Where will the Superdelegates go?
Well, clearly this is going to be decided by superdelegates. Obama, at
this point, is the prohibitive favorite to win the pledged delegates
based on the favorability of the calendar, but the best case scenario
he could hope for is 3/5, which won't be nearly enough to get him over
the hump. So what do you think? Where will the superdelegates break?
My guess is that the number one priority for them will be electability, so it's time to start making that argument. For me it's Obama. He'll be competitive in purple states in a way she simply can't be. Her most important wins (Cali, NY, Mass, NJ, NH, etc...) are all states that he can win easily in a general election against McCain. On the other hand, his biggest wins (Colorado, Missouri, Georgia, Iowa) have come in states where she would not be competitive, but he may be. Naturally, there are of course going to be exceptions (Nevada for instance), but this seems to be the trend. I'm not saying he'd win in Kansas or Georgia, but he'd be competitive which is more than we could hope for from her.
Finally, there is of course the polling data. While admittedly, polls have been spotty, the bulk of them show Obama matching up better against McCain than Hillary, though by only a small margin (+2 to 6 points). It's hard to refute the notion that he fairs better against Independents (a strong point for McCain) and even some Republicans, who are less than enamored with their presumptive candidate.
One other important point is that Superdelegates will be under a lot of pressure to go with the candidate who has the most pledged delegates to avoid the feeling that the choice was taken away from the voters. As I mentioned earlier, given the calendar at this point, Obama has to be the favorite to walk into Denver with the most pledged delegates.
At this point, I have to believe that the Superdelegates will go for Obama, but that familiarity and sense of entitlement and establishment will be hard to overcome. Party insiders are far less likely to fall in love and be swept away by an insurgent candidate.
Tell me what you think; I'll post this as a blog entry if anyone wants to discuss this more.
My guess is that the number one priority for them will be electability, so it's time to start making that argument. For me it's Obama. He'll be competitive in purple states in a way she simply can't be. Her most important wins (Cali, NY, Mass, NJ, NH, etc...) are all states that he can win easily in a general election against McCain. On the other hand, his biggest wins (Colorado, Missouri, Georgia, Iowa) have come in states where she would not be competitive, but he may be. Naturally, there are of course going to be exceptions (Nevada for instance), but this seems to be the trend. I'm not saying he'd win in Kansas or Georgia, but he'd be competitive which is more than we could hope for from her.
Finally, there is of course the polling data. While admittedly, polls have been spotty, the bulk of them show Obama matching up better against McCain than Hillary, though by only a small margin (+2 to 6 points). It's hard to refute the notion that he fairs better against Independents (a strong point for McCain) and even some Republicans, who are less than enamored with their presumptive candidate.
One other important point is that Superdelegates will be under a lot of pressure to go with the candidate who has the most pledged delegates to avoid the feeling that the choice was taken away from the voters. As I mentioned earlier, given the calendar at this point, Obama has to be the favorite to walk into Denver with the most pledged delegates.
At this point, I have to believe that the Superdelegates will go for Obama, but that familiarity and sense of entitlement and establishment will be hard to overcome. Party insiders are far less likely to fall in love and be swept away by an insurgent candidate.
Tell me what you think; I'll post this as a blog entry if anyone wants to discuss this more.
Advertisement
I think Obama is in a good position to pick up Superdelegates. While they may feel the pressure to back their state's winner and fall in line with the Democratic establishment, I think the pressure of backing someone who can beat McCain will also be a strong factor. Most head-to-head matchups show Obama doing better than Clinton against McCain.
On a side note, I noticed you also live in Columbus! What are your thoughts on Ohio's primary?
February 6, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, every poll I've seen says that Hillary will clobber him. My gut tells me the same since there are a lot of working class moderate income dems, who tend to be her base. Also, we've seen that in states where there are a ton of black voters, and he doesn't need white support, and states where are there are no black voters, and hence no racially polarized voting patterns, Obama does well. Unfortunately, Ohio is one of those in between states where there are enough black voters to scare white ones, but not enough to help him to a win.
That said, everyone expects Obama to go on a big run through the next 8-9 contests, so maybe he'll have enough momentum to change things by that time. On a related note, can we as Obama supporters stop talking up the advantage he has in the next few states? I'm with the campaign on lowering expectations rather than raising them. The last thing I want is to win 6 of the next 9 and have that be reported as a "disappointment," the way our huge come-from-behind win Tuesday was reported as a ho-hum draw.
February 7, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yesterday RT strategies had McCain beating Clinton by 4% but Obama beating McCain by 2%. CNN had Clinton beating McCain by 3% and Obama beating McCain by 8%. The day before yesterday the WaPo had McCain beating Clinton by 3% and Obama beating McCain by 3%. On Feb 1 Fox had McCain beating Clinton by 1% and Obama beating McCain by 1%. I could go on, but you surely see the pattern by now. Goodness knows that these polls do not prove that Obama stands the better chance in the general election (we do not, after all, elect presidents based on popular vote totals), but they are the best evidence (as opposed to the equally important intuition) we have to go on, and they all suggest that Obama is the stronger nominee. My intuition agrees with that evidence-based conclusion. This is not an argument to the effect that I know that the remaining super-delegates will break for Obama, but I think that it is at least a good reason to hope that they will.
February 6, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree with you more on the over-hyping of Obama's advantage in the next states. I'm optimistic, but somewhat concerned he's in an awkward spot now. He has to show undecideds and new voters that he can hang with Hillary and win those states, but if he stumbles in the slightest way, he might again fall victim to the New Hampshire expectations trap.
Whenever the Clinton campaign has been perceived as behind, they've done a good job of writing the expectations narrative. Personally, I tend to think most of their spin is transparent, but when it comes to the average voter, I think it works well.
A perfect example of that is an article from today's New York Times that stated "But once again — as in New Hampshire — the result on Tuesday did not match the fervor that had been signaled by Mr. Obama’s dramatic march of rallies across the nation leading up to the vote."
The media oviously also plays a big role in elevating expectations. They build it up, but when it doesn't quite match the imagined domination, they have no choice but to write about why it was a letdown -- even if in reality, it wasn't.
At this point, I think it's all about managing expectations. Hopefully those surrounding Obama don't get so out of control that he can't meet them.
February 7, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink