommitted. Since the start of the New Year, this state has received much polling attention – before, it had little. So these figures, and averages, are probably reasonably accurate. Speaking of the average, it’s Clinton at 44.2%, Obama at 32.2%, and Edwards at 11%. The polls in California have been showing Clinton firming as favourite since the 14th of January (Rasmussen), where Obama was only 5% away from her, 38% to 33%. Steadily she had gained up to a 17% lead, though since South Carolina, and all the antics leading up to it, that lead has dropped to 11% in recent polls. I expect this to be a very tight race, with both finishing in the 40’s. Obama 44%, Clinton 48%.

The next biggest state on the 5th is New York, and by all accounts and pundit’s predictions, a Clinton win. Though, again (and I don’t want to harp on about it), without the ‘winner takes all’ system, Obama can still pick up a sizable amount of delegates here. the state has 281 delegates available. Though Clinton’s “home state” (only because the Democratic Party dropped her into an extremely safe Senate seat), she polls at, in the latest poll (USA Today/Gallup) at 56%, while Obama pulls in 2nd at 28%, and Edwards at 10%. This is an extreme jump from previous polling data from the state. Having been taken over the days leading up to South Carolina, it may, in fact, be inflated. Previous polls, had her at 51% (Quinnipiac – Obama 25%, Edwards 11%; and Rasmussen – Obama 30%, Edwards 10%), 48% (WNBC/Marist – Obama32%, Edwards 9%; and Siena – Obama 23%, Edwards 10%), and 47% (Zogby – Obama 26%, Edwards 9%). These all bring the average lead for Clinton to 22.9% – her 50.2% to Obama’s 27.3% and Edwards’ 9.8%. I feel that the state may have some polls to bring this to an average lead of less than 20% by the end of Super Tuesday, though I still expect Clinton to get 52-54% of the vote there. Thus, while she will recieve half the delegates (in theory), Obama will receive a third of them, maybe as high as two-fifths if things go well (38% I predict) – not too bad in her home state.

Moving to the next most delegate-rich state, and we find ourselves in a real home state – Obama’s. Illinois has 185 delegates, and while significantly less than the previous two, still important in that it’s one of the many Great Lake states that will vote on the day. The problem (well, not a real problem) with Illinois is that it has been ruled such a pro-Obama state that there has only been 3 polls taken there since July ’07. The first poll, American Research Group, taken last July, had only a 4% lead to Obama against Clinton, 37% to 33%. Edwards pulled in 3rd at 10%. The next poll, by the Chicago Tribune in early December ’07, had Obama 25% up on Clinton – 50% to 25%. Edwards again came in 3rd at 7%. Finally, the latest poll from Illinois by Research 2000 has Obama up again against Clinton by 29% – 51% to 22%. Edwards pulls up third once again with a much improved 15%. This is how a home state should be won – with a 30% lead. Not something less than 20% like New York. Obama will be looking to take a big majority of the delegates here, while Edwards might be hoping for a 2nd place finish. There’s a chance Edwards could get that with the way the Clinton camp has attacked the state’s own. If the voters are motivated, and take it as an attack on themselves, and factor in a few more slip-ups by the Clintons as well as minimal campaigning there, then Edwards could pick up a nice 2nd place finish. But either way, it’s an Obama win this state. I expect a 34% margin win here after the South Carolina showing.

New Jersey comes in as the next most delegate-rich state at 127, though with only 107 delegates up for grabs with the primary vote. This, much like New York, has been a Clinton favourite state. January came, and the pollsters dropped into N.J., like California and New York. The latest poll out of the state, Quinnipiac, gives Clinton a 17% lead over Obama – 49% to 32%. Edwards in at 3rd on 10%. This data was gathered before the South Carolina fiasco (on the part of the Clinton’s) so I would expect Obama’s numbers to come up a bit from the 9% uncommitted. Rasmussen conducted their research on the 15th of January only, one of the days that Quinnipiac did their 7 day collection, and managed to get 866 respondents – 402 more than Quinnipiac. Their data had Clinton at an 18% lead on Obama, though different numbers – 45% to 27%. Edwards was at 11%. This meant that the uncommitted was around 17% – a very high number for a state that is generally regarded as Clinton’s, and expected to follow New York. The averages are probably to be trusted for when the data was gathered (the 9th of January through to the 22nd), as the two other polls contributing are the highest lead for Clinton (25% by Research 2000 – 48% Clinton, 23% Obama, 11% Edwards) and the lowest lead for her (12% – 42% Clinton, 30% Obama, 9% Edwards). The averages are 46% for Clinton, 28% for Obama, and 10.3% for Edwards. This still leaves a huge 16% uncommitted. Since South Carolina and the Kennedy’s endorsements, and with the hope of some more good fortune, Obama stands a good chance at gobbling this up and pegging this to a single-figure win for Clinton. If that were to happen (the single-figure win for Clinton) then Obama would split the delegates (getting more than he was bargaining for) with her (presumably), and penetrate one of the strongholds the Clinton camp thought they had.

Massachusetts is the next state with the most delegates. It’s a state that, with recent endorsements by John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, and Caroline Kennedy, Obama stands a chance of winning a majority in. It has 121 delegates up for grabs with the vote. I’ll make it known now: I reject all the polling data available for the state at the moment. Three polls, conducted through January (between the 9th and the 23rd), with two of them coming from the same company with extremely similar sample data. The first poll to come out the state is from State House News, and that has Clinton with a lead of 12% over Obama – 37% to 25% – with Edwards coming in 3rd on 14%. The next two polls are from SurveyUSA – the first has Clinton with a 33% lead to Obama, 56% to 23%. Edwards comes in 3rd on 14% again. The second poll has Clinton with a 37% lead on Obama, 59% to 22%, while Edwards pulls up 3rd on 11%. There isn’t much I can say about Massachusetts if I don’t believe the whole three polls available, other than with the endorsements previously mentioned, more campaigning, and some good campaigning by Edwards (because this is a state he should poll better in), Clinton’s lead could narrow to something not so ridiculous as 37%. Seriously, if she isn’t even getting that big of a lead in her own “home state”, how can she get it from Massachusetts? Anyway, anything I say is a stab in the dark here – Obama with 34%?

Georgia is a bigger state than it is given credit. It’s the biggest Southern state up for grabs on Super Tuesday. 103 delegates are up for grabs, and the proportion of the ‘black’ vote in the state is similar to that of South Carolina. This, my friends, will also be an Obama state. The latest Rasmussen poll suggest so to, and while taken on the 22nd of January, and a 571 sample rate, it still gave Obama a 6% lead over Clinton – 41% to 35%. Edwards came in 3rd at 13%. I really do expect Obama’s figure to go up past 10% in the next rounds of polls from this state (if there is any?). He won South Carolina, the first Southern state. He has romped in the ‘black’ vote each time. He has gained serious traction, and it should be a state he gets good numbers in. The 41% number, I believe, was accurate for the time, as the polls had been turning for some time, while always being a competitive state. Back in April ’07, Strategic Vision (R) had Clinton up by just 3% on Obama – 25% to 22% – and Edwards at a whopping 20% (note the large amount of undecided). Strategic Vision was the only company to poll the state, and in October polled Clinton with her highest lead of 13% to Obama – 40% to 27%. By now Edwards’ 3rd place was back to a regular 11%. Come December, her lead was 7% (34% to 27% to 12%). Then, in a Mason-Dixon poll, Obama was leading by 3% to Clinton – 36% to 33% – Edwards at 14%. Then came the previously mentioned Rasmussen poll. What is interesting to note here is the large amount of uncommitted, and the higher numbers that Edwards has polled – the 20% he got, the 12% – 14% in recent polls. While he isn’t in a good enough position to snag 2nd place from Clinton, he is in a good position to keep delegates away from her as he eats up bits of the vote. Some favourable turns for Edwards and he could get up to one-fifth of the delegates with a 20% vote. And if Obama could manage over 50% of the vote, then half are his alone. Anyway, I predict a 48% vote for Obama here.

And those are the ‘Big 6’ from Super Tuesday. They are the only states that have more than 100 delegates up for grabs. The next highest are Minnesota and Missouri, both with 88 delegates. But that, and the next few states, are for another post. I expect people have skimmed most of this post, if not just clicking to the very end to see if I have anything exciting to say. Alas, I do not. It’s too early. Come closer, I’ll reevaluate my predictions, tell you them, then tell you how many delegates that will get each candidate. Hopefully it doesn’t make me look the fool.

Thomas.

South Carolina – Democrat results

The South Carolina primary was held yesterday for the Democrats and Barack Obama has walked it in. He had a huge victory there against his two opponents, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Obama received 55% to 27% to 18%. He received more than double the vote of second place. That, my friends, is a huge victory for Obama. In terms of delegates, Obama picked up 25, Clinton 12, and Edwards 8.

And it’s the most important win to get after Iowa. It’s the last primary for the Democrats before Super Tuesday where 22 states vote on the 5th of February. All the pundits were saying that he needed a convincing win to grab attention to become an outside chance for staying even with Clinton through Super Tuesday. They were saying that a 15 point win would be enough. This was a 28 point win, and in the light of it, the race has had a shake-up.

Before we get to the fallout of the vote, I want to break down some of the voting statistics. Obama beat Clinton in the women vote – 54% to 30%. Obama won in each of the age groups, but absolutely dominated in two of the demographics. For the 18 – 29 group (the ‘youth’ vote) Obama received 67% of the vote, Clinton 23%, and Edwards 10%. For the 30 – 34 group, Obama got 62%, Clinton 23%, and Edwards 15%. These stats were never a no-brainer. Obama has campaigned for the ‘youth’ vote much like J.F.K. did. And it’s not a bad group to target, because it’s the most motivated group of voters. Similarly, it’s a group of voters who are looking for a ‘change’ in politics – someone who isn’t a Clinton or shoddy Republican. It’s no coincidence then that Obama’s campaign slogan is ‘Change’.

For the 45 – 59 age group, it was Obama’s again with 55%, to Clinton’s 26%, and Edwards’ 19%. And the final age group, 60+ (the group that Edwards and Clinton both poll better in), Obama 38%, Clinton 35%, Edwards 27%. A close race in this group, but incidental.

Now we come to the ‘race’ vote. The state needed to deliver two things for Obama, and it did deliver two things, but only one of those things Obama had been asking for. For the ‘black’ vote, Obama received a massive 78% of the vote, compared to Clinton’s 19% and Edwards’ 2%. But for the ‘white’ vote, Obama only received 24% to Clinton’s 36%. A win here would have made headlines before winning the state. But that’s not all, and the least important. Edwards won the ‘white’ vote in the state – 40%. That’s the big surprise, that 3rd placed Edwards registered better among white voters than Clinton. This fact, I expect will make the papers soon, and both the Obama camp and the Edwards camp spin it like there’s no tomorrow. It also should be a worrying fact for Clinton.

Though, in terms of the ‘race’ vote, Obama continually plays it down, rather than playing it up for his own advantage. That’s a sign of a real candidate, and an honest politician. Someone who doesn’t manipulate, what should be, unimportant factors of the race. Unlike Bill and Hillary Clinton, who dragged the issue up. A fair few writers are suggesting that Hillary polled so badly because of Bill’s antics leading up to the vote.

So what does the state mean in the race? Well, it’s the first southern state, and it was Obama who won it. It has the potential to start a trend. Something else the state forces is for the Clinton campaign to address it. If Obama had only won by a slight margin, the could have simply dismissed the win as a part of the democratic process. And then it would have been spun by them that of course Obama would win – half the state’s Democratic voters are African-American. And with such a polling among black voters, it contradicts polls that were saying he was struggling to beat Clinton that that department. Of course, previous results had already contradicted the polls, when he was registering 70% to 80% in the other early states. The state also brings up issues of electability. Iowa showed that Obama can win white votes. South Carolina shows that he can win the African-American votes. Clinton can’t seem to win both.

If this trend continues, and Obama picks up majority of the ‘black’ vote, then Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee stand a good chance to be his. These are three states (southern too) where there is a significant proportion of ‘black’ voters among the Democratic voters. Throw this onto Illinois, another Super Tuesday state and his home state, and he has a good and solid base to exit Super Tuesday with. Clinton will be hoping to dominate the votes in her pseudo-home state of New York, next-door New Jersey, and the delegate monster of California (where she polls the best among the Hispanic vote) to pull her through Super Tuesday. Of course, without the ‘winner takes all’ system, Obama can still force a close race in these three states.

There has also been some ‘tangible’ results coming out of the wake of South Carolina. First, and purely symbolic, Caroline Kennedy, the last surviving child of John F. Kennedy, and who is a much revered Democrat, has come out and endorsed Obama. Another, and more potent and important endorsement from the Kennedy family, comes from Caroline’s uncle Senator Teddy Kennedy, nicknamed the Democrat Lion. For the past year, Teddy has refused to even comment on the primary race, meaning his endorsement now is even more powerful. He cited Obama’s ability to unite the country as a contributing factor. A lot of the Democratic establishment are framing this as a ‘torch passing’ endorsement from the Kennedys to Obama. These are both big endorsements for the Democratic and American psyche too, especially since J.F.K. and Obama are often spoken about in the same sentence.

And let’s not forget that Senator Kennedy represents Massachusetts, the state where fellow Obama endorser John Kerry hails from, and quite rich in delegates. All this lends favour to Obama winning that state too.

As influential endorsements, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Arizona Republic have both endorsed Obama (and John McCain for the Republicans). The Arizona Republic is Arizona’s largest circulated newspaper, which will mean a good and big boost for Obama in the state. The Philadelphia Inquirer is a much needed endorsement for Obama in the state after the Democratic Governor Ed Rendell endorsed Clinton through the week. The Inquirer went so far to say that Clinton being elected would “be a catalyst for division when the nation longs for unity”. Hard words there, but true.

And all of this came from the Obama romp in South Carolina. The big thing is, though, momentum for Super Tuesday. The Iowa win gave Obama the momentum to run close in New Hampshire, win Nevada, and then rout South Carolina (much like what my post in September ’07 suggested). Now, all of those combined, with the extra force of the South Carolina statistics and endorsements, will give him much needed momentum for Super Tuesday. It’s the next big thing for the Democrats (ignoring Florida, which doesn’t count), and it used to be thought that it would be the decider of the race. Not this time. If Obama can stay competitive, win some states, split the delegates where Clinton was hoping to win, then it will come out even, and who knows what could happen then.

To finish up then, the current count of delegates for the candidates, including superdelegates:

• Hillary Clinton: 230
• Barack Obama: 152
• John Edwards: 61
• Mike Gravel: 0

Thomas.

I couldn’t resist

The primaries aren’t a glint on the horizon anymore. They are just a few months away, and the chance to get onto primary tickets if starting to shrink. The Iowa and New Hampshire polling has quickly become more important than national polling, and those key, early states are getting a work over from the candidates of both parties. And the media is certainly getting a work over. And everything has got so routine that a lot of the steam that candidates had early on, in terms of popularity and ‘spark’ of the current candidates has worn down on the people.

How many debates, with the same questions just restructured, have gone on for both sides? How many times has Hillary had to bluff her way through having to to defend her vote to go into Iraq? How many times has Obama had to carve out an answer on why he should be president with little experience? And how many more points in the polls is Edwards going to have to slip?

I love it all, the politicking of America, but I do hope that every day I will find out that a boulder will have been dropped into the lake and a wave of excitement will be rolling around again. And in three days, I won’t have to hope the boulder will come, because it will have happened in two or not at all.

You see, the Nobel Peace Prize is handed out tomorrow (Friday), and a hot contender is everyone’s favourite Al Gore. I know, I know. I’ve already written him off. But I’d be more than happy to retract that statement. He is a hot favourite to win the award, and the rumblings were that if he was going to announce it would be there and then, or in the immediate aftermath. And the rumblings of the rumblings were that there is a chance.

Must I run through the resume that will see him elected if nominated? V.P. to Clinton, long time senator, a ‘southern’ man (Tennessee), massive public exposure over the past years, a film to his name, an Emmy, an Oscar, a Nobel Peace Prize, a best seller, pools of money that he can tap into, and not an extremist. And let’s not forget that he probably did win the election in 2000. Oh, and he was very much against the Iraq invasion. And he sort of is the face of the global warming movement.

And he’s a fresh face to the whole routine that is the Democratic primaries race. He can afford to miss the debates that have gone because: a) everyone knows his policies, and; b) the debates lost great interest a month of two ago. And he’s done all this before – the primary race (and won), and the presidential race (and won, twice … sort of). And the word experience is definitely going to come up on more than one occasion in the presidential race. Whether it be against Obama, Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson. Heck, there is only one who will be immune to it (McCain) and Clinton may have enough clout to fend off any attack on that front. But Gore would be un-attackable on experience. Sure, his policies and voting record and actions during the experience will come up, but that only solidifies him in the mind of the public as experienced.

And while this is a half-way sewn up presidency for the Democratic party already, in the odd chance that something bad happened and the Republicans made a showing of themselves, would would you rather running? A man who has run, and lost, and has had seven years to think about the mistakes and popularise himself, or a woman/man who can be attacked an a whole lot of fronts, and while popular among the party, could lose those key swing voters?

And let’s face it – we all could use an honest politician. Obama is (for my mind) the only one going at the moment. From both parties. Gore has openly called himself a “lousy politician”, has given a bit of lip-service to stupid questions from the press, has openly and consistently criticised the Iraq War from the get-go (like Obama, though Gore has had more free reign) and ventured so far as to offer ways to get out, has campaigned about the next most important issue this world faces: climate change (and has never flip-flopped on the issue).

And does he really need to worry about financing his shorter campaign? He learned the lesson from the 2000 election – ridiculously high-priced consultants don’t win elections. He has a monsterous base that could donate $500 per person (on average), and raise a quick $40 million. More I suspect, meaning he could have free rallies, free concerts, give free speeches, and still have cash left over come the final vote.

I mean seriously! Look at the polls: In July, when the last polls that Gore’s name was featured on were taken, in New Hampshire if he entered the race he would win. That’s a key, early state that Clinton was solid in. Nationally, the polls said that if he entered he would win. He tipped 17% back in June. Now, nationally, polling put him at 10 – 12% (Gallup – Ipsos) in October, 8% – 16% (Cook Political Report – USA Today) in September, and 10 – 16.5% (Cook Political Report – USA Today) in August. That’s unannounced and not campaigning, and having done international ‘tours’ of late that has decreased his exposure to the American voters and people being polled, especially through September. If he were to enter the race on October 15, next Monday he would still have a solid four months of campaigning, and that would be enough to get the registered Democrats out onto the streets to get his name onto the tickets, first for the primaries then for the presidential.

Some recent polls have re-added him to the list because they have heard the rumblings too. 8% in Alabama, 36% in Michigan where he leads Clinton who is on 32%. That’s in the past month. At the middle of the year, where, as I said, Gore’s name was featuring in the polling, and where 29% of registered Democrats would switch from other candidates to Gore if he announced, he stood to be on par with Clinton in quite a few states. The last available data for the following states indicates this:

Alabama – 8% (September)
Arizona – 18% (September)
California – 19% (June) (he currently leads Clinton as preferred President in Bay Area at 51%)
Connecticut – 13% (May)
Florida – 12% (September) (if they are even going to be counted)
Georgia – 11% (January)
Idaho – 31% (July)
Massachusetts – 13% (April)
Michigan – 36% (August)
Nevada – 8% (August) (momentum)
New Hampshire – 5% (September) (momentum)
New Jersey – 6% (September)
New York – 10% (September)
Ohio – 8% (September)
Oklahoma – 9% (January)
Oregon – 4% (March)
Pennsylvania – 12.5% (August)
South Carolina – 8% (August) (momentum)
Texas – 10% (July)

In the Southern states, in September, Gore averaged 10%, the Western states 18%, in existing Red states 12.3%, and in existing Blue states 7.4%. And that’s from the states that have polling data, and not all of them do. Now there is no guarantee that he will win any of them, but there is a good chance he could sweep all of them. It’s worth reminding you that those figures are with Gore unannounced, not campaigning, out of the United States for the recent weeks, and without the swing from other candidates to Gore if he did put his name in the hat. Isn’t it at least worth a stab? If we concede that Obama needs some very favourable voting, otherwise he loses, and Edwards has lost already, do we just give Clinton an undivided free pass, where she isn’t forced to present herself in the light of competition?

By October 15 he needs to declare. It gives him the best chance. In New York, they’ll need 5,000 signatures between October 30 and December 1. Michigan needs 12,396 by October 23, and Gore to sign an affidavit as well. That’s just two cases, and it’s a similar picture for others.

So, if October 15 is D-Day, we will soon know. The Nobel Peace Prize gets handed out Friday in Norway, and that’s the 12th. Three days wait, at the longest, and the we will know whether America will have Gore as their next president, or either Clinton or Obama. Three days left of torturous suffering, but for a reason, or unnecessary anguish. Three days left …

Thomas.