A question

If Barack Obama won more states and more delegates than Hillary Clinton yesterday, then how exactly did Clinton "win" Super Tuesday?

Just asking!

P.S. Oh, right, I forgot, she "won" because she captured the "big prizes," California, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Never mind that a) they're not really "big prizes" at all, because, like all Dem contests, their delegates are split proportionally; b) Clinton had massive, seemingly insurmountable leads in all three states a couple of weeks ago, and it's a testament to Obama's incredible surge of momentum that they were even in play; and c) the states' much-ballyhooed "symbolic significance" is, from beginning to end, an invention of the national media, which -- in gloriously circular fashion -- first decided that they were "symbolic" and then declared them "significant" on account of the aforementioned "symbolism" that it ascribed to them.

Comments

[PenguinSix]

She won because she is still standing. The juggernaut Tidal Wave of Obama-mentum, which is the only thing that can destroy and defeat Clinton, has once again turned into a washout.

Long-grind, intense mobilization by the masses--these are not the Obama team's strong suit. They can whip people into a fury (a la Iowa) but as long as they can't knock Clinton down and out, then she needs only ride out the storm to the eventual outcome.

So some would say...

[PenguinSix]

Wow, and after I posted that I went to the Washington Post to check the news and saw this. Guess someone was thinking what I was thinking:

Translating Belief Into Reality
Despite a building wave for Obama, time is tight to translate euphoria into hard numbers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020600099.html?hpid=topnews

[Brendan Loy]

"She won because she is still standing"??

The once-inevitable establishment candidate, the former First Lady, the favorite for the 2008 nomination since the moment she was elected to the Senate in 2000, running in a two-person race against the insurgent Gary Hart/Paul Tsongas/Bill Bradley/Howard Dean candidate, "won" because, after Super Tuesday -- the day she was long ago expected to wrap up the nomination -- she is "still standing"?

Talk about lowering expectations!!

But you're right, I guess that is what "some would say."

Others would say that Super Tuesday was incredibly friendly to Hillary in terms of which states were voting (and how many of 'em all at once), and now the calendar and the geography both become much more favorable for Obama -- who, in contrast to your "long-grind, intense mobilization" diss, has done excellently in caucus states and in states where he gets to spend a lot of time doing retail campaigning, both of which are big for the rest of this month (and the latter into March and April).

These same "others" would also point out that Obama has more money than Hillary, and more ability to raise additional money, because of his army of small donors.

They might also point out that Obama's overall near-split of the national popular vote cannot be so easily written off as "whip[ping] people into a fury (a la Iowa)." You make it sound like he's only capable of winning votes under certain limited circumstances. He won votes -- lots of votes -- all over the freakin' map yesterday, in all sorts of races, from all sorts of demographics. He is a strong, strong candidate.

So is Hillary, of course. The bottom line is that the race for the Democratic nomination is currently tied, with perhaps a slight edge to Obama (I have yet to hear a convincing, forward-looking argument that Clinton has an edge when you look ahead), and any supporter of either candidate who minimizes the other candidate's strengths, does so at their peril.

[Brendan Loy]

Despite a building wave for Obama, time is tight to translate euphoria into hard numbers.

Again: if he won more states and won more delegates and won almost as many votes as her last night... then... um... WTF?? He ALREADY HAS translated it into hard numbers!!

This media "analysis" of last night's results has very, very little to do with the reality. What matters first and foremost are the delegates, and on that count, it was a draw. On all other criteria (number of state "wins," number of votes, breadth of geographic/demographic reach, performance in comparison to reasonable expectations), it was either a draw or an Obama win. The only way Clinton "won" is if you obsess over 3 of the 22 states that voted, and there is simply no valid reason to do that in a proportionally allocated delegate race.

[Mike]

Well, actually Brendan, they are still big prizes simply because of their large number of delegates. Clinton beating Obama by 10% in CA, assuming that after all the complicated rules about Congressional Districts pretty much washes out and she gets 52% of the pledged delegates to his 42%, results in a net gain of delegates to her greater than Obama's gain for beating her by 32% in Illinois (she gains 37 on him in CA, he gains 31 on her in IL). Similarly, her MA win by 17% means more than his ID win by 62% (17 vs 12). Small differences in very populous states can be more significant in delegates than huge differences in very unpopulated states, even in proportional assignment. We don't have delegate counts from the election results, merely from internal projections by the campaigns. I think Obama did quite well last night, but I don't think it's likely he ended up with more delegates from Super Tuesday than Clinton did; there are large numbers of delegates, most notably those from CA, which have not yet been properly assigned.

This off the point BUT interesting none-the-less, seeing as how both Huckabbe & Tornados were big stories last night on all the network news channels. enjoy:

HUCKABEE DOESN'T THINK INTELLIGENT DESIGN INCLUDES TORNADOS

From the LA Times comes a rather disturbing tale of the way in which Mike Huckabee wielded his religious sword as Governor of Arkansas. In particular, one incident involved quick passage of a bill designed to aid tornado victims in the town of Arkadelphia.

"Five days after the tornado tore through the state, this city of 10,000 lay in ruins. The cyclone destroyed an office building, a bank, a pharmacy and 70 other businesses. The electricity was out. The National Guard patrolled the streets. Six people were dead. In Little Rock, GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee was reviewing a disaster insurance measure that he intended to support when he become troubled: The bill, drawing on centuries-old legal terminology, referred to natural disasters as 'acts of God.'"

So, because he could not fathom his God wreaking such senseless destruction upon the world, Huckabee held up the measure for three more weeks, imploring lawmakers to change the apparently contentious wording from "acts of God" to "natural disasters." Clearly, as one Arkansas state legislator suggested at the time, Job and Exodus--with their numerous super-natural plagues--do not appear to be Huckabee's favorite parts of the Old Testament. . .

AP - Huckabee said, "I refuse to walk through tornado damage and to say that what destroyed it was God and what built it back was only human beings. I saw God protect a lot of people, save a lot of people. That's an act of God, too."

Arkansas' House, after debating God's role in the world, decided to use both phrases. "To say God didn't create tornadoes is just like saying he didn't create spring rains," said Rep. Jim Luker, a Democrat.

[Brendan]

Mike: I'm not so sure it's wise to "assum[e] that after all the complicated rules about Congressional Districts [the end result] pretty much washes out" to a delegate allocation that's equivalent to the candidates' statewide totals.

Moreover, if I understand correctly, the "Obama won more delegates" thing is based on projections that include all of California's CDs -- most of which can be pretty easily figured out, even if the race is close, precincts outstanding, etc., because of the even/odd number thing. NBC estimates 840-849 delegates for Obama, versus 829-838 for Clinton. Those numbers add up to about 1,670, which is almost the full amount of pledged delegates at stake yesterday (1,688). So it's not like that estimate is ignoring "large numbers of delegates, most notably those from CA, which have not yet been properly assigned." It's estimating those uncertain assignments, but it's unlikely to be way off.

[Mike]

I was actually relying on CNN, not NBC. Completely a personal bias; I tend to trust their election results more than I do other networks, even with lack of hard evidence to support it. Nevertheless, I concede that there are apparently news organizations projecting full numbers. Your link to the politico site was to a post which only mentioned an e-mail from the Obama campaign containing a spreadsheet with their estimates of delegates. That is what I was hesitant of accepting; I should have checked for other news organizations beyond CNN before I made a blanket statement about large numbers not properly assigned.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Hillary "won" because most members of the media are actually idiots who don't have the higher level thinking skills to figure these things out.

As for winning, the winner is Obama. Not so much because he leads in delegates or states won, but because nobody thought he would make it this far. I guarantee you the people within the Clinton camp were assuming Super Tuesday would be their firewall. The fact is Obama's campaign is better organized, more strategic and more dynamic than Hillary's. He has "out-Clintoned" Clinton.

[Derek]

On (b), finishing a close second should be deemed a victory? You could've just stuck with logical and coherent points, like (a).

As for (c), I could never imagine a blogger, err, the media determining "winners" of a "competition" based on the popular vote plurality-winner of a state in a primary or caucus, then tabulating those totals on a spreadsheet.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Derek-

Finishing second seemed to work for Bill "Comeback Kid" Clinton in New Hampshire in 1992.

[Brendan]

Derek: Heh.

[yea]

this has the potential to be really exciting and really ugly for people who really want to see a democrat take the white house. i dont see how this can be resolved soon and when the stakes get higher this has the potential to get incresingly bitter. democrats need to hope romney/limbaugh and the rest of the econo-cons continue to hammer mccain while the democrats are still settling this, otherwise this will drag out while the republicans can just start going on the attack.

[yea]

wow, drudge says hillary might be financing the campaign using her/bill's money. might be a hit piece because we know drudge is pro-romney and anti-hillary/mccain but its a potentially interesting story either way.

[CD]

Obama won in his home state and almost entirely in caucus states, while Hillary won in her home state and almost entirely in primary states. Caucuses tend to draw a smaller number of voters, and mostly the party faithful, the 'activists' as even the party calls them. These are voters who have to declare their candidate openly, when many people find voting to be a very private thing. Those voters tend to the furthest left. Primaries draw a much wider swatch of voters from the party. Therefore, it is clear that the further left members of the party prefer Obama hugely, while the more general party population prefers Clinton. This speaks to electability. Additionally, many of these states where he won do not matter in the big pictures... the Democrats are not going to capture Alaska (where there were what, 500 total voters??), Utah or several other of his states in a general election, McCain will. And the national election is not a split game in the electoral college. Clinton didn't spend time and money in those states, Obama did. They are not Democratic states. Yes, CA, NY, NJ, FL, these are hugely important states to the party... and to the Union.

His biggest coups were CT and doing so well in MO. Her biggest coup was MA! The rest was predictable. It's still open, but, yes, she did win Super Tuesday. And the fact that you want to accuse the media of being pro-Clinton when it is so obviously blinded by Obama love is laughable.

[Mike]

CD, if you're going to make the argument that Obama's victories in states that the Republicans are likely to win are not very important, then logically Hillary's victories in the states that either Democrat is likely to win over the Republican (such as, oh, CA, NY, and NJ) are also not very important. That is an argument for paying attention to the battleground states. FL's democratic contest this year was quite suspect, with no delegates coming from it. That means the most important battles are still to come: namely, PA and OH. From last night, the state that would matter the most in that argument is MO, which was extraordinarily close and thus hard to declare a clear frontrunner. I see it as a form of double think the dismiss the Democratic results in likely Republican states as irrelevant, without also dismissing the Democratic results in likely Democratic states as not being indicative of whether that candidate will get that state should (s)he end up with the party's nod.

Some of your other points, chiefly the primary v caucus have merit, and others might (such as the media perceptions of the two candidates). But neither Democratic really won last night in any meaningful use of the word. The only way to really count one of them as winning last night is based on performance relative to expectations, not on the performance itself.

[yea]

ignoring the michigan and florida primaries for obvious reasons obama is like 8-9 in primaries so far, or something close to that. lets not distort reality and try and say that hes been getting destroyed in primaries and just notching caucus wins.

[Brendan]

I'm not accusing the media of being "pro-Clinton," in the sense that their statements are motivated by a desire to see Clinton win. I fully concede that the media is in love with Obama. However, as I've always said, there are a lot of bad influences on media coverage that outweigh bias (which isn't to say bias isn't real -- it is -- but there are other problems that dwarf it), and among those influences are: laziness; inability to see the big picture; obsession with late-breaking developments, even if said developments aren't the most important thing going on; susceptibility to misleading spin; and obsession with pre-defined storylines, including the failure of an expected storyline to occur, whether or not the expectation was reasonable or well-founded.

In this case, the media is falling hook, line and sinker for the Clintons' effective spin, which is extremely appealing to them because it fits in with their preconceived notion that Obama failed to live up to expectations, notwithstanding that those "expectations" were based on bogus Zogby polls and misleading, unweighted leaked exit pols -- in other words, the "expectations" were never reasonable or well-founded (and a big part of the basis for them, those leaked exit polls, was never even revealed on-air, so some viewers must have been mystified by what exactly the analysts were surprise dby last night!). That a candidate "failed" to meet bogus expectations is not actually a failure of the candidate, it's a failure of the expectations, but don't tell that to the media -- they're too lazy to know or care about the difference. Also, "inability to see the big picture" and "obsession with late-breaking developments" come into play here, in the sense that the big picture is still the Obama comeback from out-of-nowhere (waaaay behind in almost all of these states) to a virtual dead heat -- but that's "old news"; the bogus Zogby polls and exit polls were more recent, so they're the backdrop against which everything is measured, and the big picture is lost.

The media isn't giving this a pro-Clinton spin because they love Clinton; they're giving it a pro-Clinton spin because they can't help themselves.

[Brendan]

And yes, I'm biased on this. The thing is, I'm also right. :)

[Derek]

Another issue is that the media focuses on "in-play" states; that is, states where multiple parties are vying for the delegates. Clinton had conceded a variety of caucus states (ID, ND, etc.), which did not make them interesting. Watching who wins head-to-head, however, is far more interesting.

When you do it that way, all three of the largest neutral (i.e., not home or resident) states (CA, MA, and NJ) went Clinton's way. Forget the spin about "New England," truthful as it may be. In the three biggest states, where each candidate competed hard, Clinton topped Obama. That's important.

Granted, I entirely agree that there are numerous, numerous other ways to examine it. But this way's a simple, though not simplistic, way of doing it, I think. Not the most accurate, but easily digested by the average voter.

[Brendan]

Good point, Derek, sort of, but there are a couple of problems with it.

First of all, unless I'm very much mistaken, both candidates "competed hard" in Connecticut (both Obama and Clinton were there on Monday) and Missouri, which Obama won, and New Mexico, which is too close to call. CA, NJ and MA are by no means the only states "where each candidate competed hard." Yes, they're the "biggest," as you said, but if the issue is who is "competing" where, why an arbitrary cutoff at three in defining which states "matter"? Missouri isn't that much smaller than Massachusetts (and is certainly more of any important "general election state," something Hillary's camp keeps babbling about), and Connecticut isn't that much smaller than Missouri.

Secondly, and more importantly, in a proportional delegate race, the fact that a candidate "competes hard" in a state does not necessarily mean he thinks he can or should win that state. Under your theory, Obama would have gotten less bad press if he hadn't "competed" so hard in the three "largest neutral (i.e., not home or resident)" states that were, despite their neutrality, objectively Hillary-friendly territory. And that might be true, he might have gotten less bad press. He also would have gotten less delegates.

In a proportional system, of course the candidates are going to "compete hard" in the big states, whether they think they can win or not. That shouldn't have anything to do with setting the expectations for who can, or should, win.

So, as an analysis of the media's mentality, your comment has a lot of merit. To the extent you may have intended it as a defense of said mentality, however, as opposed to a mere explanation, I reject it. The mentality you describe does indeed exist, and it is simplistic and irrational.

[CD]

Again, Obama is clearly drawing his support mostly from the following groups:

1. Youth
2. African-Americans
3. White, highly educated, high income, liberals
4. Independants in states where Democrats don't have a chance in hell.

Clinton is drawing her support from the following groups:

1. Older voters
2. Women
3. Hispanics
4. Asians
5. People making $50,000 or less

This will explain why Obama does so well in caucus scenarios where the first group reign supreme, and Clinton so well in large state primaries where the populations are diverse and representative.

I think that anyone should concede that the groups going for Clinton are far more important in a general election, and far more likely to potentially go for a Mccain candidate than those supporting Obama. Are a huge number of youth, leftist-upper class overeducated whites, and african-americans going to vote Republican in the general? I don't think so. Are hispanics going to be attracted to McCain (a champion to them, while they are highly distrustful of Obama), yes. Are a number of the older, more centrist voters going to be attracted to McCain over Obama, yes. Are a number of rural, working class voters going to be attracted to McCain over Obama, yes. I still maintain that when you look at the demographics it tells a very important story about electability. And, yes, I maintain that with a very popular and attractive figure like McCain on the R side, states like CA and NY will not be gimmes for Dems, especially in light of the large hispanic vote (much larger than the African American vote in numbers!).

As a side note. Let us not to a disservice, as the press has, to the Florida voters. All of the candidates were on the ballot and none of them campaigned there. Those are Americans who voted, and just because the party is punishing the state for not being obedient (completely within their rights to do), does not mean that those voters voices do not matter. You can argue that if the candidates had campaigned there, the outcome might have shifted, but that isn't enough to discount the votes that well over a million people cast, many of them not even understanding that their votes wouldn't be counted (as here in WA, so many have no idea that their votes in the Dem primary here won't be counted). Again, the demographics in that state are going to fall for Hillary... hispanics and older voters, which was the case.

[CD]

Also, please look at the list of those supporters attracted to Obama. This is an important point as we look to the media bias. As Paul Begala aptly pointed out last night... 'none of us on this stage even know anyone who makes less than $50,000 a year, let's keep that in mind'. These people (media) are Obama's target audience, and they are clearly as swept up as the others in their 'group'. I'm not saying any of these groups vote as a monolith (I, myself technically should be all over Obama if I was falling in line with demograhics), but the patterns are strong.

I don't think Obama is a bad guy; I don't have anything personally against him (although if he tries to co-opt one more historic american figure I may explode -- first he's the second coming of MLK Jr., then Kennedy, and as of last night Lincoln?! -- hello, ego? are you in there?), however, my singular goal is to get a Democrate in the white house, and no matter how I slice and dice these numbers, I come up with Clinton as the better chance at that.

[CD]

Just wanted to clarify that I meant it is completely within the rights of the Dem party to decide to 'punish' FL and MI. However, I do not believe that this means we shouldn't pay attention to what the people told us with their votes. They, will, of course be voting in November.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_8176792

There is a big issue in Los Angeles in regard to ballots. The "Decline to State" voters had a confusing ballot and many are not being counted (at least not yet). This may lead to lawsuits, as 20% of the county is registered as "Decline to State" and many of these people are Obama supporters.

This article is better re: the LA ballots

http://sacramentofordemocracy.org/?q=node/view/14595

[denverdem]

You really think Obama won't win the support of traditional Dems in states like CA, NY, NJ, and MA in a general election and will give McCain more than a fighting chance in those states? And do you discount the probability that Clinton is really the only thing that can save McCain with the conservative base in virtually every swing state? I find the idea of Clinton having a higher chance of electability against McCain to be quite a stretch. She maintains the Democratic base, but also drives the conservative base to the polls. Obama maintains the Democratic base, doesn't give conservatives a reason to come out for McCain, and fights McCain tooth and nail for independents and probably wins a substantial number.

I think in down ballot races in potential swing states, Clinton could really kill some Dem hopefuls. I think here in CO, Udall has to be praying for an Obama candidacy, b/c McCain will keep a lot of right-wingers home, unless they have to fulfill their sworn duty of defeating a Clinton at every turn.

[domerdc]

Hillary can't beat McCain.
"Are a huge number of youth, leftist-upper class overeducated whites, and african-americans going to vote Republican in the general?"
I could see the youth doing it. McCain's maverick style is cool.
Don't underestimate the anti-Hillary vote, even among the overeducated.
Many Democrats see having Hillary in the whitehouse akin to their team now picking up Michael Vick to bring them a superbowl. They'd rather not have it.

[BD]

You've been hearing about how the Right hates the Clinton's for years. Obama is new on the scene, so I can understand why you might delude yourself into thinking R's would stay home if he was the nominee. If you go out into the R world you will see that line on Obama is that he is the most liberal candidate the Dems would have tried to put forward since McGovern, and they think he is a socialist (which, granted, they also think of Clinton), and they think he is a pacifist (not true at all, but with his emphasis on his Iraq position he is playing to that wing of the Dem party). Obama is a hugely progressive and liberal candidate that would potentially represent huge change. If you think that the R's aren't going to be motivated to come out and vote against him... well, I just think you're wrong. Only time will tell, but I think the demographics support Hillary, particularly if the economy and healthcare remain the most important issues on the minds and the importance of Iraq recedes in their wake.

[PenguinSix]

Google Empty Suit Obama. There are almost a half a million hits already. Expect that to increase as the campaign nears. The Rs will come out in an anti-movement when the curtain is pulled back and see what is standing on the left...

[Mike]

Well, speaking from personal anecdotes, I'm currently in MI. I'm in a PhD program, so the vast majority of people I know are overeducated and liberal. A very large number of them either didn't vote in the primary this year, or voted in the Republican primary because they felt that the Democratic primary was totally pointless and the primaries in MI are open. This causes me to think that the MI and FL primaries are not good indicators of how a state feels; they are possible indicators of how many die-hard supporters one of the democratic candidates has in that state, but even that isn't necessarily the case.

While it's true that the primaries in these states do give some indication of what people think there, my point is that they probably give a very skewed indication of what these people think.

[CD]

Michigan is obviously going to be the most skewed given that two of the candidates weren't on the ballot and it has an open primary system, allowing those who realized their vote wouldn't count to exercise their voice somewhere else.

Florida is a closed primary, and still 1.7 *million* democrats voted. That is compared to 1.9 million Republicans casting their ballots on the same day, where their vote did 'count'. And this is not a state that is skewed Democrat. Given these figures, it doesn't make sense to assume that a huge number of democrats did not vote, or that the results are heavily skewed in Florida, particularly when in context with what we know about the demographic there and what we know about the demographic breakdowns of the candidate's supporters.

Also, while personal anecdotes are fun to share, they don't carry any water for me. Especially given the way that people self-select into their personal circles. It is all too easy to get one's self all worked up in a frenzy that 'this is clearly what is happening and what people are feeling' based on the often extremely skewed representation of those that you are in regular contact with and who share such notions with you personally. Anecdotal evidence can lead to nothing but theories that can either be supported with facts or not. Otherwise, they're just bedtime stories.

[Mike]

Yeah, I don't expect personal anecdotes to carry water; they're just anecdotes, not evidence. Still, for the record, I doubt the self-selection thing is a huge issue on this one in particular. While I don't make claims that these individuals are representative of the voters in the state as a whole, I'll also bet I'm one of the few people any of them know who isn't registered as either Democrat or Green. I'm not exactly surrounding myself with people who agree with many of my political views. Moderate libertarianism is not a common political mode of thought among grad students in the sciences.

[CD]

Right, you've self-selected into a group that has an overwhelming sameness politically (obviously that is a very general statement to make, but I think it would hold up to scrutiny), so whether you fit in there or not as an individual, you are surrounded with a pretty monolithic group. So, the point is the same. Not that this is that important... I'm engaging in nit-pickery at this point.

For instance, if I based my opinion of what foreigners thought of the US based on my graduate school experiences, I would believe that all foreigners felt the US to be sub-standard, laughable, and a bully in every sense of the word and on every possible front. Evidence shows that this is not actually the case. However, the wealthy, elitist foreigners that can afford to pay full freight to attend US undergraduate institutions, and then stay in the US for graduate school in the ivy league, sure would convince you that people everywhere in the world hate and disrespect the US.

Damn near turned me into an nationalist, given my contrary nature, which frightened me dearly, since a nationalist I ain't.

[War of Wits » The Melodrama of Barack Obama]

Even slavery itself initially came under fire from white Christians - the first of whom to separate themselves from the institution were Quakers. The majority of the Union troops were white, and so were those who have brought about the most important civil rights legislation.Why then do we still have such a simple-minded conception of black and white - and how does it color the way we see Obama? The naive ideas coming out of Pan-Africanism are at the root of the confusion. When Pan-African ideas began to take shape in the 19th century, all black people, regardless of where in the world they lived, suffered and shared a common body of injustices. Europe, after all, had colonized much of the black world, and the United States had enslaved people of African descent for nearly 250 years.