skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Why reports about national polling numbers can be safely ignored.
Big news! Polls taken after the Republican National Convention have John McCain up by as much as ten points! How can Barack Obama possibly recover from this? Is the election already wrapped up?
Hardly. Pundits tend to emphasize national polling numbers as a way of taking the pulse of the nation as a whole, but that's not the way presidents are elected. As we learned in high school civics class, the electoral college is responsible for choosing a new president, and those electors are chosen on a state-by-state basis. It's the individual state polls we need to look at, and those mask a significant advantage for the Barackstar.
Pollster.com is a great source for analyzing current numbers for any of the states. Using that as a guide, we see that Obama holds statistically significant leads (at least five points) in enough states to account for 243 electoral votes. That's huge, considering a candidate only needs 270 to win. John McCain, on the other hand, can only claim safe leads enough to pick up 179 votes. That leaves 116 votes in swing states, though it's telling that most of those states have been safely Republican in recent elections. Let's examine, shall we?
Traditionally Republican Swing States (90)
- Montana (3)
- Colorado (9)
- North Dakota (3)
- Virginia (13)
- North Carolina (15)
- Florida (27)
- Ohio (20)
Traditionally Democratic Swing States (26)
- Nevada (5)
- Michigan (17)
- New Hampshire (4)
We can read two things from this. First, it's possible that since so many more electoral votes are from traditionally Republican states, Johnny Mac stands to pick up more than the Barackstar. That's certainly possible. It's equally worrisome for McCain that so many traditionally Republican states are up in the air, though. When was the last time Montana's vote was in question? Or North Dakota? It's possible that the addition of Sarah "Frostbite" Palin could shore up the conservative vote in those states, but that still remains to be seen. My evaluation is that McCain is in worse shape than the mainstream media would like us to believe. Strange though it may sound, the MSM could be biased in favor of McCain rather than the Barackstar.
One last harrowing thought - if each set of swing states holds like we have laid them out here, then the electoral vote will be tied at 269, throwing the decision to the House of Representatives. Are you any happier than I am about the prospect of Nancy Pelosi choosing our nation's next president?
The thrilling conclusion to four days of political pageantry.
I'm pretty sure I found the song I want to be playing when Obama takes the stage: "Keep Hope Alive," by the Crystal Method. What could be more fitting than a song whose lyrics are taken from the Jesse Jackson speech of the same name?
Also, one thing I missed from the Gore speech. As expected, he invoked his own failed campaign of 2000, but he made an interesting point. He said that in that election, most people felt that the two were so similar on nearly every point that it didn't particularly matter which of them became president. (In retrospect, it mattered very much.) He warned voters of falling victim to the same line of thought. It's a point well received.
Senior Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is introducing Obama right now by reminding everyone that he did the same thing in 2004. What a difference four years make. I remember after the keynote address having a hard time remembering which of his names was his first name. ("Barack Obama? Obama Barack? Something like that, I forget.") Now he's easily one of the most famous names in American politics. The crowd is all fired up, but it's not for Durbin. I think just about anyone on earth could be speaking right now - Ben Stein, my landlord, the corpse of Grover Cleveland - and the crowd would be yelling and screaming with anticipation. He's got them all chanting "yes we can!", a phrase I haven't heard much of since the primaries. Why is that, anyway? Isn't this the phrase most associated with Obama? Where did it go?
Here comes the introductory video. They're playing up the single mother and hard-knock life aspect of him, which is in keeping with everything else in this convention. Make him a man of the people, a person just like everyone else, and people won't be so scared of him. People fear what they don't understand. By making Obama more approachable, they remove some of that fear. Even if it doesn't work like they hope, they still have the very personable Joe Biden. That said, they're doing all they can to play up this aspect of him.
Side note: while we aren't hearing much from the narrator this time (no Tom Hanks, friends), he really sounds to me like David Strathairn. No Morgan Freeman, who is in my mind, the quintessential narrator, but he's a great choice, if it is him.
I'm starting to wonder what the opening line of the speech will be. Is it going to be like in 2004, when Kerry walked out saying, "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty?" I always thought that was a great line.
And here he is - and if I'm not mistaken, that was a song by Keane that he walked out to. That's an interesting choice of music. Also, it has to be deafening in Denver. 75,000 screaming Obama fans going crazy all at once. Somehow, it's just not the same over the internet.
Ooh - the crowd provided his opening line for him, chanting "yes we can!" at him. They beat him to the punch. His response, "I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States," wasn't nearly as good, but it still generated a cheer that sounded like an atom bomb went off at Mile High Stadium. He gets off right away by praising the candidate who "traveled farther than anyone else," Hillary Clinton (duh).
This was cute - when he mentioned Michelle, everyone jumped up to their feet, but one of his daughters (Sasha?) took a couple of seconds to figure it out. When she did, she looked at Michelle and said, "Hey, that's you!" I love stuff like that.
So far, he hasn't really said anything new. He's reminding people that we face tough times, economically and militarily, and that while the government isn't responsible for the problems, they certainly aren't responding or doing anything about them. His response, "We are a better country than this," is an interesting one, though. It's not just that he can do better than McCain. It's that we as a people can do better. That's a great way to make the argument. It's not about him (though it had better be eventually), but it's about us. We can do better. We must do better. Clever way to take the focus off himself, and therefore the negative image McCain has put on him.
"We love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight." "Eight is enough." That's a slogan that could go on a bumper sticker. In fact, the crowd is chanting it right now. This campaign could do with more simple statements like that. Lofty rhetoric is great and all - it inspires, and it's definitely a strength of Obama's - but simple things like that stick in people's minds more than great speeches do.
Here's another good one - "I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change," a great dig at McCain's 90% voting record with Bush. The word "maverick" is synonymous with McCain by now. Tearing that image apart is an interesting strategy. Actually, it's an awful lot like the GOP destroying Obama's image of hope and replacing it with fear.
Here he goes into taxes and the economy. "John McCain doesn't get it." I keep waiting for him to drop some specifics. I like the idea of fixing the economy, but I want to know how he's going to do it. Now would be a great time to dispense with some of that.
Here he goes again citing the Clinton presidency. Good comparison - after all, Clinton is one of only two Democratic presidents since 1968, and certainly the popular one. Reminding people what life was like during the 1990s is a great way to get them to vote for you. Times were good economically then. Times haven't been so great since them. It's the economy, stupid. Think that phrase is going to come back before November?
He just told the story of his grandmother working her way up through the ranks to middle management and all the while giving any spare money she had toward Obama's future. Boy, did that get a cheer. He then asked the audience (indirectly) if that was the sort of life celebrities lead. Very masterfully done. He doesn't look particularly elitist to me tonight.
Here's a thought - is the reason we think Obama is such a great speaker mostly because of his voice? If John McCain were to deliver the same speech, I don't think it would come off as nearly as powerful. The baritone voice that projects and inspires - that's where the power is.
"I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper." Words taken directly from the 2004 keynote speech. I was waiting for something like that. That's the way to bring back the glory of that earlier speech that launched his career.
Ooh, specifics! He's starting to say exactly what he wants to do to restart the economy - no tax raises for little people (95% of all working families), restoring domestic manufacturing jobs, eliminating the capital gains tax for small businesses, and a clear goal to eliminate our dependance for Middle East oil within 10 years. Wow, is that last one bold. If he can do that, he'd easily be the greatest president in recent history - probably at least since FDR. No idea how he can pull that off, but that's a tremendous promise. Good luck matching up to that. Also, good luck in preventing the GOP from eating that promise for breakfast. Expect to hear a lot about that line over the next two months.
Actually, he's doing a good job of explaining how he plans to get rid of foreign oil, and it sounds like a solid plan. Obama's been criticized for not providing specifics for months, and now he's finally proving everyone wrong. This is a big deal - it makes him more of a heavyweight on the political circuit. No more saying that Obama's just an empty suit with pretty words. This is serious, meaty stuff. Very impressive.
"If you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education." And there's the bit about health care, which has to be the focus of this campaign. He just promised lower premiums and the same coverage Congressmen get. Citing his mother arguing with insurance agents brought a huge cheer. You can't help but wonder what Hillary is thinking, though. This has been her thing since 1992. If it were up to me, I'd appoint her to head up the health care movement as soon as I took office. She clearly knows the most about it. Let her get it done.
He's going to go through the budget "line by line" to find ways to cut spending and make things more efficient. I know it's not what he's talking about, but does this make anyone else think of the movie Dave? You know, the bit where he brings Charles Grodin in to cut the fat out of the budget? "We cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy."
That was a sharp dig at McCain's temper. He's accusing him of having too short a fuse to be an effective commander in chief. That's an argument we haven't heard for a while. I don't know how relevant it is, but it's interesting to hear it again.
More focus on the war in Afghanistan instead of Iraq. I agree that's more important, but I can't help but wonder if Afghanistan will turn into the new Iraq in a couple of years. Isn't that how it went for the Soviet Union? Isn't that how it went for us? We thought we beat them into the ground, but surprise surprise, the Taliban is back in power only a few years later. I don't know that it's going to be as simple as everyone makes it out to be.
Nice shot at the national security issue. "We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. Don't tell me the Democrats aren't going to keep this country safe."
This is another good one - he's pledging to restore the image of America as the world's "last, best hope." I kept hoping this was going to come up, and it finally did. I still think this is one of the biggest assets Obama has to offer. Just about the entire world wants to see Obama elected over McCain. Doesn't that affect our decision at all? Don't we want to restore American prestige?
Another chorus of "yes we can!" after he throws out the line about the country not being red states or blue states, but united states. He's talking about unity - lofty rhetoric, too - while offering specific issues for people to think about. Best of both worlds here. Obama supporters get what they want - a beautiful speech, and it's been impressive so far - and the McCain camp gets what they've been clamoring for, specifics. Let them chew on that for a while. You'd better believe we'll hear a lot about them next week.
"If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you run on stale tactics." Accusing the McCain camp of using fear rather than solving America's problems. That's a good point, too. I haven't heard a whole lot of ways McCain plans to solve the economic problems or anything else. Just that Obama will ruin the country if he's elected.
"What the naysayers have never understood is that this election is not about me. It's about you." Brilliant. Take the focus off himself and place it on the people. On the party. Is McCain going to attack the common people? He can attack Obama, but as long as he keeps the focus on the people, he's in good shape, I think.
Obama says he's seen the change coming. There has been a lot of change over the last year or so. He says it may not be easy, but it's on its way. Change again. That was the defining word of the primary season, and I've been waiting for a while for it to come back. Here it is, full force.
He's citing the "I Have a Dream" speech, which you had to know was coming, since it was delivered 45 years ago today. With all the references over the last few minutes, I almost expected him to say that he had a dream, too. It would have been impressive, but you have to believe there would have been plagiarism charges all over the place.
And that's it. Was it the prettiest speech he's ever given? No, I don't think so, but it might be the most important. He went a long way toward throwing out specifics and shaking the image of him as someone without substance. I think the GOP will be hard-pressed to outdo this convention. McCain can't match up to Obama in giving a speech. It's not even close. Look for a lot of demonizing and a lot of fearmongering, if you ask me. I'm not trying to color anyone's judgment of their tactics, but given how the campaign has gone so far, I don't expect anything different, unless they suddenly decide to reinvent the Republican brand.
The man everyone's been waiting to see.
Al Gore was one of the two big people everyone wanted to see tonight. (I don't think any of the party faithful would be all that disappointed if he announced he was actually accepting the nomination tonight. Even Obama would probably be okay with that.) He gets off to a quick start, asking, "Will we accept this opportunity for change?" He also reminded everyone who wasn't already aware (i.e., no one) that he was robbed of the presidency in 2000, and that if he were president today, boy, would things be different. (He's right, but it's pretty much moot right now.)
Sarah Vowell gave a great characterization of Gore in one of her books, calling him the nerd to George W. Bush's jock. He's certainly showing that here - he's laying out the facts and not apologizing for them. He's arguing that if you like the conditions as they are (and he goes into depth saying why they're awful), then John McCain is your man, but if you want a change, then you'd better vote for Barack Obama. He's getting a lot of time in for his pet issue of climate change, which you'd expect. (He even mentions that climate change could affect our national security, which is an interesting connection to make.) It makes sense, too, since the Democrats have been doing all that they can to tie the Republicans to big oil. He even reminds people that Thomas Edison was a big proponent of solar energy, saying that he hoped we didn't wait until coal and oil ran out to start tapping into it.
"Big oil has a 50-year lease on the Republican party, and they're drilling it for all they're worth." I like this metaphor here - by equating the GOP with big oil, that makes the election a fight between the little guy and big business. If you're trying to go after blue collar workers, that's a pretty good way to do it.
I'm really impressed with the very factual way that Gore is going about this speech. It almost sounds like he's delivering a report for his class in school. The crowd loves it, of course, but it's very different from what we heard over the last few days.
He's speaking right to younger voters now, reminding them that they get it. Of course Obama has a commanding lead among younger voters (what 19-year old would vote for McCain?), but he's doing well to emphasize that fact. Tapping into the youth vote could turn this tight election into a blowout.
And now he's comparing Obama to Lincoln, reminding them that Lincoln only had one term in Congress and that he too reached across the aisle and was known mostly as an orator. Nice comparison. The crowd's buying into it, but we'll see if the public does.
Almost 7.00 PM, and here we have the words "inconvenient truth." We all knew it was coming.
Here we are again focusing on Obama's blue-collar roots. Remember how he was raised by a single mother who depended on food stamps? Remember how he had to fight and scrimp and save to get to college? They're trying as hard as they can to get rid of that elitist tag.
Wow, Gore can still really inspire a crowd. They're all really fired up now. One more hour until the main man comes out to accept the nomination. Stay tuned.
Live-blogging night three of the convention.
We're back live at the Democratic National Convention. I came in late and missed Bill Clinton's speech, so I'll just be providing highlights for that.
Many were worried that Clinton would provide a less than total endorsement of Barack Obama, but tonight's speech showed otherwise. During the primary season, he was a frequent critic of Obama's inexperience, but tonight, he declared Obama to be "ready to be president," praise that means more coming from a man who held the office himself than from anyone else. Referencing his wife's comments the night before, he said that there would be two of them backing the Illinois senator - "actually...18 million of us." Sounds like it was a good speech. When I get a chance, I'll watch tape of it and make comments.
Massachussetts senator John Kerry, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, is speaking now, and he's offering a stirring rebuke of John McCain. He gave a comparison between "Senator McCain and Candidate McCain," describing all of the things McCain was against before becoming the Republican nominee. Flip-flop tactics, no doubt, but the crowd ate it up, especially when Kerry said, "Before [he] debates Barack Obama, [he'll] have to end the debate with himself." One poignant moment came when Kerry promised that Obama would end the tactics of swiftboating - poignant because Kerry's 2004 campaign took a well-publicized hit from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. You could tell the crowd caught the reference. Kerry has mostly faded into the background since his defeat in 2004, but he can still give a good speech.
While Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy speaks, let's get back to Bill Clinton's speech. Clinton made it very clear from the start why he was here: "first, to support Barack Obama, and second, to warm up the crowd for Joe Biden." (Both received wild applause.) There was a small dig at Obama when he said he was less than grateful to be speaking in the capacity he was (i.e., not a Hillary victory speech), but he said he'd do "the best [he] can." That was worrisome, but he got back on track quickly, saying he would do everything he could to get Obama elected.
This just in - retired Rear Admiral John Hutson, a "life-long Republican," is speaking and describing the Republican Party as a "failed brand." "Arrogance abroad and incompetence at home." "America can't afford more of the same." "This year a new leader has emerged who offers the change we so desperately need." If you were looking for someone to redefine the election, this guy might be it. He's a committed Republican who isn't convinced that John McCain is the answer. He's convinced that Obama can offer a fresh take on America's situation, and that this is the way we need to go. This speech reminds me of Zell Miller's speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention, where he famously all but defected from the Democratic Party in favor of George W. Bush. Pretty interesting.
Back to Bill, as we break away from a Texas Congressman. He spoke a lot about why McCain and the Republican Party have been destroying America over the last eight years. Predictably, he's focusing on the economy, since economic prosperity was one of the biggest successes of his term. I understand what he's doing, but I've been waiting for someone to speak about why Obama is a great candidate, not about why McCain is lousy. Maybe that's why I liked Hutson's speech so much - he focused on why Obama is a fresh take on America. "The third time is not the charm." Great lines from this speech. "America will have the national security leadership that we need." "Barack Obama is ready to lead." There's a couple of lines we've been waiting for. Maybe it's just me, but Bill's speech wasn't quite as inspiring as I was hoping. Granted, I was just watching highlights, but still, I wasn't as moved as I was by some of the speeches last night. Here's hoping there's better material ahead.
They're showing a video about U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. One of those videos that tug at the heartstrings. Soldiers crying for fallen comrades. Piano and string music. A narrator talking about strength in the face of fear. That sort of thing. The theme of the convention tonight is national security, and it sounds like they're trying to make the case that Obama will make the country safer by ending the wars in the Middle East.
Oh, I forgot to mention. The narrator is Tom Hanks. There's another celebrity endorsement for you, Barack.
Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth is speaking now. She ran for a House seat in Illinois in 2006, narrowly losing. She's notable as a famous soldier who was opposed to the Iraq War, and also famous for the loss of both of her legs. She's a compelling and articulate speaker, and she's not spending all of her speech saying why the war in Iraq was a bad idea. She's speaking out for veterans' care and medical reform, and it means a little more coming from her than from anyone else. Here's someone who had to go through the system (zing! there's another "mission accomplished" reference), and she doesn't want anyone else to have to go through it. She also went out of her way to mention that Obama visited her "and other wounded soldiers" at Walter Reed VA Hospital, a jab at those who accused him of skipping out on visiting wounded soldiers during his time in Europe. They're trying their best to build up Obama's credentials, but boy, they sure don't miss out on a chance to get a shot in at McCain.
As Duckworth left the stage, you had to notice two big things - first, she made a point of saying Obama would be the country's next "commander in chief" rather than president, and second, the cameras zoomed in as much as possible on her prosthetic legs.
Also, wow - John McCain just announced that he has chosen his vice presidential nominee. That's pretty bold, butting in on the opponent's convention like that. It used to be that convention time was sacred. You took a week off, and expected that he would do the same during yours.
One more thing - I've been noticing that all of the writing at the convention has been in the same typeface as the Obama campaign has been using since last year. Very nice way to subtly send the message of unity. I'm impressed.
In what may be the least surprising news of the century, Joe Biden was nominated unanimously as the Democratic vice presidential candidate. (Gosh, really?) They're showing a "salt of the earth" type video about him right now, clearly intended to balance out the image of Obama as an elitist. They're making a big show of mentioning the car accident Biden's family was in just as he was first elected to the Senate in 1972, costing him his first wife and daughter.
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't Biden have a great voice? I know he's famous for talking on and on endlessly, and I'll probably be sick of it in a week, but man, what a voice. It has just the right amount of gravel in it to sound not dominating, not forceful, not annoying, but stately. In an image that's been about image from the beginning, choosing someone who looks stately is inspired. Great job from this campaign.
And here he is, the man of the evening - Beau Biden! Okay, that's not who we were waiting for. Biden's son, the attorney general of Delaware, is here to introduce his dad and tell a bunch of stories about how devoted he is to his family. Apparently one of his earliest memories is of his father at the hospital after the accident refusing to take the oath of office (he was seriously just elected) until he knew that his boys were alright. Now Joe takes the train home to Wilmington every night to be with his family. Again, a great balance to the elitist tag Obama can't seem to get rid of. "Be there for my dad, like he was there for me." The crowd is just eating this up.
For some reason, John Kerry is on the stage, saying something to the two Bidens, who appear to be lost looking for the lectern. Maybe Biden will explain it, but for now, I'm just left scratching my head. What was that all about?
"Thank you, John Kerry!" Seriously, what were they talking about? Did he tell him that his fly was down or something?
He starts off (after saying he loves his family, aw) by praising the Clintons. He says that Bill "brought this country so far, I only hope that we can do it again," and says how honored he is to live in a country with some of the "bravest warriors in the world." Again, the focus is on bridging the gap between Obama and the Clintons. Both sides have done a bang-up job. If the campaign loses some embittered Hillary voters, it certainly won't be for lack of trying on their part.
Again with the family. He just introduced his elderly mother to America, and has spent a surprising amount of his speech talking about his family. They're really going out of their way to portray Biden as a family man. It makes sense, I suppose - America's already pretty familiar with who Barack Obama is, but this is Joe Biden's big chance to introduce himself to America. This does a lot to bring balance to the ticket. Joe just mentioned that his mother told him to "bloody the nose" of anyone who roughed him up so he could walk down the streets with his head held high. The camera cut to a shot of his mother, and she could clearly be seen mouthing the words, "It's true." This is gold for this campaign. And now he's transitioning from this picturesque scene to describing how the American dream is slipping away (thanks to who? those demons, the Republicans). Failed leadership, economic ruin, how are we going to survive?
Wow - Biden just misspoke and almost said the name "George McCain," and the crowd absolutely loved it. "Freudian slip, I guess," he shrugged. How does the campaign not use this every day until the general election?
Back to the American dream - Biden is describing Obama as the personification of that dream. Good call on this one, since that was the theme of Obama's keynote speech at the 2004 DNC. There wasn't a Democrat on earth who didn't like that speech, so anything they can do to bring back memories of that moment is a good thing.
My connection just died for a heartstopping second, but I came back to hear the word "change". That's a theme they ought to be bringing back some more. Obama won the primaries - he redefined the primaries - with that word. Why is he moving away from it now? Doesn't most of America agree that we're on the wrong track? Why promise more of the same if that's not what America wants, and if it's what America specifically voted you not to do? Biden's doing a good job of bringing this back - he has the crowd yelling "that's more of the same" along with him. Any time you can get the crowd talking along with you, it's a good thing. Brian Schweitzer had the crowd doing it last night, and he was a rollicking success. Biden's on that same track.
Whoa, a nice little dig there on the education system. He's talking about making college affordable and making education accessible for everyone. I was talking to my mother today about the election, and she said she'd vote for anyone willing to abolish No Child Left Behind. I don't think either side is quite that dedicated, but that's the closest I've heard anyone come to it for a while.
Also, nice shot at the administration for going after the wrong countries. He says we need to focus on the real threats in the world today - the economic threats, Russia, India, and China, rather than on Iraq. That's an interesting take on the national security issue. Secure the country to protecting us economically. I like it. Don't expect to hear anything like this at the RNC next week. Actually, he's doing a good job of pointing out that McCain's supposed strength - foreign policy - is actually a weakness. Remember when he kept mixing up Sunnis and Shi'ites, and thought that Iraq bordered Pakistan? What ever happened to that talk from the Democrats? I'm surprised they aren't hitting on this issue harder.
Here's another issue I've felt has been unfairly neglected. Joe says that if Obama is elected, America will regain trust on the international scene. I completely agree. That's one of Obama's biggest assets - scores of other countries would love to see him elected president. He improves America's image internationally. McCain wouldn't. How have they not said this every single day on the campaign trail? That's a huge asset that they've completely ignored.
Anyhow, that's it for Biden. He did a pretty good job introducing himself to America. I'm convinced he'd be a capable vice president, and it sounds like the people in the convention hall are, too. Now, we have tomorrow to look forward to - the Barackstar himself will speak at Mile High Stadium. This is a big chance for him to bring the campaign back to a message of hope and change rather than partisan mudslinging. We'll see how he handles it.
Speaking of which, there's the man now, entering the hall to thunderous applause. Not really the surprise they made it out to be, but it's exciting nonetheless. He's paying tribute to the four headline speakers - Michelle, Hillary, Bill, and Joe - and working up the crowd for tomorrow night. Pretty good way to end the night. Here's hoping tomorrow night lives up to it. (Who am I kidding? Of course it will!)
Live coverage of the second night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver.
I doubt many people are reading this anymore, but I'm always happy to write for writing's sake.
The big story here at the Democratic National Convention has been the continuing feud between supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clinton's supporters are convinced that the Obama campaign has continuously disrespected the New York senator, to the point that more than a third of them have said that they refuse to vote for Obama and will instead either vote for John McCain or stay at home. Perhaps it's just me, but I can't quite figure out what the Obama campaign has done to defame Sen. Clinton other than defeat her in the primaries. It all seems like a lot of sour grapes to me. In fact, I'm surprised that so many Democrats would rather see a Republican in office to assuage a grudge. Of course, it's more than likely that the media has made this a bigger issue than it really is. In fact, my blogging on the subject is only making it worse. Let's move on.
Virginia governor Mark Warner delivered the keynote address tonight, something that has drawn particular attention this year because of Obama's stirring and now-famous keynote address in 2004. Warner was tapped as a likely Democratic nominee until he announced that he would not run in 2007, preferring to see his daughters graduate from high school first. After listening to his speech, I really wish he would reconsider. Warner is a terrific speaker and a centrist to boot. Rather than enshrine Obama and demonize McCain, he talked about reaching across the aisle and accepting good ideas no matter which side they come from. I'd love to see a President Warner someday. He seems like someone a lot of people could get behind. At the very least, he's not someone that people could forward emails about claiming all sorts of atrocities. (Not that we have anyone like that now.)
After Gov. Warner, a parade of lesser-known governors (Ohio's Ted Strickland, Massachussetts' Deval Patrick, and Montana's Brian Schweitzer) came out and did exactly what Warner didn't - demonize John McCain. That's their job, really, but it came as quite a contrast from Warner's speech. I'll summarize their speeches here:
"As you're aware, by electing Barack Obama as the next president of the United States, we will be able to create three billion new jobs - every month! It's absolutely amazing what we could accomplish! By contrast, if John McCain becomes president, we will literally be forced by law to brutally slaughter and consume our own children. Is that what we want to see happen in the future? No! Only Barack Obama can save us from the coming apocalpyse!"
(Actually, I really enjoyed Brian Schweitzer's speech. He played up the fact that he's a simple rancher from Montana, and he really seemed to be having fun. It's a rare thing to laugh out loud during a convention speech. I did several times during Schweitzer's speech. Here's hoping we see more of him in the future.)
While I'm waiting for Sen. Clinton to come on stage, I'll talk about Deval Patrick briefly. I thought it was interesting that they invited him to speak, considering the "just words?" flap earlier in the primary season. He was a good speaker, but I cringed a little bit when he started having the audience chant "yes, we can". It seems a little bold of him to invite plagiarism back into the campaign. The McCain campaign is doing a good enough job of shredding Obama's image without him adding more fuel to the fire.
(Schweitzer is still going, and he's shouting at each state's delegation individually to get up off their feet and shout for energy independence. Man, this guy is an electric speaker!)
Before Sen. Clinton took the stage, they played a montage of her speeches and people talking about her. It was pretty inspiring, and you'd better believe they put that "18 million cracks" line in there a couple of times. Chelsea Clinton narrated the video, and she introduced her mother to the crowd, who gave her a few minutes of a standing ovation and waved a ton of Hillary posters, which seemed to appear out of nowhere. The big question, though: can she convince her supporters to (enthusiastically) back Obama?
It sure looks like she's off to a good start - she mentioned the fact that she was a "proud supporter of Barack Obama" within the first 30 seconds of her speech. Statements like "we are all on the same side, and none of us can afford to stay on the sidelines" seemed like pointed remarks to her supporters to vote for Obama already.
She's doing a very good job of reminding Democrats what the real contest is - not Clinton vs. Obama, but Obama vs. McCain. She mentioned once that Obama was her candidate and was met with grumbles of disdain, but she kept talking and shouted them down. I'm convinced she's sincere. While she's certainly disappointed that she didn't win this round (who wouldn't be?), she really wants to see a Democrat in the White House.
(Personally, I think she'll be a more powerful agent for the Democratic Party as a senator than she could have been as a president. She'd meet with a lot of strong Republican opposition as a president, but in Congress, she can be a strong voice and push things through. This is probably the best situation the party could be in at this point, all things considered.)
It's interesting that all of these speakers have stayed away from personal attacks on John McCain in keeping with Obama's vision of post-partisan politics, but that it seems to be open season on attacking George W. Bush. His name is practically a four-letter word here at the convention, becoming synonymous with "failed leadership," "economic ruin," and "short-sighted."
Wow. Hillary's finishing this speech off with a bang. She's asking her supporters, "Were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for [a million stories that tug at the heartstrings]?" For someone whose public image is so much about me-first and selfishness, she's doing a good job of taking the spotlight off herself. I saw a lot of shots of tear-streaked faces of women who are still reluctant to let the dream go, but the message seems to be getting through. This is a really good speech.
Now she's implying that it's our duty as Americans to elect Barack Obama to ensure a brighter future. That's a powerful statement, and it's interesting that she was able to make the point without mentioning either Bush's or McCain's names. Very skillfully done.
That's it for the convention tonight. It looks like Hillary did all that she could to convince her renegade supporters to get behind Obama and the party in November. She wasn't wishy-washy in her support, either. She made it very clear that she doesn't want to sabotage her party's chances at the White House. Sure, you might argue that such was the politically expedient thing for her to do (could she really stand up and tell people to abandon Obama?), but the message really seemed sincere. I was impressed. But boy, would I be excited if Mark Warner were on top of the ticket. Especially if he had Brian Schweitzer as his VP. What a tremendous ticket that would be. Maybe someday in the future.
Yet another race for Hillary Clinton to lose.
Now that the presidential nomination has been all but sewn up by Barack Obama (he only needs 48 more delegates to win, which he should have by next Tuesday), it's time to turn our attention toward the vice presidential race. Like the Republican spot, the names most commonly heard for the Democratic spot are those of former presidential candidates, and like the Republican spot, you can bet that most of them aren't realistic. Let's consider.
Hillary Clinton. We've heard a lot about the "dream ticket" for months now, but the possibility wasn't ever much more than remote. Clinton stands for everything Obama wants to change about Washington politics. Adding her to the ticket would help to placate the Clinton voters, certainly, but it would alienate those whom he worked to hard to win over. Add all that to the fact that she just suggested that she's staying in the race in case Obama is shot and you can count her out.
Al Gore. Wishful thinking. He's already had the job once, so there's little chance he'd take it again. Plus, he's already said that he's not interested in the White House anymore. With an Oscar and a Nobel Prize, he could have had the presidency if he'd wanted it. Let's look elsewhere.
Jim Webb. Webb is the junior Senator from Virginia who narrowly won in 2006, giving Democrats control of the Senate. The fact that he comes from a traditionally Republican state makes him an attractive option for the VP spot. At age 62, he's still relatively young (well, younger than McCain, at least), and he has experience as the Secretary of the Navy (under Reagan), which could bolster Obama's anti-terrorism image. Webb would be a strong choice, and Intrade favors him above all other candidates by at least four points. (For more information on Intrade, see my article on the Republican VP spot.)
Bill Richardson. Since Richardson's withdrawal from the the presidential race, he's appeared to be angling for the VP spot with Obama. He's talked him up in public, given his superdelegate endorsement to him over Sen. Clinton (whom he has been a personal friend of for years), and has been loudly calling for Clinton to exit the race. And as if that's not good enough, here's the kicker - he's Hispanic. Not that race should be the main motivating factor, but a charismatic Hispanic governor from the West could be exactly what this ticket needs. He brings years of experience as well as a reason for Latino voters to go Democratic. Howard Dean has been saying that the key to the presidency lies in the West this year. Richardson could be the way in. He's way behind on the Intrade market, but I wouldn't be surprised if this the guy the Democrats go with, so long as they don't mind running two minority candidates on the same ticket. (If anti-Obama racism has been bad, imagine adding anti-immigrant sentiment to that.)
Wesley Clark. Clark is a retired four-star general from the Army who ran a failed campaign for the presidency in 2004. A general on the ticket would do wonders to doing away with Obama's image as inexperienced and naive, especially with regards to the military. A few months ago, Clark led the Intrade pack, but now he hovers around $5. That could be because he endorsed Clinton last year, but it's more likely due to his low name-recognition factor. Obama's star power could easily make up for that.
The other names being tossed around are either due to wishful thinking (think John Edwards) or would only make sense with Clinton at the top of the ticket (think Evan Bayh). If you're asking me, and you clearly are, or else you wouldn't be reading the article in the first place, my top three choices (in order) are Richardson, Clark, and Webb. You can congratulate me at the convention in August when I was right.
Why this primary season is driving me insane.
(In this article, the author will replace his traditional style of summarizing news stories without editorial bias with RAW UNBRIDLED SARCASM. Please be forewarned that the following statements will be purely opinion and not meant to be construed as fact. Thank you. --ed.)
The dominant story in the headlines today was that Barack Obama all but officially cut ties with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his controversial pastor who has been causing problems for him on the campaign trail. (I've already documented my feelings on the Wright imbroglio previously; feel free to refresh yourself on them.) After laying the story to rest a few weeks ago, Wright has taken it upon himself to go on a speaking tour in an effort to clear his name. To his credit, he sounds much more polished and intelligent than the sound bites you hear on YouTube. And to his credit, Obama really didn't have any other political recourse than to once again publicly distance himself from Wright. That's all good and well. But why does this story have to be the top item on my Google News page? It's a story that's already been put to bed several weeks ago. It didn't affect the polls the first time around, and it won't affect the polls this time around. (Pro-Obama voters would love him even if he ate babies, anti-Obama voters would hate him even found a way to cure cancer and turn it into gold, and undecided voters will vote based on the economy.) Let it go already! It doesn't matter!
I know I sound like a broken record here, but the fact is that none of the election coverage over the past few months has really mattered. Almost without exception, each state has gone for the candidate projected to win there weeks and months earlier. The only exception has been Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire, which showed Obama leading on the day of the primary. Can we please skip to the end already? Clinton DOES NOT have a chance to win the nomination. She can take the race all the way to the convention, sure, but in the end, she's going to end up as close to winning the nomination as Dennis Kucinich. Taking second place isn't any different than taking twentieth. You still lose.
Don't believe me when I say she's not going to win? Take a look at Slate's Delegate Calculator, which shows how many delegates each candidate has and stands to win in each state. As I'm writing this article, Obama holds a 155 delegate lead. That may not sound like much when there are over 3100 delegates that have been awarded, but that's more delegates than there were at stake in Ohio. (Remember when Ohio was a big deal?) Obama's lead is huge, and Clinton isn't doing much to chip away at it. The major media outlets made a huge deal about her win in Pennsylvania last week, saying that she was back from the dead and that maybe Obama was the underdog now. This is lunacy. Absolutely ridiculous. She ended up with a net gain of 12 delegates from that primary. If she wanted to make a legitimate claim that she could win this race, she would have needed at least twice that to start making a dent in Obama's lead. As it stands, Clinton needs to win the remaining nine primaries by forty points each to even catch up to Obama. Forty points. That means she needs to get at least 70% of the vote in nine more contests if she wants to take the lead and start convincing superdelegates that the has the voice of the people.
Do we have any idea how utterly impossible it is to get 70% of the vote in any given state? Any??? It's only been done twice in this primary season. Obama did it in Hawaii (where he benefited from being a native son and the caucus format) and Clinton did it in Arkansas (again, with the native son). Obama couldn't do it in Illinois. Clinton couldn't do it in New York. John McCain is just barely pulling it off now, even though he's UNOPPOSED. Is this starting to make sense? HILLARY IS DEAD, PEOPLE. ACCEPT IT.
Seriously. Let's just agree to tune out all election coverage until June 4, when we wake up and see that Obama is STILL ahead after the Montana and South Dakota primaries. Clinton won't have a leg to stand on. She'll be completely finished and won't have anything else to fall back on. (Who am I kidding? Of course she'll come up with something else to justify staying in the race.) Anything else that happens between now and then can be safely ignored, unless we find out Obama is a convicted murderer, alligator rapist, or serial pope abuser. Almost every single primary (remember New Hampshire?) has gone according to the polls so far. There's really no reason to assume that it won't continue. Here, I'll even tell you who's going to win each of the remaining nine contests:
May 6: Indiana (Obama, close)
North Carolina (Obama, by a lot)
May 13: West Virginia (Clinton, by a lot)
May 20: Kentucky (Clinton, by a lot)
Oregon (Obama, close)
June 3: Montana (no polling data available, but probably Obama by a lot)
South Dakota (same thing)
There aren't any opinion polls taken for Guam and Puerto Rico, either. Even if we assume those to be virtual ties, there's no chance that Clinton will get 70% of the remaining vote. Even if she does, she still has to convince something like 80% of the remaining superdelegates to side with her. It's impossible.
Seriously. Come back and read this article on June 4 and see if I wasn't right.
Parsing the Jeremiah Wright sermons.
I know I went on record a few weeks ago as saying that nothing between March 4 and April 22 would matter in the primary season, but since the craziness about Rev. Jeremiah Wright refuses to go away, I'll weigh in on the matter. I stand by my opinion that it doesn't matter in the slightest. More than anything else, I'm irritated by how distorted and skewed these sermons have become by major news outlets in an attempt not to discredit and smear Barack Obama, but to simply sell a story.
The phrase "God damn America" is ubiquitous now. A simple Google search on the phrase yields over a million hits. Pretty impressive stuff for a sermon delivered over five years ago on the south side of Chicago. Yet if you ask nearly any American what the speech was about, I doubt very much that any of them could tell you anything beyond "he hates America." That's troubling to me. My frustrations about the us versus them mentality of post-9/11 patriotism aside, I want to point out that Rev. Wright is not attacking America here. He's mourning. You can see that in the text of the speech. Amazingly, considering all of the YouTube videos in circulation containing sound clips from the speech, I wasn't able to find a complete text of the sermon. (If you can, mention it in a comment and I'll get it posted up here.) The title of the sermon is "Confusing God and Government." He spends his 40 minutes arguing that citizens look to their government for the things that only God can provide. 
Specifically, he makes the distinction between an good, benevolent, and merciful God and a petty, human, and flawed government. The comparison should surprise no one. No government, nor any other man-made institution, can claim to be perfect. He made several references to the American government, especially the war in Iraq, but didn't limit himself, also referencing the Egyptian, British, German, Russian, and Japanese governments.
The sound bite about America was what drew the most attention, though. Yet listen to the quote - the whole quote - and tell me if this is a sentiment you really disagree with:
"When it came to putting the citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters. Put them on auction blocks. Put them in cotton fields. Put them in inferior schools. Put them in substandard housing. Put them in scientific experiments. Put them in the lower paying jobs. Put them outside the equal protection of the law. Kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education, and locked them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness.
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law and then wants us to sing God Bless America. Naw, naw, naw. Not God Bless America. God Damn America! That's in the Bible. For killing innocent people. God Damn America for treating us citizens as less than human. God Damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and she is supreme."
Admittedly, the quote has an air of conspiracy theory to it. But if you think of the government as the common man, then there's little disputing what he says. Blacks have been repressed for years. There's still a very real element of racism in America today. That's undeniable. Wright is denouncing the sin of pride in America for her sense of superiority, and that's something that's hard to argue with.
The other thing causing all of this flap is his argument that America is reaping the rewards of imperialism abroad with terrorism at home. Here's an excerpt from that speech, delivered days after the September 11 attacks:
"We took this country, by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arawak, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism. We took Africans from their country to build our way ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism. We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians - babies, nonmilitary personnel. We bombed the black community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers, and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hardworking fathers. We bombed Khadafi, his home and killed his child. Blessed be they who bash your children's heads against the rocks.
"We bombed Iraq, we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed the plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy - killed hundreds of hardworking people - mothers and fathers, who left home to go that day, not knowing they'd never get back home. We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye. Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school - civilians, not soldiers. People just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas is brought back into our own front yard.
"America's chickens are coming home, to roost. Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism."
Again, you can disagree with the idea that the American government has a secret agenda to systematically remove undesirables from within its borders or overseas. But there's little disputing America's foreign policy has created a powerfully anti-American feeling abroad. And it's in that sense that Rev. Wright said "God damn America." He's not angry. He's mournful, wishing that history could have led us to a different place. He's preaching accountability for transgression, saying that we need to be responsible for our actions and take our lumps. Above all, he's preaching repentance, coming back to the suffering of Jesus Christ as a way to redemption at the end of both of these sermons.
You can disagree with his choice of examples for his sermons. I don't think that politics has a place in religion. They'd do well to stay apart. But his points are completely valid, I think. They just need to be read in context. They also need to be read in a state of mind free of hyperpatriotism, remembering that America isn't the center of the world and that criticizing the government and the country isn't the grievous sin it's made out to be.
Shockingly, an actual development on the campaign trail.
While I was adamant that nothing significant would happen with respect to the election until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, I may be forced to eat my words a mere two weeks later. Something major is afoot, and it's not what you think it is. Barack Obama's speech on race today was stirring. It was impressive, and critics hailed it as a turning 
point in his candidacy. Some people said this was the moment that put him past the presidential threshold. It was impressive. It sounded fantastic, and certainly did a lot to improve his image, which is what this campaign is centered around. But it wasn't the most significant piece of election news today. The most significant news, actually, was something that came without a lot of fanfare, which is surprising, considering its implications. Florida Democratic Party chair Karen Thurman announced today that Florida will not hold a re-vote for the Democratic primary. The results are to stand as is.
This leaves three possibilities for the Florida Democratic delegates, none of which are particularly appealing to Hillary Clinton, who won there with 50% of the vote.
Situation 1: The delegates from Florida aren't seated at the Democratic National Convention in August, and Clinton's 17-point victory counts for nothing. The Florida delegates don't matter. Ouch.
Situation 2: Barack Obama, who will control who can and cannot be seated at the delegation since he has the most delegates, allows the Florida delegates to be seated, but only if he has enough of a lead that seating extra Clinton delegates isn't a threat to him. They don't matter in this situation, either. Ouch.
Situation 3: The Florida delegates are split 50-50 in a reallocation. Neither candidate earns a net gain from Florida. The delegates still don't matter. Ouch.
No matter how you slice it, Clinton stands to lose a lot from this decision. Florida could have offered up to 186 delegates. Even if she only won by ten points (which is a somewhat modest projection), she would have gained twenty delegates on Obama. That's a lot when you consider the gap between them is just over 140. Her chances of winning the popular vote shrink up without Florida, too. A re-vote in Florida would likely have been even more in her favor, pushing her closer to the popular vote and the claim to have the voice of the people. That doesn't look likely now. Superdelegates are trickling away from her, too. She's losing, and even a major victory in Pennsylvania probably won't be enough to stop the bleeding.
So that's the real news from the campaign trail. The news outlets will rave and swoon over Obama's big speech, but you'd better believe the announcement out of Florida has the Clinton campaign sweating a lot more.
Sneaky tricks as the primary season continues to unfold.
Remember how I told you the next few weeks would be a lot of coverage about nothing? It's already underway. The insanity surrounding Eliot Spitzer aside, a "major" event has arisen on the campaign trail. Since her wins in Texas and Ohio rejuvenated her campaign, Hillary Clinton has been subtly floating the idea that Barack Obama could be her running mate in November. Crowds flew into a frenzy as she remarked, "A lot of people wish they didn't have to [choose between Clinton and Obama]. A lot of people say 'I wish I could vote for both of you.' Well, that might be possible someday."
The Obama response was predictable. He was quick to point out that he is "not running for vice president," and that the Clinton camp can't say both that he is too inexperienced to be president but suitably experienced to be vice president. And he's right, of course, but the real problem this poses for Obama is the one that lies under the surface. By suggesting that Obama could be her vice president, Clinton places herself as the front-runner. It's almost a condescending remark, as though it were something a mother might say to her well-intentioned but ultimately misguided child. She's implying that even though Obama is running in front right now, she will be the party nominee in the end, and that this is a good way to get his feet wet.
The genius of the whole thing is that the whole argument is implied. If she were to say all of this out loud, Obama could argue against it without too much difficulty. However, you can't argue against something that isn't said. Obama is trying to make the nonverbal argument into a verbal one by saying that Hillary isn't in a position to start choosing a vice president just yet since she's still behind. He's going to have to crack down a little harder. Clinton is getting into the voters' heads. There's no reason to think that she won't continue tactics like this one.
And why you can expect a whole lot more of it until the Pennsylvania primary.
Now that the much-ballyhooed Texas and Ohio primaries have officially settled nothing other than the fact that the Democratic primary race will continue, the American public gets to wait seven more weeks until another major primary. True, there is a caucus in Wyoming tomorrow and a primary in Mississippi on Tuesday (both of which should be easy Obama victories), but the Pennsylvania primary on April 22 has 158 delegates at stake, nearly three times the amount of Wyoming and Mississippi combined. So we should look forward to a month and a half of silence, right?
Wrong. The candidates want to keep themselves fresh in your mind (predictably), so they're going to do all they can to keep themselves in media coverage, and especially to make sure that their opponent looks as bad as possible. So we should look forward to engaging and intellectual debates about the various issues facing our country, right?
Wrong again. With a few exceptions, party primaries aren't really about issues. (The 2006 Senatorial primary in Connecticut between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont, which was widely seen as a referendum on the Iraq War for the Democratic party, is a good example of this.) Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have differences when it comes to the issues, but for all intents and purposes, they're very minor issues. Both of them agree that we need a universal health care program. Both of them believe we should get our troops out of Iraq. Both of them believe we need to turn around the economy. Their only major policy difference is Obama's claim that he'll meet with leaders of countries such as Cuba, Iran, and North Korea without setting preconditions, but the fact that this hasn't received much attention in the media goes to show you that these elections aren't about issues.
I've argued before that this election is about image. If you want proof of that, you need look no further than the slogans for each candidate. Obama's is "change we can believe in," and Clinton's is "solutions for America." Could we have two less substantive themes? Obama has been famously vague about what sort of change he will enact as president, earning criticism from the Clinton camp, but she has been equally vague on what "solutions" she would provide. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, though. We already know what issues and policies the Democratic candidate will pursue in office, whichever of them is ultimately nominated. What we're voting for is an image. Do we want the candidate who has an image of hope and staying above the fray, or do we want the candidate promising experience and an ability to fight?
Once you accept the idea that the election has nothing to do with issues, the fact that stories such as Obama's traditional Somalian outfit or Clinton's dallying to release tax information are dominating news cycles comes as no surprise. They aren't trying to show that the other is weaker on the issues. They're working to destroy image, because ultimately, that's what voters are deciding this primary season. An interesting side note: for all the noise generated about McCain being a phony conservative, can you think of anyone who looks more like a Republican than him? He looked and acted the most like a conservative of any of the candidates, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. He's old, and he's cranky. Mitt Romney was his strongest competitor, but the image he gives off seems like he would have been more at home in the Democratic party. (Is it any surprise that he was elected as the governor of Massachusetts?)
So prepare for a lot of stories about nothing over the next seven weeks. They may sound important and critical to the election, but you'll find that even if it sounds like there are issues on the surface, it boils down to image, and that's what counts in the end.
Making sense of last night's primaries.
Hillary Clinton put a stop to the Obama freight train with victories in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island last night. Her campaign had made a big point of Texas and Ohio especially - Bill Clinton even suggested that if his wife did not win those two states, she would not be able to secure the nomination - and with last night's results, she publicly declared that her campaign has "turned a corner," even going so far as to hint at a Clinton-Obama ticket.
Should we go ahead and coronate Clinton, then? Or is Barack Obama's claim that Clinton's wins last night, though impressive, still aren't enough to make a dent in his delegate lead? And if you're a Democratic superdelegate, who should you vote for now? Which candidate is more likely to be successful in a general election?
Each side is quick to point out their electoral strengths and their opponent's weaknesses. Clinton reminds voters that she is consistently winning large states that serve as Democratic strongholds, and that nearly half of Obama's wins are in caucus states, where a much smaller percentage of the population is represented. Obama argues that he is winning smaller - but more - states, and many that traditionally fall into the Republican column, which gives him an advantage over John McCain in the general election. Both of them make a strong case for the nomination. Let's look at each in turn.
Clinton. She's right when she says that she's consistently winning the most populous - and traditionally Democratic - states. Of the ten most populous states in the Union, Clinton has won six (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio, and Georgia) to Obama's two (Pennsylvania and North Carolina have yet to hold primaries). Those make a bigger difference in the electoral college than they do in the primary season. She's won eight fewer states than Obama has, but she's far ahead when it comes to electors. If the two candidates were fighting in a general election, Clinton would be ahead 263-189. 54 electors is a big deal when there are only 538 total. (That's a ten percent margin of victory. Nothing to sneer at.) Clinton's victories have also consistently come in primary states, which have the same election format as will be seen in November. All but one of her wins (Nevada) have come in primary states. Her margin of victory isn't great - she averages 54% of the vote in her wins - but in a general election, each state is winner-take-all. Proportional allocation of delegates has hurt her in this race, and that's something she wouldn't have to worry about if she were the party nominee.
Obama. While Obama hasn't won many large, delegate-rich states (his two biggest states have been his home state of Illinois and Georgia), he's done very well in smaller, traditionally red states. Over half of his primary wins have come in states that went for George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004. There's reason to think that he could siphon some of those away from McCain this year. Clinton's claims that his caucus wins are tainted don't quite hold up, either. It's true that his wins in those states (11 of 24) have represented a much smaller percentage of the population, he's done just fine in primaries, too. He's won nearly as many primaries as Clinton has (13 to her 15), and has done so with a higher average of four percent more of the vote.
So who should superdelegates side with? If you're looking to stick with the time-honored "two coasts" strategy of focusing on the Pacific west and the Northeast, Clinton might be your best bet. She's shown that she can easily win those states and probably be competitive in battleground states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. If you're looking to adopt the new "50 states" approach that Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean is pushing, though, Obama might be a more attractive option. Obama has made significant inroads into the mountain west and the South. He would probably be unable to win all of those states for the Democrats (do you really think Idaho and Utah are going to be blue states this year?), but if he could pick up Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Georgia, that would result in a 41-elector difference, and none of those states are out of the realm of possibility. Obama's command of the black vote could prove to be decisive in this election. Yet Clinton holds an equal sway over blue-collar workers in financial straits, and there are more and more of those every day with the current recession. Each candidate has powerful strengths. Superdelegates will have their hands full making their decision in the coming months.
