Noam,

You say, "On top of everything else, the Clintonites will point to their Texas primary victory and a (likely) Texas caucus loss as evidence that caucus states are screwy and should be viewed skeptically. It's much too convenient an argument for them."

Why, pray tell, should this argument be viewed skeptically?  Why is it too convenient argument?  Perhaps because it's true.

Let's look at WASHINGTON STATE -- where both of them campaigned!

Here are the numbers for the Feb 9th CAUCUS:

32,220 people participated.

Obama won 68%

Clinton won 31%

This translated into 53 delegates for Obama and 25 delegates for Hillary.

Now, here are the numbers for the Feb 19th PRIMARY:

557,213 people participated!  (That dwarfs the caucus numbers.)

Obama won 49%

Clinton won 46%

This translates into, well, nothing...  Because they're using the caucus to determine delegates to the convention!

Now, setting aside the rules for a second, I want somebody to construct a rational argument as to why we should pay attention to caucuses under circumstances like these?!  This is ridiculous.

You people are so biased against Hillary Clinton that you would prefer to string together a bunch of small state caucuses with a few primary wins AND then claim it's so obvious that Obama is so much stronger.  Despite those of you in the media -- who think this is all a game -- I think the entire primary process, taken together, is supposed to give you an indication of the relative strength of a candidate.  These caucus numbers should give us SERIOUS PAUSE before we start extrapolating to talk about the dominant momentum of Obama.

"Now, setting aside the rules for a second, I want somebody to construct a rational argument as to why we should pay attention to caucuses under circumstances like these?!  This is ridiculous."

Because they were the rules going in, everyone knew about them (or damn straight SHOULD have), and one campaign did a much better job winning them. THAT'S why.

A variation on #2.):  Is it possible, and what happens if it occurs, for Sen. Clinton to win Ohio narrowly, win the popular vote in Texas narrowly, win Rhode Island, Sen. Obama win the caucus part of Texas, win Vermont, and, in the end, have Obama win a few more pledged delegates today?

So, to clarify, what if Sen. Clinton wins the popular vote in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, but, after the new pledged delegates are counted, she is further behind in pledged delegates?  (didn't something like this happen in Nevada and, maybe, New Hampshire?)

nturner,

Excellent presentation of the essential electoral distortions at the heart of Obama's candidacy. We are in danger of picking a nominee based on a very misleading and unfair delegate selection process. This is why Obama has done so poorly in large, diverse states, but has essentially rigged the caucuses in smaller and much less significant states. And the press has played his pied piper music to all of us for him, no questions asked (until yesterday).

Hillary Clinton can only get the nomination if she has a convincing argument for the superdelagates.  The "rules of the primary" are the rules going in, but nobody has or will capture the necessary majority of regular delagates.  The way I see it, only two arguments have merit for denying the leader going-in:

1) Clinton got more of the popular vote.

2) Clinton got more of the primary voters, the caucuses (with their lack of secret ballots and other quirks) aren't reflective of either the true will of voters or the general election  -- but that's not enough, she'd also have to keep winning so she could argue that the more voters got to know/see Obama, even with his better campaign financing,  the more they cooled on him.  And even then I'm uncertain -- I can't imagine the reaction of the African-American base and many other Obama supporters if the superdelagates give it to Clinton, it might be a "theoretically right but in reality wrong" move.  Of course, IF Clinton wins these and the later races, Obama is nominated, and indeed voters are cooling towards him, it will look very bad in hindsight.  

Obama has "essentially rigged the caucuses?"  Really?  Or do you just mean he achieves crushing victories in them?

pccostello, "rigged the caucuses"? Until January 2008, everyone would have agreed that Hillary had an unearned advantage in caucus states. Because in point of fact Democratic caucuses typically are dominated by the kinds of voters who are going for Hillary, and because Democratic caucuses tend to tilt in favor of the party establishment and organized liberal interest groups, both of which were heavily pro-Hillary this time. Hillary's failure to win in caucus contests that for any candidate in her position should have been sure things is pretty damning of her skills as a candidate. Hillary is the first candidate -- ever! -- to complain that caucuses are biased in favor of the young people, professionals, men, and independents who usually don't show up for Democratic caucuses.

When a candidate loses an election, it's not a conspiracy, it's not a crooked process, it's not "rigged" voting. It's losing an election, plain and simple. Less whining, please, more substantive arguments for why Democrats should embrace a candidate who voted for war in Iraq, who didn't oppose Bush's punitive bankruptcy changes, and who's taken more money from the insurance industry than any candidate in history.

Ramboorider,

Just for argument's sake, I'll accept your premise -- that the Democratic Party uses caucuses as a MEANS by which to determine candidate strength.  As you say, "these were the rules going in, everyone knew about them (or damn straight SHOULD have), and one campaign did a much better job winning them."

It still does NOT follow from your premise that these MEANS ( the caucuses) bring about the desired, favorable, or even appropriate ends.  After all, what we are trying to do here (i.e. the end we are trying to achieve) is to pick the strongest candidate.  I would define strongest as: "the candidate who actually has the most voter support and who has the best chance of demonstrating that support in November."  In short, we must ask ourselves this question:  Do caucuses help us identify the candidate who is most widely supported by Democrats and who is most likely to win in November?  I think not... actually, I know not.

See, Ramboorider...  If you look at the empirical data I presented on the Washington State Primary and Caucus, you will realize rather quickly that your "rules" -- which support caucuses -- are vastly overestimating both Obama's support from the Democratic electorate at large and his chance of demonstrating that support by winning in November.  As a result, you, the media, and casual observers everywhere believe that Obama is strong, when in fact he is weak.  Whether you like Obama or not, this is something you should care about -- that is, if you actually care about putting a Democrat in the Oval Office.  

Now, let me abandon your premise for a moment and get back to reality:  At the end of the day, the RULES -- which you so seem to adore -- say that a candidate cannot win unless she or he gains two thousand some-odd delegates.  We all know that isn't going to happen with pledged delegates for either candidate.  Fortunately, the RULES also provide for "Super Delegates," whose sole purpose is to exercise sound JUDGMENT.

And this is where our argument about Primaries vis-a-vis Caucuses comes into play!

For in talking to Super Delegates, it's not going to be too persuasive to chatter on about the "rules," because by said rules, your candidate will not have secured the nomination.  Instead, you'll need to convince them that it is, in fact, good JUDGMENT to pick Mr. Obama.  You'll have to construct a rational argument demonstrating why Mr. Obama is both the preferred candidate of the Democratic electorate at large and the Democrat most likely to win in November.  Problem is, the empirical data won't support you.  The empirical data will tell you (and that Super Delegate) that Hillary wins when people actually come out to vote, which, not incidentally, is what happens in... oh yeah!... November.

Since you're an Obama supporter, I don't really expect you to change your mind.  Reason probably didn't play much of a part in your choice to support Obambi, so how can I expect reason to play a part in a judgment to abandon him?

Obama does better in caucuses because he is better at the ground game, his campaign is better organized, his supporters are more passionate, and his people do a better job of GOTV. And every analysis I have seen indicates that his winning streak is due largely to his ability to cut into Hillary's consituency.

How in the WORLD does that make him the weaker candidate?

You might argue, with some asana-like contortions, that all of that doesn't prove he's the stronger. Okay. Far-fetched, I think, but arguable. But you can't argue that he's weaker based on an 11 straight win streak and his dominance in caucus states.

The fact is that both candidates have tremendous assets. Both are talented and capable. Both are good people. Both would make fine presidents. But both of them entered this game knowing the rules of the nomination game. But at the end of the day, unless something REALLY dramatic happens, Obama will have won more delegates and more votes. Game over, one should think. Except the side that sees itself losing is now calling then entire game into question. Hillary is second-guessing a process that, a few months ago, her campaign was telling everybody made her inevitable. "It isn't FAIR! I was supposed to win!"

Just my opinion, but I think that, unlike Obama's ability to deliver crushing defeats in caucuses and win 11 states in a row, this kind of whining really DOES tell you who the weaker candidate is.

nturner, pccostello

The problem both of you have yet to deal with is pretty darn simple ... it goes like this: No matter how you do the math Obama is ahead. If you count Florida and Michigan he's ahead, if the contests had been winner take all he's ahead, if you leave out Illinois but count NY State he's ahead. He's ahead in terms of popular vote, ahead in terms of delegates and ahead in terms of fundraising. He's just plain winning. His camp has been better organized by any measure, drawn more new voters in the process by any measure and made better use of available technology by any measure. Again, It's called winning, take a moment and Google it.  

Nturner, pointing to the WA results is fallacious; indeed even the "spin anything" Howard Wolfson has not tried to spin that one.  The reason is simple:  The campaigns were not competing for those votes after the caucuses -- with the notable exception of an independent pro-Hillary group that organized to urge people to show up to see if they could make the point nturner is trying to make.  In the real election we all care about, the November election, it won't be the abstraction of Hillary or Obama against McCain, it will be the actual Clinton or Obama campaign, ground game and all, against him.  So where Obama does not mobilize his volunteers and his ground game, as in WA, the results don't say much.  

More broadly, it's not as if Obama has not blown Hillary out in a few true primary states, like Va, Md, and WI.  He has.  He has more popular votes.

Let's have ourselves a little "reality check." Hillary will likely end the night 100 delegates down, probably 150 delegates. To insult the voters in the caucus states or whatever hubristic arrogant nonsense the Clintons and their allies try to sell us is a recipe for defeat in November.

Simply put: If Hillary doesn't cut Obama's lead to under 100 pledged delegates she needs to get out of the race. She won't of course. For all their crocodile tears the Clintons only care about themselves. They will tear down the Democratic Party, the presidential nominee's chances of victory in November AND the chances of Democratic candidates downballot.

Thus Clintonian narcissism and self-importance will hand the Republicans control of the Congress for a second time (remember 1994?) and give us 4 more years of a Republican presidency.

Her gender-based victimhood argument and 35yrs of experience of being Bill Clinton's wife is thin gruel for her being able to unite a divided nation and run the federal government. However, it can fuel a Democratic Party implosion that will give new meaning to the term "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory."

Thanks for pointing this out, nturner. You're right. The caucuses are robbing Obama of delegates. If Washington had been a winner-take-all primary, Obama would have won more delegates from there than he did under the caucus system.

Mark my words, if Obama gets the nomination, he looses in November.  Why?  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hispanics everywhere vote for "McAmnesty."

Security moms and Hillary-supporting women like my mother choose McCain from a combination of "I trust him better" and "He's not that petulant brat Obama."

Working class voters in key swing states vote for the War Hero.

The Democratic Party is left wondering how the hell it thought nominating a freshman senator with negative experience was a good idea.

So can we expect Hillary to approach the Electoral College like she approaches Democratic nominating contests? "Sure, John McCain got more total votes, and yes, he has the majority of electoral votes. But Hillary won the electoral votes of the states that really matter. Big, diverse states like California, New York, and Vermont. And even though Senator McCain narrowly won Ohio by 5 percent yesterday, Hillary won Ohio by a decisive 12-point margin in March. So we believe she's in a strong position to be inaugurated president despite her apparent, media-driven losses on Tuesday."

Miceelf,

If you want to get into winner take all situations, then Hillary would have wrapped this thing up on February 5, just as McCain did in his party.

Good morning. It's Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island primary day. Today could be the mother

The banal truth remains:  Republicans would much rather go up against HRC in November because enough people suffer from an irrational hatred of her that they would be prepared to swallow their distaste for McCain and touch the screen for him (btw we need a new metaphor, pulling levers doesn't do it any more!).

If Hillary comes out of today a winner in a real sense, then John McCain can go to bed tonight feeling relaxed and optimistic.  Indeed, McCain can generally sleep soundly right now, and for the next while, as he knows that if it's Clinton then he'll be moving to the White House in January 2009, and if it's Obama, nothing is certain but it'll be a kind of tear-up-the-script, one-for-the-history-books election for both of them.

Pccostello!  What about those big issues you wanted to talk about?  Your candidate voted to give Goerge Bush a blank check to launch a disastrous war in Iraq.  Why do you refuse to explain to us how that demonstrates good judgment?  Could it be that you are as cowardly as your candidate is on that issue?

nturner

Nope. She would have been ahead as Obama would be now in your winner take all scenario.

And as to your earlier point, I'd simply retort that using your calculus, Clinton can't win in November either. Or let me put it this way, if 5% [yes FIVE] of African American voters sit the election out, she not only goes down in Mondale like flames, she takes the democrat's senate majority with her.

Since that stay home rate may be as high as a third and is least 13%; you are in favor of what will be a party-wide self-immolation. I don't get it. O' and given the way you've made assumptions in Hillary's favor are you by any chance suggesting that that reverse is true. You know, that  80% of voters under 35 along with 90% of African American's will vote for McCain? Because I was thinking minor defections and I still don't see how she wins.  

Clinton simply doesn't have the demographic damage repair options Obama does.  

nturner, so lets see, you have the most hated woman in America going who can't even win the majority of the delegates in the Democratic party is supposed to defeat a decorated war hero veteran with decades of experience in the general? wow, just tell me how this is going to happen, since I know many independents and Democrats who have vowed to never vote for her. Obama might lose, Hillary definitely will.

blackton

EXACTLY!!!

Worse, Clinton kills the party's chances down ticket. For instance; if she gets the nomination we'll be kissing Mary Landrieu's seat goodbye

nturner, that is just a flat out lie, how can you just say lies and think it doesn't matter. If it had been a winner take all process then it would have been almost the same as it came out to be. Check the math at NYTimes yourself.

Delegates don't matter.

If Hillary wins Ohio, she's staying in, won't get any pressure, because over 60% of Democrats polled want her to stay in.

That's pretty bad news for Obama.

As Noam explains , the muddiest outcome tonight would be a Hillary victory in Ohio and an Obama victory

arson, honestly the complete cluelessness of Hillary's supporters is beyond me. I am a swing voter, I have only been wrong in one Presidential election in my lifetime (Kerry in 2004, and that vote was not done happily). I did vote for Gore, but in fairness he did actually win. My first election was 84, and I saw that Mondale was a dinosaur that had no chance against Reagan and was stunned that so many people were so stupid to think otherwise. I have the exact same feeling when I look at Hillary as I did when I looked at Mondale.It is staggering to me that Hillary people think she can win swing voters based on nothing more than her gender.

As I have said before, I love McCain and would happily vote for him over Hillary, but choose Obama over McCain (and I will feel sadness for McCain if he did lose). But according to pc and kerr, and others, the swing voters just are not important, she only wins to win the blue states and magically will become President.

HRC is finished, she's just too hardheaded to admit it. Who can blame her? Look at the logical contortions her supporters have gone to on this board to explain how this route is actually the product of a rigged primary process.

"Also, don't forget the money. "

I am one of Obama's million-plus small donors. I've given a whopping $250 so far in $25 and $50 contributions (they add up, don't they!), and if this goes on to PA I'll write another check. I am salivating at the prospect of the general and the opportunity to bury the Greedy Old Party in their beloved lucre. But if Hillary is the candidate, she'll probably get my vote, but not my money. I think most Obama donors feel the same.

mpatrickhendri

Yeah, they even ignore that whole thing where Terry McAuliffe rigged this process to favor them while he was DNC chair and they're still loosing.

blackton

Don't feel bad.  I don't exist either.

Noam,

There are more than 3 possible scenarios, because there are two definitions of "win" in each state.  "Win" as in "have more delegates" and "win" as in "win the popular vote".  And this isn't just an issue in Texas.  The analysis on The Field (the blog over at ruralvotes.com) has Obama winning the delagates in Ohio, even as Hillary wins the popular vote.  In this fashion, Obama could easily win Ohio and Texas (and Vermont, but probably not Rhode Island).

aaronplus'

you don't seem to understand that Obama can't win the nomination on pledged delegates either--no matter what happens now. Neither he nor Hillary can. The margin between them is very slight. The DNC rules, agreed to beforehand by everyone, give the superdelegates a role in exactly this kind of situation.

If Obama's credibility as a candidate begins to tank (not to mention his personal credibility), then the superdelegates will move to Hillary--just as the rules provide.

pccostello

First, I was discussing the general election not primary process. Second, enough with the near mythic "ifs" already. You can't wish away math.

But you're right the margin is slight in real terms. However in practical terms its basically insurmountable.

More importantly, the superdelegates would as you point out have to award the nomination to the person with fewer votes and pledged delegates for Clinton to win on "credibility" while he could just win by being ahead. Which scenario do you suppose will make it easier for the winner to placate the other's supporters?

So can Clinton get the nomination? Yeah. Can she get it without breaking the party and dooming it to a generation worth of minority status. Not a chance.

Nturner, the other problem with your citation of the Washington caucus is that those are not total votes. Those are the number of delegates to the next level of caucus, the district caucus. Actual turnout for the caucuses is several times the 32,220 you cite, but there's no reliable number for what it actually is. I made the same mistake.

Also, the final results for the primary were 51-46 Obama.

Democrats are going to coalesce around whoever the nominee is. There will be bad blood, but I have difficulty believing that people who self-identify as Democrats will vote for McCain (a third term of Bush) because they're upset she is not the nominee. I'm an Obama voter, and a registered Democrat, and if Clinton somehow becomes the nominee, I'll vote for her. I won't be happy about it, but she's preferable to McCain.

And for all those out there arguing that Hillary has a case if she comes out ahead in the popular vote: ask Al Gore how much the popular vote counts for in the general.

Kim -- the difference is the electoral college determines the presidency, the total delagate count determines the dem nominee: if the superdelagates want to put the popular vote ahead of the delagate,they are free to do so.  Heck, they are probably free to cut a backroom deal, just not with smoke filled rooms (assuming Denver has one of these nannystate ordinances...)

blackton -- while I generally agree with your analysis, I don't buy the conclusion -- there's a different dynamic if Hillary is the nominee (for example, I think she gets more of the Latino vote, I think older women will stick with Hillary but may bolt to McCain).  I do believe that Obama is a stronger candidate for the fall presuming nothing else bad comes out on him -- I think he's more "pinprick" susceptible than Hillary simply because he's been such a rosarch test.  

Hillary and her team know/knew the rules of this campaign as well or better than anyone in the party or the punditry. They have lived by them for years. Caucus victories were more than welcomed in 1992 and she would be happy to have a chance to caucus (at minimum) in Michigan should that come to pass.

Terry McCauliffe said tonight on Hardball that he believes the process should continue until every vote is counted. When told by Chris Matthews that Hillary would still trail Obama in the delegate count he concurred but said there are "rules" in the party to which all should comply. he was referring specifically to the super-delegates and the strong possibility that they would be asked by HRC to overturn the will of the people. If we arrive undecided in Denver, no one will embrace the rules faster than Billary.

Hillary is strong on the merits but voters don't vote on merits (ie. their visceral response to her 'Red Phone" ad). She is divisive and polarizing wherever she operates....and we are guaranteed 4-8 years more of the same if she is elected. Say what you will about McCain. He is certainly divisive; mostly in his own party.