Can Obama Make His Free Throws?

22.04.2008

Marc Ambinder says:

[W]ere Obama an organic frontrunner, he ought to a win a state like Pennsylvania unless he fully embraces the racial and geographic determinism that his campaign has run against since for fifteen months. He's outspent Clinton by at least six million dollars; Clinton has higher negatives across the board; he's visited the state nearly as many times as she has; his press coverage is better than hers; he has well more than her 5,000 volunteers on the ground.

I don't think this is right. Or, more accurately, I think this misapplies the term "frontrunner." Generally, we think of frontrunners in primary elections as being candidates with a huge wave of momentum that carries them to the nomination. And it's true, such a candidate shouldn't lose a state like Pennsylvania.

But that's not what "frontrunner" means--particularly in the Democratic race this year, where momentum has been nonexistent. It refers to the candidate who's the favorite to win the nomination. The race has proven remarkably stable, and demography is close to being destiny. Pennsylvania was a Hillary state, and it voted for Hillary. Ambinder uses the phrase "racial and geographic determinism" as though it means that Obama's likely nomination is somehow illegitimate unless he wins over Hillary's demographic groups--even if his coalition is a narrow majority. (Was Bush's victory in 2004 suspect because it was a close race won along geographic lines?) The relative smallness of Obama's overall lead--in the delegate count, the overall popular vote, and current national polls--doesn't obscure the fact that it's real and, more importantly, it isn't shrinking.

To use everyone's favorite type of argument, a sports metaphor: if a basketball team has held a lead of, say, six or seven points for the entire second half, the fact that the lead isn't getting any bigger as the clock ticks below a minute left doesn't mean that the team is any less likely to win. On the contrary, it makes the "frontrunner's" small lead nearly insurmountable, absent some dreadful foul shooting. Then again, those urging Hillary to drop out might want to ask John Calipari what he thinks of the idea.

--Josh Patashnik

Posted: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:35 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

billy_budd said:

Obama ain't the '08 MSU Tigers! He's more like the '82 Tar Heels. Hillary probably feels like she's playing against the four corners, taking cheap shots whenever she can. [Duke sucks]

April 22, 2008 11:08 PM

adaglas said:

Bigger question: Will Ted Kennedy be there to give him a half-hearted fist-bump after each one?

April 22, 2008 11:18 PM

Crock1701 said:

Billy Budd, are you Jason Zengerle in hiding?

The problem is Hillary is too far back. She's still nine points back, and I don't see her making the Sherron Collins play to make the rally possible. Down seven, Sherron Collins stole the inbounds, somehow stayed in bounds, and then stepped back to get the out and drain the three. I don't see Hillary making that play yet, much less hitting a difficult laterally falling away three with 3 seconds left to tie it up. Memphis didn't just miss free throws, Kansas first recovered to where free throws mattered by making it a one possession game, then converted when they were missed. Hillary hasn't show she can make it a one possession game yet.

April 22, 2008 11:37 PM

eharder2 said:

In general I find the use of sports metaphors in news reporting frightening. Especially in this primary race. Maureen Dowd has an article about why Obama can't close out his opponent and just slam the ball in the net or some nonsense. It's pure manipulation to ignore the mean in deference to fluctuations. Apparently people make a living on this kind of stupidity.

April 23, 2008 1:20 AM

jmkerr said:

" if a basketball team has held a lead of, say, six or seven points for the entire second half, the fact that the lead isn't getting any bigger as the clock ticks below a minute left doesn't mean that the team is any less likely to win."

If the Democratic nomination was a job, this would be a perfectly fine analogy. But it's not a job. It ain't even an adventure. It's the responsibiltiy to run against McCain.

If Obama can't win over any of Hillary's demographics, then his nomination isn't illegitimate. It's just stupid, because Hillary's demographics are less loyal and there's a whole lot more of them.

April 23, 2008 4:50 AM

blackton said:

hey kerr, and if Hillary Mondale can't get any black votes (essentially, she is forever toast to them) then it would be retarded to support her. If you had any integrity you would be pushing for Gore to be the compromise electability candidate, because his Demographics are the most solid of all. But for you it isn't about who can be elected is it? It is all about your fantasy world where Hillary can win back black votes and the youth vote by dint of her charisma.

April 23, 2008 10:40 AM

bigm said:

How can you say "momentum has been nonexistent" when everybody was talking about Obama's momentum as being a reason for Clinton to drop out of the race after he won 12 or so straight states? Why else would such a winning streak be relevant to discuss?

April 23, 2008 10:51 AM

bl462 said:

I think we may be looking at a stock-flow conundrum. While the stock of Obama's delegate lead didn't change much, the flow has - his momentum is gone. The analogy that may fit this beter than sports is guerrilla warfare. - Clinton is winning because she isn't losing; and Obama is losing because he isn't winning. The most telling fact is that significant elements (perhaps enough to decide a close presidential race) of both candidates' support base indicate that if their candidate doesn't win, they will support McCain.

April 23, 2008 11:46 AM