Is the Obama Campaign Too Obsessed With Delegates?

21.04.2008

Isaac makes a good point in response to my item about Obama trying to fight to a delegate draw in Pennsylvania. I agree that there have been times in the campaign when team Obama has seemed a little too obsessed with delegates, and not concerned enough with symbolic victories. (One example: The time Obama spent just prior to March 4 traveling to Rhode Island, where he wanted to limit Hillary's delegate advantage, might have been better spent in Texas, where he actually had a chance of winning--and, therefore, ending the entire race. In retrospect, he probably didn't get close enough in Texas for it to have mattered. But I'm not sure this was obvious ex ante.)

I think the reason for this obsession is that they really, really wanted to establish pledged delegates as the metric by which a nominee would be crowned. (I touch on this in my profile of Obama campaign manager David Plouffe this issue.) And if you start jumping around from metric to metric depending on which one favors you in a given moment, you quickly lose credibility with the media and superdelegates, as the Clinton campaign has discovered. On top of which, it's not entirely clear how big the tradeoff is between pursuing delegates and popular votes, at least within a given state. I'm sure it's not zero. But I'm not sure focusing purely on the popular vote as opposed to some combination of the popular vote and delegates in Pennsylvania would have netted Obama so many more votes overall. So I think the campaign's hyper-focus on delegates is pretty defensible.

Having said that, this does look like a moment when, if you have a chance to really hold down Hillary's popular vote total, you probably want to do it. Not just because this is really her last best hope for making up popular votes. But because, if you're able to hold her margin under five points in Pennsylvania, the ensuing media coverage could effectively force her from the race by drying up her fundraising. After all, as Chris notes, she's basically out of money already. Absent some really good news tomorrow, it's hard to see that changing.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:29 PM with 4 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!

roidubouloi said:

Delegates. Delegates. Delegates. It is Obama's focus on the way in which the nomination will actually be decided, rather than symbolism, that is one of the pillars of his great achievement. It is not time to start getting clever.

Chotiner's point was nice blog speculation but ultimately a crummy point. Fortunately, Obama seems to know how to play this game. Unfortunately for Hillaristas, she doesn't. Mr. Chotiner is among the people I wouldn't be hiring for campaign advice -- along with all of the TNR editors who have been confused about the outcomes of primaries and the outcomes likely in the same states in a general election.

This is entertaining, to be sure, but you guys ought to try thinking about this stuff a little bit carefully.

April 21, 2008 4:47 PM

Rhubarbs said:

Possible variations on the theme that make just as much sense:

"Is the Obama Campaign Too Obsessed with Electoral Votes?"

"Are the Red Sox Too Obsessed with Scoring Runs?"

"Is Grant's Army Too Obsessed with Killing Confederates?"

The popular vote total in PA won't affect Hillary one way or the other if she wins. If she wins PA by 6 percent, she'll stay in the race and get a bump in adoring press attention and grassroots fundraising, but she won't win the nomination. If she wins PA by 20 points, she'll stay in the race and get a bump in adoring press attention and grassroots fundraising, but she won't win the nomination.

So why focus on changing a meaningless metric instead of focusing on the meaningful metric by which the race will be decided? Isn't the race now all about persuading superdelegates either to overturn the will of the voters or to ratify it, and to do so as quickly as possible? By maintaining his delegate lead even in the face of a loss in PA, doesn't Obama encourage remaining undeclared superdelegates to declare and end the race?

April 21, 2008 5:20 PM

AlanSP said:

Rhubarbs is dead on. This is like saying that the Eagles are too focused on scoring more points than their opponents and not enough on gaining more yards. Gaining yards is useful only insofar as it helps you with your ultimate goal of scoring more points. Same thing with the popular vote. You obviously want to do well in the popular vote, but it's only important insofar as it helps you get more delegates, either directly (getting more delegates in a district/state) or indirectly (helping convince superdelegates).

Also, despite the widespread hand wringing, the fact is that in a given state, the delegates pretty much follow the popular vote. In all but one state so far, the actual counts have been within three delegates of what they would be if delegates were allocated proportionally based on the statewide popular vote (the lone exception is Iowa, and that is only because of the Edwards delegates that defected to Obama).

April 21, 2008 7:37 PM

JaraU2 said:

Why can't the group at TNR get on the same page??? OBAMA WON TEXAS!!! LOOK IT UP!!! Are you all that stupid and lazy??? There is absolutely no question about this anymore. OBAMA WON TEXAS!!! Stop with the Dewey defeats Truman crap and start reporting the facts. Noam you should know this as well as everyone! If you need to get the real facts go to www.slate.com and look it up. I am sick of this crap. I am a Clinton supporter from 1990 and Hillary has lost my vote forever. I voted for for Bill twice and for Hillary for Senator twice. She wouldn't get my vote for dog catcher. She has embarassed herself and the party. I have had enough. My next click is to www.barackobama.com to donate $100. I have simply had enough of the same old BS slash and burn politics. This country is better than that...TNR is better that that and you better believe that the American people are better than that. Did not anyone watch John Adams on HBO??? We as citizens know right from wrong...she is just wrong. She would do anything, say anything to be president. That is not what I want...and I pray to God that is not what the voters of the United States of America want.

April 21, 2008 10:32 PM