The Pyrrhic Victory

Yesterday, Senator Clinton won her second most lop-sided primary victory of the entire campaign, clobbering Senator Obama in West Virginia 67% to 27%.  Not only was the magnitude of her victory stunning, but exit polls raised doubts about Obama's ability to transcend race and win the support of working class white voters in November.  Senator Clinton pressed her case with the superdelegates and did interviews for all the evening news programs to convince voters that her candidacy was still alive.  By these accounts, this should have been a very good day for her, but events showed why she has hit her stride too late.

First, NARAL Pro-Choice America, a million-member non-profit which promotes abortion rights endorsed Senator Obama, citing the need to unify the party to elect a pro-choice candidate in November.  Then, Senator Obama announced the support of another 4 superdelegates (roundup spreadsheet updated) compared to only 1 which came out for Clinton.  This continues the pace of superdelegates that emerged after last week's North Carolina primary.  Finally, former Senator and Presidential candidate John Edwards gave his endorsement to Senator Obama during a speech in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  The endorsement bounced all coverage of the West Virginia primary from cable news, meaning that Clinton did not get even one full favorable press cycle out of her victory.

Edwards's endorsement raises two questions:  why did he endorse now instead of earlier and what will the effect of the endorsement be?  I believe he endorsed now because this was his last chance to be a kingmaker.  Senator Obama is poised to claim a majority of the pledged delegates in next week's Oregon primary.  That, combined with the continued flow of superdelegates may make Obama the presumptive nominee soon.  By endorsing now, Edwards can put a period on this race before the final numbers come in.  He also has a chance to help Obama improve his standing with working class white voters in the Kentucky primary next week.  Senator Edwards may cause these Kentucky voters to take a second look at Senator Obama.  Obama will still have to win them over himself, however, as the 2004 Democratic ticket which featured Edwards as VP only carried 41% of the white vote.  

Hillary's Fundraiser

I received a fundraising letter from Senator Clinton today.  I've never contributed to her before, so I'm guessing she got my name off the DNC list.  Blazing across the envelope is the statement "We're going all the way."  The letter itself seems a bit outdated.  The second paragraph begins with "This month we face critical tests in Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky and Oregon."  Sadly, the tests in Indiana and North Carolina occurred last week.  The best part is at the end where she says; "Matthew, I promise you that as long as I have your support, as long as you are fighting by my side, I will work as hard as I can to win."  I've been supporting Senator Obama for months and she hasn't stopped trying to win, so I don't think she's going to stop now.

Superdelegate Roundup Update - Obama Takes the Lead

Over the past week, the trickle of superdelegates toward Senator Obama has turned into a stream.  According to Democratic Convention Watch, Obama has netted 25 superdelegates since last week's North Carolina primary, compared to a net of 1 for Senator Clinton.  By their count, he now has 279 superdelegates to her 270.5.  Obama has also taken the lead in the "defector" category of the Superdelegate Roundup Spreadsheet.  Obama has convinced 24.5 of superdelegates from Senator Clinton's areas to support him, while she is only covincing 23.6% of superdelegates from his areas to support her.  Obama can thank 4 California superdelegates who announced their endorsements this week for the boost to Clinton's defector percentage.  It is interesting to note that more superdelegates have now defected from areas where Senator Clinton won the vote than remain undecided.  

Finally, Senator Obama has taken the lead in endorsements from superdelegates whose areas have not yet voted (18 vs 15), although this is now the smallest piece of the pie with only 61 superdelegates.  We'll see how the trends go for the next couple of weeks, though I doubt there will be a major shift until this Kentucky/Oregon primaries on May 20th.  

The total numbers now stand as follows:

Clinton area superdelegates:  318

Clinton Affirmers:  168 (52.8%)

Clinton Defectors:  78 (24.5%)

Clinton Undeciders:  72 (22.6%)

Obama area superdelegates:  370

Obama Affirmers:  183 (49.5%)

Obama Defectors:  87.5 (23.6%)

Obama Undeciders:  99.5 (26.9%)

Pre-Vote area superdelegates:  61

Early Clinton Commiters:  15 (24.6%)

Early Obama Commiters:  18 (29.5%)

Early Undeciders:  28 (45.9%)

Superdelegate Roundup Update

It's been awhile since I posted an update on the superdelegate roundup spreadsheet, although I have been making updates to it regularly.  Senator Clinton still leads in all superdelegate categories, although the size of her leads has declined sharply.  The numbers now stand at:

Clinton area superdelegates:  309

Clinton affirmers:  163 (52.8%)

Clinton defectors:  69 (22.3%)

Clinton undeciders:  77 (24.9%)

Obama area superdelegates:  369

Obama affirmers:  171 (46.3%)

Obama defectors:  87.5 (23.7%)

Obama undeciders:  110.5 (29.9%)

Pre-Vote area superdelegates:  67

Early Clinton committers:  20 (29.9%)

Early Obama committers:  18 (26.9%)

Early Undeciders:  29 (43.3%)

Senator Clinton is still retaining a greater percentage of superdelegates from areas which voted for her (52.8% vs 46.3%), as well as getting a greater percentage of superdelegates from areas which voted for Senator Obama to defect to her (23.7% vs 22.3%).  

This advantage may not last long, however.  Since the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Senator Obama has received commitments from 6 superdelegates, compared to only 1 for Senator Clinton.  One of Senator Obama's new supporters, Jennifer McClellan from Virginia, is a former Clinton supporter, meaning Senator Clinton has netted zero superdelegates since the last round of primaries.  We'll see if this trend continues into next week.

What Obama meant about his grandmother

Senator Obama's landmark speech on race relations has dominated the news cycle for the past couple of days. There have been many reactions, a good summary of them from Howard Kurtz at the Washington Post is here. I found it amazing how Senator Obama was able to so eloquently blend his own life story with the rest of the American racial experience in a way that both caused reflection and hope. This morning, however, Senator Obama made remarks during a Philadelphia radio interview that were much more controversial than anything he said during the speech. When asked about the comments he made about his grandmother during the speech, Obama said:

The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know - there's a reaction in her that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away and sometimes come out in the wrong way and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it. What makes me optimistic is you see each generation feeling less like that. And that's pretty powerful stuff

The statement has already received bad press from different corners of the media, and deservedly so. No Caucasian likes being called a "typical white person."  This is the kind of unforced error that Senator Obama cannot afford to make as he closes in on the Democratic nomination.

As impolitic as the comment was, Senator Obama does have a point when it comes to the instantaneous reactions people have to African Americans. These reactions are illustrated by Harvard University's Implicit Association Test, which tries to compare how people associate Caucasians and African Americans with things that are good or bad.  You can take the test yourself by clicking on the link, selecting demonstrations and choosing the Race IAT.  Results from Harvard's study show that 88% of white people have a pro-white or anti-black implicit bias.  The influence of the image blacks that is bred into our society is so strong the even 48% of blacks showed the same pro-white or anti-black bias.

Senator Obama has an important role in discussing race in America.  Let's hope that in the future he chooses his words on the radio as carefully as he chose them during his March 18th speech.

Phil Bredesen's Superdelegate Solution

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen wrote an op-ed for the New York Times this morning suggesting a solution for the Democrats' superdelegate dilemma.  He proposes holding a "superdelegate primary" immediately after all the primaries are completed on June 3rd.  The superdelegates' votes would then be bound to the results of the primary, guaranteeing the nomination to one of the candidates before the convention in August.  This way, he hopes to allow the Democratic party to use the summer months to focus on the general election, rather than determining the nominee:

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could each still believe that the nomination could be his or hers at the national convention in Denver in August.

In that situation, we would then face a long summer of brutal and unnecessary warfare. We would face a summer of growing polarization. And we would face a summer of lost opportunities — lost opportunities to heal the wounds of the primaries, to fill the party’s coffers, to offer unified Democratic ideas for America’s challenges.

Governor Bredesen's proposal makes much sense.  As he points out, the superdelegates will have all the information they need to make their selection once the primaries are completed.  While some have suggested that the superdelegates should reserve their votes in case one of the candidates becomes unelectable between, I view this as a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy.  If making the other candidate unelectable is the only way Senators Clinton and Obama can obtain the nomination, they are certain to spend the summer months trying to make the other appear unelectable.  We have already seen the results of their in-fighting:  Senator McCain now leads them both in national polls.

The "superdelegate primary" would allow the superdelegates to be scrutinized as a group among themselves, outside of the politicking that will occur at the convention.  It will give the Democrats the time they desperately need to bring the party back together.  While I would prefer an agreement by the superdelegates to follow their local election results, I believe Governor Bredesen has proposed the next best solution.

Republican Veepstakes

With the Republican nomination well settled, I think it's an appropriate time to start guessing who John McCain may select as his running mate.  To help educate my guesses, I've tried to pull together data on which states are most likely to flip from the party they voted for in 2004.  Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post put together this list last week of states he thinks are most likely.  I've also used electoral maps from SurveyUSA which were constructed from poll data in each state.  Here is the map if Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee.  Senator Clinton's map is here.  The maps illustrate differences in the strengths and weaknesses between the Democratic candidates which should guide Senator McCain's Vice Presidential selection.

Senator Obama's strength is in the mid-west and south-west.  He has a much greater chance of flipping Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada than Senator Clinton does.  I also believe he has a realistic chance of flipping Virginia.  Senator Obama's weaker in some of the more moderate Democratic states; his nomination could put Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New Hampshire at risk for the Democrats.  I also believe he has a reduced chance of winning Ohio.  While Senator Clinton is strong in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Florida and Ohio, I believe her chances of flipping any other states are much less than Senator Obama's.  She is also at greater risk of losing Minnesota and Wisconsin, both of which voted for Senator Kerry very narrowly in 2004.  SurveyUSA also has her losing Michigan.

Against Senator Clinton, McCain would probably view Pennsylvania and New Jersey as lost causes.  He would also face a greater risk of losing Ohio and Florida.  Furthermore, I don't believe he'd feel as much pressure to select a social conservative for VP, as facing Senator Clinton would automatically energize southern social conservatives.  Therefore, I believe he would try to make up for the potential losses Ohio and Florida by selecting Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty as his running mate.  Pawlenty would almost certainly deliver Minnesota for the Republicans (his approval is 59% there), and he may help in western Wisconsin enough to flip that state as well.  Together, those two states would probably be enough to seal victory for the Republicans.

Senator Obama would pose a different challenge for McCain.  He has done well in red state primaries and conservatives don't have the same distaste for him that they have for Senator Clinton.  He also did very well in the Wisconsin primary, making it less likely that McCain could win there, even with Governor Pawlenty on the ticket.  I believe the most effective running mate for Senator McCain against Senator Obama would be, as much as I don't like the guy, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.  While Santorum probably wouldn't be able to deliver Pennsylvania against Senator Clinton, I believe he could do so against Senator Obama.  He would energize the social conservative base of the party in a way that few swing state Republicans could.  In addition to carrying Pennsylvania, I think Santorum could help McCain hold Virginia and Ohio.  Santorum would hurt McCain in New Jersey and California, but I don't think he would end up winning those states anyway.

So those are my best guesses, I'm not going to dignify them by using the term "predictions."  If you have any other ideas or want to remark on my reasoning, hit the comment button below.