North Carolina as the new firewall?

With Hillary Clinton appearing to have an insurmountable edge in Pennsylvania, Mark Halperin says the "developed consensus" is that "Clinton probably has to win North Carolina’s May 6 primary to fight on with a real chance — but/and Obama has to win it to avoid a prolonged fight." Polls there show a slight Obama edge.

You'd think that, at some point, the focus would become exclusively on delegates, rather than on objectively meaningless "wins" and "losses." But of course, you'd be wrong. The objectively meaningless could be subjectively pivotal, because of the importance of the superdelegates, the media narrative, etc.

Thus, although it advances the "wins" vs. "losses" narrative, I gotta ask: what about Indiana, which votes on the same day as North Carolina? Might not Obama need a two-state May 6 sweep to really get the "Hillary should drop out" meme going?

TNR's Noam Scheiber thinks so. Here's the key excerpt from his excellent piece on the "Democratic death march" toward Denver:

Democrats have never been known for Spock-like rationality, but even they see the logic of avoiding a convention fiasco. "It's in nobody's interest in the Democratic Party for that to happen," says Mike Feldman, another former Gore aide. "There is a mechanism in place--built into the process--to avoid that." That mechanism, such as it is, involves an en masse movement of uncommitted superdelegates to the perceived winner of the primaries. Almost everything you hear from such people suggests this will happen in time. "I think once we have the elected delegate count, things will move fairly quickly, " says Representative Chris Van Hollen, who oversees the party's House campaign committee. Increasingly, there is even agreement on the metric by which a winner would be named. Just about every superdelegate and party operative I spoke with endorsed Nancy Pelosi's recent suggestion that pledged delegates should matter most.

Assuming Feldman and Van Hollen are right, that means Democrats won't wait much past June 3--currently the last day on the primary calendar--before crowning a nominee. At the same time, it means there's very little chance of ending the contest sooner. Undecided superdelegates on Capitol Hill, along with party elders like Pelosi, Gore, and Harry Reid, "don't want to be seen as elites coming in and overturning the will of the people," says one senior House aide. A Senate staffer says his boss "thinks this give and take is natural, it will be helpful in the end." "That's a view held by a majority of these guys who have been through the cut and thrust of politics," he adds. Which means early June it is. ...

The most optimistic scenario I could plausibly construct didn't end the campaign until the second week in May. To make it happen, Obama would have to overtake Hillary among superdelegates--a key psychological barrier. He'd have to limit his margin of defeat in Pennsylvania to ten points, then hold serve two weeks later in North Carolina and Indiana, a pair of states he's slightly favored to win. At that point, Hillary would face nearly impossible odds of overtaking him in the delegate race.

Unfortunately for anyone who wants the race to end soon, there are several problems with this scenario. For one thing, even if all this comes to pass, Hillary would still have to bow out voluntarily--an unlikely twist in any event, but highly implausible if the limbo states of Florida and Michigan still offer her hope. Meanwhile, any one of the aforementioned steps could easily fall through. Polls currently show Obama trailing by double digits in Pennsylvania; the good Reverend Wright could make that tough to change. And, though Obama now leads in North Carolina and Indiana, his advantage is either small or, in the latter case, based on a single, flimsy poll. As for superdelegates, as of this writing, the last two out of the closet opted for Hillary.

So, to review: The most optimistic scenario we have relies on a highly tenuous assumption; it's unlikely to happen even if that assumption holds; and, regardless, it allows the Democratic contest to drag on for six more brutal weeks. The dream may never die, but it's seen some better days.

The focus of Scheiber's article, as that latter point implies, is the damage the Democrats are doing to one another. At one point, he writes that "debating national security credentials during the primaries invariably alters the general-election landscape. You can now count on seeing another '3 a.m.' ad sometime this fall--not to mention a '3 a.m.' debate question from Tim Russert, and a shadowy, '3 a.m.'-obsessed 527 group. ('Insomniac Prank-Callers For Truth'?)" Heh.

He also notes, referring metaphorically to Democrat-on-Democrat attacks, that "any missile that hits its target would also destroy the person who launched it":

Given the delegate math, Hillary's only path to the nomination, barring a meltdown by Obama, is to destroy his electability. But harsh attacks on Obama will inevitably discourage African Americans from voting in the fall, and Hillary can't beat McCain without strong black turnout in places like Cleveland, Detroit, and Philadelphia. Conversely, any attack on Hillary that alienated moderate Republican women could cripple Obama's chances.

Indeed.

Comments

[JT]

Bill Clinton is in South Bend today celebrating Dyngus Day at the West Side Democratic Club.

[Joe Mama]

Just came back from visiting friends and family in PA. Many of them who are Reps were considering playing in the Dems' sandbox in the primary and voting for Obama (PA is a closed primary, so they would have to change their voter registration to do so - deadline was today), but after Obama's "pastor disaster", they no longer feel that strongly about it. I suspect Obama has lost a lot of such cross-over appeal now (at least in the primary), which explains Hillary's substantial lead in PA (of course, the closed primary itself might also factor in).

[becky]

I think it's kinda scary that people are judging obama based on his pastor. Since when did the words of our clergy determine our electability? It's like those nutters who wouldn't vote for JFK b/c he was Catholic.

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

I thought her firewall was the actual swearing in day of the next President

[Ed]

No, Becky. This is not at all likr the generalized anti-Catholic bigotry JFK had to overcome.

This is specific bias against a hateful, radical, racist church. A single church - not a denomination. This is a repudiation of the very worst of our country.

The electorate is doing what Barack, himself, refused to do. Shunning the evil that is that minister and his creation.

If JFK had been a part of a parish for twenty years where the priest espoused that the Holocaust was, after all, the Jews fault. That polio was a conspiracy promulgated by J. Edgar Hoover. He would have rightly been rejected as presidential timber.

This is not about a religion. Not even close. Wright is as significant to Christianity as David Duke or the Olympic bomber (whose name escapes me). That is to say, not one tiny bit.

Obama chose to attend and support financially a perverse and blasphemous house of worship, Christian in name only. Add this to his avowed antipathy to Israel's security needs and you have a perfectly valid reason to question his ability to understand and deal with the religious conflagration in the Middle East and Africa.

No sale.

[Brendan Loy]

his avowed antipathy to Israel's security

Explain, in detail, with supporting evidence, please. k thx bye.

[Brendan Loy]

P.S.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Defending_Obama_from_the_right.html

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/boot/2679

[David K.]

Remember Brendan, Obama is a closet muslim! Just ask his minister ;-)

[David K.]

I would love to see the same furor that has been directed towards Obama's pastor linked to McCain's spiritual advisors such as John Hagee, whose anti-catholic, anti-jewish, and anti-muslim views are pretty reprehensible themselves.

[David K.]

Ed, do you have any proof that this was the actual regular professed teachings of the church and not a few isolated comments (likely taken out of context to some extent)? Not saying that the minister shouldn't have to respond for what he said, but like i said above, if we are going to talk about spiritual leaders and political candidates lets focus on ALL the candidates.

[Ed]

Not worth it to me to do a full blown cite search.

I'll give you his utter disregard for the diplomatic realities surrounding Iran, and thus Hezbollah. He said would engage with the evil regime without precondition. He later modified this position somewhat in a debate with HRC. He is being reckless with Israel's security. I say it is antipathy. Pragmatically, reckless amounts to the same thing - Israel gets screwed. BTW - I am not exactly enamored with W, either. But that dude has shown an uncommon willingness to devote U.S. assets in that region.

David K - the covenants of that church and the consistent rantings of this lunatic prove the point. The covenants were taken down a week ago, but my understanding is that they are available - perhaps Michael Medved's web site? Why were they taken down if they are Christian? During the holiest week of the year, no less.

The bigger point is that JFK's faith behavior was well within norms. His fight was against those who were bigoted against a mainstream faith. Obama's faith behavior is not equivalent. As a sitting U.S. Senator, he attended and donated to a vile house of worship.

[Brendan]

He is being reckless with Israel's security. I say it is antipathy. Pragmatically, reckless amounts to the same thing - Israel gets screwed.

Perhaps, but morally, it's certainly not the same thing at all.

If you want to say he's being "reckless," I'm fine with that. That's something we can debate based on his proposed policies. My objection was to the "antipathy" in particular. I infer that you retract that, sort of, or at least aren't going to mount much of a defense.

You mentioned you aren't a huge fan of Bush. Nevertheless, I'm sure you would agree that, even though a lot of folks might say that some of Bush's well-intentioned policies vis a vis terror have proved a bit "reckless" themselves, nevertheless those people certainly should not accuse Bush of harboring "antipathy" toward America's security. Similarly, no one should accuse Obama of "antipathy" toward Israel's security merely because they disagree (even vehemently) with his approach.

[David K.]

I have seen nothing beyond these few overly youtubed videos that indicates a larger intent of the church in question of being a hate-mongering group, until I see some substantial proof, i'm not going to consider this a major moral failing ESPECIALLY since its demonstrateable that McCain has associated himself with religous leaders well after their own disturbing teachings were known, yet these are bieng ignored by the right, just as Bush's association with Bob Jones University was, as well as the associations of the Bush administration with apocolyptic religious leaders which is troublign in many ways as well.

[Ed]

Here is one piece that I happened to come across just now:

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=550

Obama is much more interested in "Palestine" than in the basics involving Israeli security. Again, given the current realities - missiles routinely fired into Israel from "Palestine," to give credence to the current Palestinian and Iranian regimes is to necessarily have antipathy (distaste; object of aversion) towards the State of Israel. I would use the same language to criticize those who would have supported Imperial Japan in 1942.

So, I do not retract my opinion. I will grant, however, that supporting Israel as we would, say, Canada, in a defense treaty is certainly worthy of debate. I just want the debaters to be honest in their biases.

[Marty West]

Thomas Jefferson would be shitting his pants if he were alive now.

[Jim Hu]

When I saw the YouTubes, I assumed that it would be hard to find a context that would mitigate the comments. But Andrew Sullivan posted the full text of the 9/11 chickens coming home to roost sermon yesterday, and now I'm not so sure. The failure of Obama's people to explore the possible defense I outline at the my blog makes me wonder about the parts I haven't read.

[Andrew]

Given the delegate math, Hillary's only path to the nomination, barring a meltdown by Obama, is to destroy his electability. But harsh attacks on Obama will inevitably discourage African Americans from voting in the fall, and Hillary can't beat McCain without strong black turnout in places like Cleveland, Detroit, and Philadelphia. Conversely, any attack on Hillary that alienated moderate Republican women could cripple Obama's chances.

These guys are a little slow. Their commentary would be a heckuva lot more relevant if they took their cues from Rush Limbaugh, who's been pushing his "Operation Chaos" for weeks now under this very premise.

As far as Indiana being a key state, Larry Sabato mentioned the peculiarities of that battle last week. At the end of the day, unless Obama starts blowing out HRC in the coming primaries, the nomination battle will largely come down to whatever is decided with the delegate counts from Florida and Michigan.

[David K.]

The fact that Limbaugh is advocating a method of discouraging voters from turning out and trying to create as divisive as a nomination process as possible has cemented my belief that he is one of the lowest forms of life on this planet, that he values his party over the country, and that anyone who agrees with him is beneath contempt.

[Andrew]

Oh puhleaze David, get off your high horse. Limbaugh is encouraging Republicans and independents to sign up and vote for HRC in order to drag out the Democratic nomination process. How in the world is that discouraging turnout? And frankly, why shouldn't Republicans openly root for chaos in the Democratic party? Quit being such a political weenie.

[David K.]

Quit being such a Machiavellian asshole Andrew. Just becuase there is corruption and poor sportsmanship in the system doesn't mean we should try and improve it and shouldn't disdain those who revel in it. Perhaps in your morally relative world such things are ok, but there are some of us who would prefer a better world, a better system, and better people in it. Limbaugh is a pox whose effect on the world has been nothing but poor.

Such a weenie.

[Andrew]

Rush is no more a pox on the political system than you are on this blog. The difference is, millions of people actually care about what Rush has to say, whereas virtually no one truly gives a hoot when you whine and snivel on this blog.

[Alasdair]

Now, Andrew - David is just doing what he is good at ...

If he had a better understanding of Life, he would realise that Rush Limbaugh is a self-avowed entertainer, not a politician, and he would also realise that Rush is as important politically as Bill Maher (which is to say "NOT") ... and, as you point out, a lot of folk are highly-entertained by Rush - as opposed to Air America which keeps going bankrupt cuz no-one seems to want to listen to it ...

Even more entertainingly, far from trying to discourage turn-out, Rush Limbaugh is actually trying to increase turn-out - of Republicans to vote in interesting ways in Democratic Primaries - completely legally - and only slightly-dubiously-morally ... if the Dems are dumb enough to make it *this* easy to sow chaos in their primaries, then they really shouldn't be surprised when folk decide to accept the implied invitation ...

As the Gary Larson cartoon said - "Bummer of a Birthmark " ...

I can read David's words, already ... "It's all the fault of the Eeevil Boooosh for forcing the innocent Democrats to have the Primary rules that allow the nasty republicans to mess with innocent Democratic Party minds " ...

[David K.]

Andrew, if i were as morally bereft as you are maybe I would agree with Rush too.

Alasdair, the only person who makes that statement about Bush being evil is you. Get over it, no one acts like you believe they do, your delusional attempts to "show" otherwise are just that, delusional. Your throwing up strawmen left and right, again because you don't have a single thought of your own in your head, all you can do is spout right wing talking points.

I never claimed any of the things you say i did or would. If you weren't such a brain dead moron with a problem in reading comprehension you would have seen that I complained about Rush's tactic and his intent behind them. I never blamed Bush, i didn't blame Cheney, Halliburton, etc. Shockingly, and I know this is hard for you, everything in the world does NOT revolve around Bush. Seriously, grow up, you act like a teenager trying to show everyone how cool he is.

[Joe Loy]

"If JFK had been a part of a parish for twenty years where the priest espoused that the Holocaust was, after all, the Jews fault. That polio was a conspiracy promulgated by J. Edgar Hoover. He would have rightly been rejected as presidential timber."

Ed, granted we do not Choose our parents but by all accounts JFK for all his forty-six years remained deeply devoted to his Father notwithstanding that the old man, like numerous others of his ethnicity & generation, took a very poor view of the Jews as a people ~ which, when you get right down to the root of it, is why Old Joe's delusions of Himself being presidential Timber got felled. / So should young Jack, being fruit of the poisoned tree, have been Rightly Rejected for having failed Sufficiently to Distance himself from, and similarly Renounce, Denounce, Divorce & Disown, his oul' da's bigoted legacy? / (Now as to the late lamented Queen Director of the FBI ;>, I suppose we can Stipulate that there's no compelling evidence of Polio having been among the many Conspiracies that he demonstrably Did promulgate, minor among them being the one to Control Kennedy by assembling the File on his Peccadilloes.)

"...John Hagee, whose anti-catholic, anti-jewish, and anti-muslim views are pretty reprehensible themselves."

David K, Pastor Hagee may be anti-Jewish but he sure does love the hell out of Israel :> (I know, I know, that's just until they get Left Behind after Triggering [so to Speak ;] the Rapture. :)

"...unless Obama starts blowing out HRC in the coming primaries, the nomination battle will largely come down to whatever is decided with the delegate counts from Florida and Michigan."

Andrew, you are No Rush Limbaugh :}, which is probably why you are so frustratingly-often Correct. // Hillary's not-implausible Road to the Nomination winds Longly ;> as follows:

(1) Wallop Barack in PA; beat him Somewhat more modestly in IN and NC; in the Momentum-roiled wake of which Whup his butt in WV, KY, & PR; and in-Between-times grab off an Upset in (pick one) OR, MT or SD.

(2) Thus fortified, march on to Denver bearing high the verydemocratic Banner of "COUNT EVERY VOTE!" on behalf of the oppressed Peoples of MI & FL. Pick up various frightened Superdelegates along the way.

(3) In Denver, from the Floor, offer an Amendment to the Credentials Committee's report seating the FL & MI delegations on the basis of a mandated 50-50 split between the candidates. Arguing that this scheme robs the People of the effective representation of their Intended Vote, have the Amendment seat FL on the basis of the Popular vote as Cast, and MI on the same basis but with the reasonable presumption that the votes for Uncommitted were Intended for Obama. / Include some Fluff requiring the DNC in future to explore less-draconian Penalties for breach-of-Calendar, such as to be effective but more Proportionate to the crime. / Bolstered by the carefully-cultivated support of some populistic-Guilt-ridden Obama superdelegates, narrowly win the Credentials appeal rollcall.

(4) Accordingly, with FL & MI so seated pursuant to said adopted Amendment, win the Nomination rollcall by Single Digits.

(5) Announce that you will not seek to Dictate your VP runningmate but will instead leave it Open for the convention to Choose.

(6) After the delegates have thus Drafted him, explain to Barack that it is his patriotic Duty to accept. / Also mumble something ambiguous about how at Your age maybe One term could be all you have In you.

(7) Raise your joined hands & bask in the adulation of a (more-or-less :) United party.

:}