Sunday, March 16, 2008

Indiana wants me

By Carl

With Pennsylvania seemingly stuck solidly in Clinton's column (no real movement in the polls, but it's way too early to add it to her delegate total), the key states remaining in the Democratic primary process are Indiana, North Carolina, and Oregon.

I think Indiana is the most interesting case, and certainly the one "must win" Obama has left on his schedule. He's doing well in North Carolina and should win that with a small delegate plurality in the urban and university counties, with Clinton eating up large parts of the suburban and rural vote. Oregon could be a hotly contested state, as it's sandwiched between California (strongly Clinton, with some Obama strength up north) and Washington (one of the few states that Obama won clearly across the board), but it should ultimately fall to Obama.

I call Indiana a "must win" for Obama, because should he fail to win Indiana, he will have failed to win any Ohio valley state (Kentucky and West Virginia look to be strongly Clinton), and Clinton will have a delegate map that stretches in one continuous line across the heart of America, from sea to shining sea, which will be her motto heading into the superdelegate courtship.

Should Clinton win Indiana, she can make the case that Obama wins in states that aren't going to vote Democratic anyway (deep South and Plains states), while she captured states that are crucial to a Democratic win. You've heard her test this strategy after Ohio, and it's among her strongest cases for the nomination.

Much has been made regarding recent statements from superdelegates about respecting the "will of the people."

Two observations to made here: First, this is one of the clearest examples of what I like to call "Polispeak." You say one thing that can be understood in several ways, and you leave it to the recipient to hear what they want.

Charles Degaulle was a master of this. I suspect Obama might even be better at it, but since he's never had to put his money where his mouth is, we may never know.

The question hangs on the meaning of "the people". Do you count the popular vote? Well, yes, Obama should win, except his totals include large numbers of Republicans and Independents, as well as the lion's share of caucus votes, which are cast over a number of hours, hours that "the people" can't really spare from the business of paying the mortgage. Whittle it down to registered Democrats who voted in know, the people who cast one vote each, the American way... and Clinton wins in a walk.

Delegates pledged? True, Obama has a lead here, but not enough to put him over the top. The people have spoken and neither Clinton nor Obama has won enough of their support to engage the nomination on the stump, meaning "the people" don't have a clear preference.

Second, superdelegates were put in place precisely to thwart the will of the people. The perverse logic that might drive many superdelegates (mostly elected Democratic officials) is that, since they represent their "people," as with legislating, they are chooising for the people.

My suspicion is superdelegates are leaning towards Clinton (they prefer insiders) but are looking for a compelling reason to vote for Obama. Indiana might give them that reason.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share


  • You have an interesting method of counting the popular vote. Open primaries in some states are just as much a part of the Democratic primary system as are superdelegates so it seems odd to favor one and exclude the other. I could say the same about caucuses but that's a different argument. And don't we want Independents to be on our side?

    And if we're going to be talking about the 'American way' then you must agree that Michigan and Florida don't count because they weren't conducted in the proper democratic fashion.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 3:11 PM  

  • I beg to differ that Obama's support from "non-Democrats" is a bad thing. In fact, Obama's support has been from genuine cross over voters who believe in his message. In contrast 24% of the votes Hillary received in Mississippi were from Republican registered voters who had been urged to vote for Hillary by the Republican establishment. They would much rather face Hillary in the general election. You can't blame them. That is a fight they would most likely win. It seems pretty apparent when talking with Obama supporters that they are very angry with the way Hillary is running her campaign. I don't see nearly as much cross over from Obama supporters to Hillary as I would Hillary supporters unifying under Obama. And your states analogy: Sure Hillary has one many of the big states that have always voted Democratic. Those states will vote for Obama as readily as they did Clinton. The key is the swing states like Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin and North Carolina. Those purple states have been won by or will be by Obama. And for the first time in ages states like Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina could be won by the Democrats if Obama lead the ticket.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:30 PM  

  • Hillary WILL win Indiana, and it will be RED, RED, big-time RED in November. Welcome, President McCain!!!!!!!!

    By Blogger QueersOnTheRise, at 7:42 PM  

  • Democrats should vote for Democrats for Presidential nominations.

    Period. On that basis, Clinton is ahead. Does it bug you that she's actually the choice of more of your fellow Democrats than Obama? It would me.

    By your collective logic, why not open the general elections to undocumented workers, or let Europeans visiting here vote?

    By Blogger Carl, at 7:51 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home