Barack Obama, Couch Potato?

The New York Times has an article out tonight that examines President-Elect Obama's whereabouts since he was elected. I noticed this:

After two years of daily speeches and rallies, he has retreated into an almost hermitlike seclusion, largely hidden from public view and spotted only when he drops his two daughters off for school or goes for a workout at the gymnasium in a friend’s apartment building.

Now, the press (and perhaps the world) seems to be waiting with bated breath for Obama's next move, next statement or next appointment. But, after the last several days it looks like Obama has decided to spend the next several weeks working from Chicago. He resigned his Senate seat today (effective Sunday) so apparently there will not be a valedictory appearance on the floor of the Senate as there was after he had secured the nomination.

The Times article notes that Obama may spend as little time as possible in Washington until Inauguration day. The Obama transition team has noted that appointments will be announced from Chicago and not Washington. So, for all you sooth sayers out there - keep an eye on the passengers arriving at O'Hare (anybody want to know where Hillary Clinton was today?).

Its beginning to look like this transition will be managed the same way the campaign was: no drama. Right now, it looks like Obama wants a 9 to 5, workmanlike existence. Perhaps even a bit of couch potato time (and I would expect a trip back to Hawaii around the holidays for his Grandmother's memorial service) before January 2009.

For a guy who excited all those crowds, sounds really boring. No doubt just the way Obama wants it.

Election 08: Winners & Losers

After 2 years, and too many hours in front of the computer reading the websites and blogs late at night, there are a few winners and losers to call out.

Now, I am sure there are other winners and losers, but these few stand out to someone who has been reading the political blogs from pretty much the time political blogging got its start around the 2000 election.

First, the winners:

1. President-Elect Barack Obama and his amazing New Media Team. Probably changed political campaigns forever. (with a hat tip to Howard Dean and his 2004 team)

2. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga and the entire Daily Kos community. They got behind Obama early, losing a lot of Clinton supporting community members in the process, and become what was primarily the initial driving force on the net for Obama. Kos himself has a lot to crow about but one thing that might be overlooked is his book Crashing the Gate, which provided many markers along the road to victory for the Democratic party this election (sadly, his co-author finds himself in my loser list below).

3. Nate Silver. From an anonymous poster at Daily Kos to the mastermind of political simulations at FiveThirtyEight.com he both conducted a master class in political polling and interpretation and absolutely NAILED the final results of many of the primaries and the general election. With the exception of Indiana (but who is complaining) - check out his final projection map and compare it to the final election results - they are identical and, his popular vote projection is amazing. Come next election I suspect he will be fending off offers to bring his statistical models to network TV (the HDNet gig was cool, but, judging from his appearances on the big news networks, he will be somebody is sure to want him as 2012's Chuck Todd).

4. Andrew Sullivan. A journalist who seems to have become more of a blogger, Sullivan was the first conservative blogger to note that the emperor had no clothes (and, has paid a price for it among the red state bloggers) and get behind Obama in a big way (come to think of it, I can't think of another conservative blogger who supported Obama). His influence was on display after the Palin pick when the entire internet was abuzz with rumors (which were routinely shouted down at Daily Kos) about Govenor Palin's pregnancy and Bristol Palin. Sullivan was the first "big name" to mention it. The next morning Palin announced her 17 year old was pregnant, likely forced on it by a "big name" blogger addressing the issue.

5. The Huffington Post. Established itself as the left's answer to the Drudge Report rather than a community like Daily Kos or MyDD, which is its major accomplishment. Although it did have a hand in the bittergate story, I would like to see it invite more of the unknown netroots community onto its front page posts rather than Hollywood celbs and mainstream journalists.

6. Politico.com. Although I would not classify Politico as part of the netroots, it "made its bones" this election as a place for political reporting.

7. Talking Points Memo. Josh Marshall, already an established journalist, established himself and his TPM operation as a serious internet based publication.

Now, the Losers:

1. By definition, Red State and The Corner are losers, but I put them as the biggest losers for their total loss of reality as it became clear that Obama was going to win and Palin was a disaster pick for the country.

2. Drudge Report from hyping non-stories to making up crazy poll numbers looks like Matt Drudge is not ruling anyones world right now.

3. Although I hate to do it, I have to put Jerome Armstrong, founder of MyDD in my losers column. He backed the wrong horse in the primaries and seemed to be living in an alternate realty as Clinton's hopes vanished (on this note, let me add Taylor Marsh to that category). Even when Obama won, Armstrong seemed to be grudgingly and half heartedly behind the Democratic ticket when he made his ever infrequent appearances on the site he founded.

4. The Clinton and McCain web teams. They were just out everythinged by the Obama New Media team.


So. I am sure there are more...your thoughts?

Rahm as Chief of Staff ???

I am of mixed feelings regarding Emanuel, as is Ezra Klein

Emanuel is a brawler. He's legendarily tough and effective and ruthless. Hes the type of guy who makes enemies, then makes lists of his enemies, then makes lists of his enemies' friends, then makes lists of how they'll pay. If you thought the Obama administration would be all about bringing people together and would simply make sad faces when stubborn congressmen refused to come to the table, this is a clear sign otherwise. If good feelings don't suffice, bareknuckle politics will happily be employed...
Emanuel warns Democrats away from attempting universal health insurance or comprehensive reform, and suggests they content themselves with expanding S-CHIP (he also gives a plug to his brother, Ezekiel Emanuel's, health care plan, but says his "plan is well beyond Washington's current reach."). That's not change we can believe in.

If Obama uses Emanuel right, he will be the pit bull - the bad cop to Obama's good cop. But, the danger is if Obama is overly influenced by Emanuel's desire for practicality over possibility, the changes Obama was elected to enact may be more incremental than revolutionary.

How McCain could still win

So, a new article at Salon i confident because McCain could still win. Here's why...

Salon has a new article up where its author (a republican) argues that unless Obama is above 50% in a state, he will likely not win that state. He contends that undecideds will break for McCain, not Obama:

There's an old rule in politics that an incumbent candidate is always in danger when he dips under 50 percent, even if he is leading his opponent in the polls. It's all about the undecideds. In a race with an incumbent candidate and a challenger, on Election Day the undecideds tend to break for the challenger, at rates as high as 4 to 1. If an incumbent is polling at, say, 47 to 45 percent with 8 percent undecided, there's a good chance he's going to wind up losing 49 to 51. As it's sometimes expressed, if you're an incumbent, what you see is what you get.

The same pattern seems to be true for African-American candidates in much of the country. If you're a black candidate running against a white candidate, what you see is what you get. And it doesn't matter whether you're an incumbent or a challenger. If you're not polling above 50 percent, you should be worried. As of this writing, Barack Obama is not polling consistently above 50 percent in a number of electoral-vote-rich swing states, including Ohio and Florida. He should be worried.

...

As you look at the polling data in the homestretch of this election, pay close attention whenever you see any numbers, be they statewide or national, where Sen. Obama is below 50 percent. So long as there are more than a handful of voters describing themselves as undecided, I will maintain that Sen. McCain is very much in the race. Even if Sen. Obama were to open a larger lead, my basis for analyzing things would remain the same. Are there enough undecided voters in crucial states to bridge whatever gap exists in the head-to-head? If so, don't be shocked if on Election Day, Sen. McCain is your winner.

As of right now, if I take that argument as true and start plugging in the numbers from the RCP state polling averages as of today, I get:

Obama 286 EV
McCain 252 EV

Obama wins: VA, CO, NM, MN, IA, NH, PA
McCain wins just about every other battleground: FL, OH, IN, NC, GA, NV

If McCain flips PA - which, remember has NO early voting, then he wins the election. This could explain why McCain is spending so much time this week in PA and Obama is going there on tuesday.

If McCain can't flip PA, then he can try and flip VA and NH for the win.

Looking at Nate Silver's averages over at 538.com makes it even scarier:

Obama is < 50 % in CO, VA and NH So, using 538's averages, McCain wins 278 EV to 260 EV Cross-Posted at Late Night Pundit

I am not a concern troll. Let me make some points below:

First, read the Salon article. Yes the guy is a republican. Maybe he has an agenda to show some way McCain can win. You can either credit it as worthy or not. That's not really my point. My point is he could be right and then to do an analysis to see what would happen if he is.

The Salon article uses stats from other elections to prove his argument. Some of the elections he uses I have a problem with (the Blackwell one for example). But, I also know 3 things:

First, in most of the battlegrounds where Obama is ahead, he is not over 50% in the averages. Yes, the averages include crap polls from Zogby, but this is more a what if analysis so I am going to accept them. It might be worthwhile to come back and revisit it later this week.

Second, there are still pockets of racism in this country. Thank god they seem to be fewer and further between than they were 10 years ago. Unfortunately, the evidence points to the fact that they exist in many of there battleground states. And I don't see the Salon article as arguing for the Bradley effect. Nate Silver convinced me it does not exist with his analysis. I see this as something different, as does (I think) Nate:

It's also clear that there were some patterns in the way that undecided white voters behaved. Number one, a majority of them -- probably somewhere between 60 and 65 percent -- wound up voting for Clinton. This is perhaps not so remarkable, considering that about 60 percent of white voters in the primaries voted for Clinton period. But, this figure was higher in regions like the Appalachians, and among groups like Catholics, and lower in places where you had a lot of WASPy, educated voters. So whether or not you label this a Bradley Effect, I don't know -- but the behavior of undecided voters has been predictable to a certain extent.

Now, it does not necessarily follow that the patterns exhibited by undecided voters in the primaries will match those in the general election. But based both on my research and on what I've been hearing from people on the ground, it's apparent that the public polling in general is not terrific, and that if we have an instinct about where the polls are more likely to come in high or low, we probably ought to follow it.

The 538.com prediction model was updated to account for this:

Take a state like West Virginia, where the polling has been reasonably close but where there are also high numbers of undecided voters. Those undecideds aren't the type of undecideds who are liable to side with Barack Obama when pushed to a decision, and so the state is not quite as promising for him as it looks on paper. There are also a fairly high number of undecideds in Ohio, a state where we think the undecided vote is liable to break slightly for John McCain. On the other hand, a state like Virginia, where Obama overperformed his polls during the primaries and where some polling has had a relatively generous (and probably false) number of African-American votes going to John McCain, might be just a smidgen stronger for Obama than it appears.

So, unless I am way off base, I think 538.com sees the same effect that that Salon author does (Hopefully 538.com will address this Salon article).

Finally, I believe in the old adage that undecides break for the challenger. Except in this election, there is no incumbant. I could make an argument that McCain is the incumbant, being so tied to Bush. I could also make an argument that Obama is the incumbant since everybody and their brother thinks he's gonna win. But I do know that based on the polls in the battlegrounds, undecideds could tip them one way or another.

Do I think this guy is wrong? I do, but until those last votes are cast on Nov. 4 I am not going to count any chickens.

13 Seconds that may change the world

Well, not really 13 seconds, but 13 seconds of video are all that exist. Here they are:


On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama gave this speech to a Chicago anti-war rally. Here is the text of entire speech.

With just over a week until the election, it is important to note that this speech, assuming nothing goes horribly wrong in the last 8 days, probably will win Barack Obama the Presidency. A speech given by a little known Illinois Democratic State Senator (who was probably going to run for the United States Senate in 2004, although nobody outside of Illinois knew it) taking a position against the Iraq war that was, at the time, not only terribly unpopular in the country as a whole, but even unpopular within his own party.

Now, I know Obama was not the only politician who believed the Iraq war was dumb, I suspect many who voted for the war thought so too, but he was one of the very few to publicly take a stand. And, yes, he would give the universally praised Democratic Convention keynote address in 2004. But, it was this speech, this judgement, this act of courage, that Obama wielded against Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic contenders in Iowa.

A lot has changed since then. Of course, Obama ran a brilliant primary campaign and put forth a message, not only about the war but about all the issues, that seems to have resonated with the voters. And although our attention has shifted, right or wrong, to the economy, with 8 days left I thought it was important to take a moment to remember these 13 seconds.

Did McCain Forfeit the Election with Palin Pick?

There has been a lot of talk about the disaster that is the Presidential Campaign of John McCain, but that's the nature of disasters - they get your attention - which brings me to the subject of this post.

Before the conventions, the conventional wisdom among the professional pundit class was: if John McCain can make the election about Barack Obama, then he had a shot at winning. Assuming that this was a correct assessment, 3 big factors occurred that derailed this strategy for McCain, only one of which McCain had any control over: Sarah Palin, the financial crisis and Barack Obama.

At the end of August, the media narrative was all on Obama, arguably to the detriment of McCain who seemed to be struggling to get a message across. Of course, we now know McCain really had no message besides warmed over 1980's deregulation and tax cuts and "winning" in Iraq, all of which had been (Iraq) or was about to be seriously exposed to even the casual observer as fatally flawed. Nevertheless, the media obsessed over one question: could Obama bring in the Hillary hold outs? Even after a highly successful Democratic Convention, the answer media gave was not yes, but a skeptical maybe.

The focus of the media and the public then turned to McCain (for the first time in months) thanks to the Republican Convention and he made the worse possible decision he could. Lets assume for a moment that Sarah Palin was actually qualified to be Vice President (pardon me while I gag at the thought of actually writing that). Palin was a bad pick for the sheer fact that she took the focus off Obama and put it on McCain, well actually on Palin herself, but the effect was the same. That McCain and his advisors did not anticipate this is simply political malpractice.

I am still aghast at how they thought that choosing an unknown female governor was not going to draw attention from Obama. Palin's "newness" (and being a woman) turned her into the biggest political celebrity in the country (and made Obama look almost boring for a time). How the McCain brain trust could have possibly thought this was a good thing after a summer's worth of "celebrity" attacks on Obama is beyond me. Remember the media narrative was whether Obama was ready to be President and whether the country was ready for him. By picking Palin, McCain completely changed that narrative.

Yes, Palin's meager experience seriously undermined McCain's experience argument. But that is not the point. Nobody knew who she was! Nobody (well maybe Kristol and a few political junkies) - not even some of McCain's own staff, as we learned from the New York Times this week. At the time, it made no sense to me (it still doesn't) for two reasons: first, the professional political pundits and media (McCain's "base") don't like to appear to be surprised (which I suspect they interpret as being "shown up") and second, the voters, no matter how much they gripe about the political process and vetting of the primaries and general election, nevertheless accept it as they way it is done.

If you are running for President or Vice President there are certain hoops you have to jump through - experience as a leading corporate executive or as a state executive or senior legislator (i.e. U.S. Senator or Congressperson), "X" number appearances on Sunday morning shows (and yes, nobody watches them but they are still an informal institution), "X" number of appearances supporting the presumptive nominee, "X" number of news interviews, etc (and there are some short cuts - you can always be a failed aspirant for your party's nomination but even then, you have probably jumped through the hoops during the primaries). But, with Palin there was none of this. Governor Bobby Jindal had jumped through many of these hoops, so did Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina - all three very little known outside political junkies and professional pundits - and all three would have been considered "surprise" picks.

Palin, on the other hand, was in a category so far out of the ballpark it still boggles my mind. It was such a risky move that it required a near perfect political performance - all before she even opened her mouth in public to accept the selection. If they really wanted Palin, she should have been out doing appearances in support of John McCain the entire summer. This would have, at a minimum, given the press and the public the opportunity to get to know her and attempted to satisfy the requisite "hoops" required. If she had done this, it may have helped blunt some of the disasters that came after her selection (well...maybe not - she still is totally unqualified). Instead, she was plucked from obscurity from some Alaskan backwater.

Of course, she and McCain blew it so bad I have begun to seriously consider possibility that McCain wanted to lose the election. The obvious lack of serious vetting, the spur of the moment selection, the teenage pregnancy, the flagrant abuse of power as Governor of Alaska to further a personal vendetta against Palin's ex-brother in law, the refusal to have a news conference, the shockingly awful Catie Couric interview, the lack of any serious thinking or policy positions on national issues, the $150,000 wardrobe, the $28,000 make up artist. Not to mention the horrid and vile manner in which she has campaigned. All told, proof positive of two things: Palin is totally unqualified to be the Governor of the least populous state in the union, let alone Vice President, and John McCain's judgement is seriously flawed.

In any event, lets assume that Palin is not the disaster she has proven to be and in some fantasy world passed the minimum threshold "qualified to be vice president" (i.e. the Dan Quayle Threshold - stupid but not scary stupid). The next big factor McCain ran up against was the financial crisis.

In hindsight, it is obvious that McCain blew the response to the financial crisis. Yes, his economic philosophy is warmed over Reganism, which is now proven to be disastrous in large doses. Yes, McCain did not help himself with the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" speech. Yes, he has a hero complex and, like superman wanted to swoop into Washington to save the day.

But, the campaign suspension and the White House conference with House Republicans might have worked. McCain could have done one of two things at that White House meeting - either opened his mouth and actually engaged Obama and the House Republicans to try and get something done or, kept his mouth shut, walked out of the White House into a herd of TV cameras and denounced the bailout as a flawed giveaway to wall street and that he was with the House Republicans and would work to defeat it to get something better.

Would either of these actually helped solve the financial crisis? Thats not the point. Politically, one or the other action could have shown McCain to be either someone willing to work to help get things done or, the maverick who bucks the President from his own party on principle. Either of these would have drawn a line in the sand that Obama would have to answer. McCain's suspension gambit could have worked. But, he essentially did nothing and ended up looking erratic and, in the end, causing more harm than good as the financial bailout was stalled by his actions (and the Republican House) for several days.

As an aside, and I suspect the Obama campaign would never want to tout this as a political accomplishment, but their whole strategy with respect to McCain and the financial crisis was masterful. With some help from McCain's inaction and unwillingness to either take a stand or work to pass the bailout, they were able to essentially lay the blame for the loss of billions of dollars when the stock market tanked on McCain's erratic behavior. Of course, they never really came out and put it in those terms, but that was clearly the message they were pushing.

Finally, that brings us to the one factor McCain had no control over: Barack Obama and really the point of this (apologetically long) post. Because, despite the totally unqualified Vice Presidential pick and her litany of disasters, despite the erratic nature of John McCain's decision making, the conventional wisdom from mid summer is still true: this election is still about Barack Obama and he has come through with flying colors. If John McCain had picked a qualified VP, if his campaign suspension had actually accomplished something - he still could not have overcome "the strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand" of Barack Obama and his juggernaut of a campaign.

After Obama's string of primary wins, when it became apparent to most rational people (sorry for the dig) that he would be the nominee, I argued to those who would listen that this election, because of the disaster of the last eight years and the demographic advantage democrats now have, would be very similar to the Reagan - Carter election in 1980. For those not around, Reagan had a similar hurdle to overcome - he had to convince the voters he was not a total lunatic and would be a responsible choice for President. In 1980, Reagan didn't do this until the (only) Presidential debate in late October. But after that debate, what was up to that point a close election, became a rout.

Like Reagan in 1980, Obama passed the threshold after the debates and with 10 days to go, it is looking like it might be an Electoral College rout. Today Obama has an 8 point average national lead in the polls, he's competive in every battleground left on the map (all of which are states that voted for Bush in 2004) and some red states that nobody would have thought as battlegrounds and, check out these numbers from this week's New York Times/CBS poll:

Do you think Barack Obama has the right kind of temperament and personality to be a good president, or not?
Yes: 75%
No: 19%

Now, this poll had Obama beating McCain, 52% to 39%, which means a significant percentage of people who said they were going to vote for McCain believe Barack Obama has the right temperament and personality to be a good President (By the way, McCain's numbers on the temperament were 50 % Yes, 45% No).

What this all means is that this election has been about Barack Obama. While the voters were unsure of his temperament, it was a close election. Many of the professional pundits (and some democrats) spent the summer worrying about why, if this was such good year for Democrats, Obama was not up by 10 in the polls. Well, since the first couple of debates, Obama has essentially been up by 10 and its remained that way for the past few weeks. It is looking more and more like the election of 1980.

Now, there are still 10 days to go. Something could happen to change everything. People could get complacent and not vote (note to all you McCain supports: I'd be quite happy if you stayed home on November 4) or external events could make people re-think their comfort with Obama. But, I think the conventional wisdom (and the McCain campaign) is coming around to the fact that Obama will be the next President.

So, my answer to the question posed in the title of this post is No, John McCain did not forfeit the election with his pick of Sarah Palin. Barack Obama is going to win because of who he is. What is left to do is to make it happen on November 4.

McCain Behind the Scenes

Today's essential reading. This article already has the pundits buzzing. The NYT Magazine will publish the whole story this Sunday.

Shock AP poll: Tied

Well, today's shock poll comes from the AP and shows that the race is essentially tied among "likely voters":

Obama 44
McCain 33
margin of error +/- 3.5

I have to assume this is an outlier as all the other polls have Obama up at least 6 (NBC has it at 10, and even Fox news has Obama up 9).

I took a peak at the crosstabs and there has to be something wrong with AP's likely voter screen. The AP shows Obama with a 10 point lead (Obama 46, McCain 37) before they apply their likely voter model. I am sure Nate Silver will figure all this out over at fivethirtyeight.com.

Palin's $150,000 Wardrobe

The news that seems to be getting all the attention today is the McCain campaign buying it's VP candidate $150,000 worth of clothing.

Personally, even though this spending by the McCain campaign might be illegal, I still think it's a stupid story. One point though: Under the Obama tax plan, Palin's $150K wardrobe would get a tax break. LOL.

The bigger story today is that the state of the race is still pretty stable. Obama is still leading in the polls by 5 or 6 (and may have gained a point or two over the last couple of days), early voting is still going great for Obama, and McCain is still flailing away trying to get any positive traction (and I don't think that al-Qaeda endorsement of McCain for president counts).

With 13 days left until election day, and not counting chickens, things are looking good.

A Must Read For Polling Junkies

I try not to obsess over polls. Unfortunately, I tend to forget that. Luckily, Nate Silver's wonderful fivethirtyeight.com is around to satisfy my poll cravings.

Nate has an absolute must read on tracking polls today. He breaks down each tracking poll, noting the time released, the poll's track record, strengths and weaknesses.

If your reading my blog, I am sure your are reading his. If not, you should be.

McCain: Realistic or Delusional?

So, they finally have given up on Iowa and also Colorado?

What's that leave? Pennsylvania!

Good God. Just go back to Arizona and campaign there the next 14 days Senator McCain. javascript:void(0)

Republican Election Spending

A quick thought. Last week, at the height of the Obama lead in the polls, there was some talk here and there among pundits that the Republicans should divert money from McCain to some of the closer US Senate races - a la Bob Dole in 1996.

Now, there have been cases reported of Republicans redistributing resources (e.g. Michigan, some cut back on McCain joint ads with the RNC) but, from what I have seen so far, there has not yet been a wholesale flight of money from McCain to Republican Senators in tight races.

If it is going to happen, my guess is that it will happen this week. It will be very instructive to see what the RNC ad buys are for this coming weekend and next week. If you see a lot of cash to try and prop up Republican Senators, then you can probably assume that the big shots in the Republican party have wriiten off John McCain.

Also, look to see where McCain spends his time next week. If he does a lot of appearences in states where the Republican Senator is in trouble, the race for the White House us probably over (of course, given how bad McCain/Palin is doing in the polls, they could be told to stay away from those states too).

Finally, what kind of cool aid is the McCain campaign drinking? On a conference call today, Rick Davis from the McCain campaign said that McCain's polling shows a tight race in Iowa. Unless something had drastically changed on the ground, Iowa has not been in play for weeks. Obama has been up big for weeks in all the polls in Iowa. Yet, for some reason McCain continues to think that he has a shot there. In fact, as I recall, McCain made a visit to Iowa recently and the pundits were all asking why. Has the McCain campaign left the reality based community or do they know something that nobody else does? This is puzzling and worrying at the same time, on a variety of levels.

Vote Early, part 2

An excellent resource:

Vote Early

With 15 days to go, the national polls seem to have tightened a bit. What was an average Obama lead of 7 or 8 points is now down to 5 or 6. But, the polls of the battleground states are still looking good for Obama. Of course, battleground polls have been lagging behind the national numbers all fall. Something to keep an eye on.

So the first big story on early voting trends came out today. Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, Nevada and Ohio early voters are predominantly democrats. Republicans hold an edge on early voters in Florida and it looks to be about even in Indiana.

McCain needs all these states so the democratic advantage in Ohio and North Carolina is hopeful for Obama. Florida is a concern, especially since I am afraid the Obama campaign may be falling into the "Florida trap" by spending a lot of time and effort there in what may be a lost cause. Maybe it's the ghost of 2000 but I just don't trust the polls out of Florida showing that Obama is ahead.

Finally Fall

Fall officially started several weeks ago but, here in New Jersey it has been unseasonably warm. Until today. There's a chill in the air and, despite my spending a lot of money to remove two large trees a couple of years ago, leaves all over my yard, seemly overnight.

Colin Powell Endorses Obama

I don't think endorsements mean too much, but this one could push some rational republicans over the fence.

Been busy

Well I have been busy for the past several weeks. Since my last post, a lot has happened in the Presidential race. I won't rehash it all, but with 16 days to go, it looks like Barak Obama will be the 44th President of the United States.

Of course, 16 days is an lifetime in politics. Remember that just over 16 days ago, this race was tied, so anything can happen between now and November 4.

I've been asked to help out the Obama campaign in PA for the last 3 days of the election so that should be interesting. In the meantime, I hope to have this blog updated more frequently. One of the things that I find is I have a hard time trying to find the time to sit down and write posts. But, I may have found a solution. I have never been a big fan of email posts, but I think I might have stumbled upon a great little app for my iPhone that will let me post more frequently. Well see.

An Audacious Head Fake?

So, as everyone knows John McCain has decided to engage is gutter politics and will probably throw the Kitchen Sink at Obama the next 3 weeks.

Obama's obviously got a 3 tier response - first, talk about the economy; second, run positive biography Ads; and third, hit right back (e.g. Keating Five). But, come the end of Tuesday's debate Obama could have a fourth tack: take John McCain aside and say "lay off or I am coming after Arizona".

What! Arizona? McCain's home state? Am I crazy? Maybe not....

I try not to look at Karl Rove's election analysis but this caught my eye yesterday:

http://www.rove.com/images/0000/0088...

So I was looking for the remaining red states where it might behoove the Obama campaign to out some token money into and maybe have a rally. I was looking for red states where McCain's lead was < 10 pts. Here's the list:

Arkansas (McCain +9)
Georgia (McCain +8)
and...drumroll please:
Arizona where Rove puts McCain at +8

Now, if you have been following the election at all, you probably have heard that Georgia is an Obama "wish state" - they have put up a bit of an effort there to try and see if increase voter registration and youth and african american turn out could put the state in play. The last I heard (any please comment below if you know different), that doesn't look like it will pan out. But, Arizona is McCain's home state and he's only up 8? Obama is up 17 in Illinois. McCain should be way ahead of that. So I did more digging:

Pollster's got Arizona at 51.4% McCain to 38.9% Obama. But look at the polls that make up that aggregate:

Rassumussen on 9/29: McCain 59, Obama 38
ASU on 9/28: McCain McCain 45, Obama 38, Undecided 15
ARG on 9/14: McCain 56, Obama 39

OK. Not looking too good but two things jump out: first the polls are kind of getting long in the tooth on October 8, could the massive shift Obama has seen in the last week have played out in Arizona? Second, that ASU undecided number of 15...

So over to Nate Silver and what does he say about Arizona? Well, his model has got McCain winning 94% of the time (he's got Obama winning IL 100% of the time). The 538 projection for Arizona has it at McCain 54.4% and Obama 43.1% with a Margin of Error of +or- 7.7%.

SO...

Now you are saying - OK..McCain's a virtual lock on Arizona - what's your point? Well the points are the following:

First, McCain is not Mr. Popularity or Mr. Congeniality in Arizona. As late as June, the McCain campaign was projecting Arizona as a possible swing state.

Second, Obama probably (and this needs to be confirmed) has zero investment in Arizona.

So the play is this:

Throw a little ad buy in Arizona and, drop in for a rally on the way to Colorado or Nevada and see what the internal polls show.

If there is movement, lay it out for McCain: lay off the gutter attacks or be forced to spend money and campaign in your home state. If there is no movement, reap the publicity of actually campaigning (even for a couple of hours) in McCain's home state.

Now look, the only way McCain looses his home state is a 400 plus electoral vote landslide for Obama (and maybe not even then). But, what an audacious head fake this would be.

Thoughts?

The Other Side of the Palin Pick

I have always considered Jerome Armstrong a "sky is falling", "glass half empty" kind of guy, even more so since Hillary Clinton was beaten in the primaries but, he very well may have a point on Palin.

Basically, he says that the truly horrid VP roll out means nothing because Palin has energized the base and thereby put into play the GOP ground game for the election.

Definitely worth a read.

Palin: the new Eagleton

OK. I'm going on the record here. Sarah Palin will withdraw as McCain's VP.

Why?

Well, she is just getting killed as are republicans trying to defend her. It seems like every hour there is a new revelation about her and none of it is good.

So far I count the following:

1. Troopergate: They have got a confession on tape from an aid and emails. I suspect they will be able to prove abuse of power
2. for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it
3. Member of the Alaska Secessionist Party
4. Directed fundraising for Indicted Sen Stevens' 527
5. Totally unqualified for the job
oh and...
6. Has a 17 yr old who is 5 months pregnant (although I put this at the bottom of the disqualifying items since it should not matter at all)

This VP rollout was just so so badly managed by the McCain campaign. It is clear they did not vet her at all, no matter how much they deny it.

So, I can safely say she will not be on the ballot come November. If I had to hazard a guess, if she has another bad news day tomorrow, by Wednesday afternoon she will withdraw. If she can somehow survive the week, I give it no more than 2 weeks.

DNC 2008: Day 4 The Speech

Damn near perfect.

Watch or read it. My thoughts would only diminish it.

DNC 2008: Day 2

Well, day 2 is over. The red meat was served with a dessert of Unity.

Thoughts:

Sebelius: Ok speech, but I see now why she was not picked as VP. The majority of her speech covered Obama's economic proposals and the delivery was a little flat, but she had a great dig on McCain:

I’m sure you remember a girl from Kansas who said there’s no place like home. Well, in John McCain’s version, there’s no place like home. And a home. And home. And home.

Strickland: Good speech, although, again, not someone who fires up a room but an awesome line:

George W. Bush came into office on third base… and then he stole second. And John McCain cheered him every step of the way.

Casey: Very good speech, again average delivery. I heard Carville on CNN say that the Democrats have some pretty major league talent at the top of their talent pool after Clintons speech (more on that below) but, I must say after Obama and Clinton and (hopefully) Biden, there seems to be a big drop in ability to give a speech. In any event, Casey also had an awesome line:

John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush more than 90% of the time. That’s not a maverick, that’s a sidekick.

Rendell: Delivered a speech that was pretty "meaty" lots of digs, but I still think he underperformed given his reputation.

Before I get to the big 3, some pleasant surprises:

Dennis Kucinich: wow. he was fired up and ready to go. maybe too much, and, on reflection being surprised by Kucinich is probably normal.

David Patterson: what a surprise. Why this guy had to inherit the NY Gov. office is beyond me.

The "Real People": every one of the folks who came out and told their stories was very good, especially Lilly Leadbetter.

Xavier Becerra: very good.

Rahm Emanuel: I know why he's such a behind the scenes guy, and I expected him to come out and just hammer away but he was underwhelming. I have seen talk here and there that he may be a president/vice president some day. He's got a ways to go.

Deval Patrick: Very well done and delivered although I think it could have been more energizing.

Ok, now for the big 3 speeches:

Mark Warner: Pretty good speech. I was a little apprehensive about him, but he did OK and I am not sure this was a "keynote" worthy speech. But that's OK because the last 2 speeches of the night made up for it.

Brian Schweitzer: Just awesome how he took a speech on energy independence and just fired out the delegates is beyond me. What a character! My favorite dig (no pun intended):

We simply can’t drill our way to energy independence, even if you drilled in all of John McCain’s backyards, including the ones he can’t even remember.

After Schweitzer's speech, I would thought Clinton would have an even harder task than the one she faced, but, I have to agree with the CW (and I am not a Hillary fan) that she hit a grand slam. I watched a lot of her speeches during the primary and have to say this was the best speech I have ever seen her give.

She set the tone right off the bat:

No way, no how, no McCain

And the key quote:

I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years. Those are the reasons I ran for president, and those are the reasons I support Barack Obama for president. I want you -- I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that young boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

She went after McCain pretty hard:

it makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these days they're awfully hard to tell apart.

And she finished great.

Now, I do wish she had addressed the commander in chief BS that she let loose in the primaries as that is what the rethugs went for after her speech. But overall I don't know what else Obama supporters could have asked for.

So where does that leave us?

Well, first, I wish the hell they would get control of the delegates more. Their constant unruliness during the speeches is annoying and is taking away from the non-prime time speakers. Moreover, even the cable news channels are not showing speeches due to the fact, I suspect, that nobody seems to be paying attention. Every now and then the will stop their constant prognosticating and cut to the podium but only after the delegates have gotten ahold of themselves and start responding to the speakers. You can be sure that the rethugs are going to sit still and silent for 4 hours each day next week and, as a result, a lot of their non prime time speakers are going to get cable news time.

Second, the PUMAs are DOA after Clinton's speech. She has rightfully chastised them. If Obama can't get them, they were never going to be gotten and they need to be written off.

Finally, Day 3 and 4 have been teed up (just as I suspect the Obama campaign had hoped) with Michelle Obama's wonderful speech and Clinton's near pitch perfect unity speech. Biden has to come out and just let loose on McCain and Obama has to give the best speech ever (and given his track record, that is a very very high bar indeed).

DNC 2008: Day 1 Thoughts

First off some thoughts on day 1 of the Democratic National Convention:

I watched most of the convention on CSPAN yesterday, so I (thankfully) missed most of the talking heads and heard all of the speakers. The big take away for me is this: Michelle Obama's speech was a home run. The best of the night. Ted Kennedy's tribute and speech was very moving and probably should have been bumped later in order for it to be shown on the networks.

As for the rest, as is typical for democrats, the conventioneers were an unruly bunch for nearly everything except the Kennedy and Obama speeches, which took away from some very good speakers. Pelosi's speech was OK as was McCaskill's, I thought Jim Leach's speech was excellent, sadly he is not a great speaker and the refusal of the delegates to shut up hurt him. Jessie Jackson, Jrs. speech was very well done, he was probably the best after Obama and Kennedy.

The big controversy is whether the first night was wasted by not going after McCain more. I have to agree that the delegates are hungry for and need "red meat" attacks, but last night was probably not the night to do it. We will see what tonight holds.

As for tonight, Clinton is the big speaker and she has a lot on the line (as does Obama). Early word is that Mark Warner, the keynoter, will not be going after McCain so the task will fall on Clinton.

Finally some random thoughts:

* Bill Clinton needs to STFU. It has almost come to the point that Obama may have to dis-invite him from speaking. How fast can Gore get to Denver to take his spot?

* The press seems more concerned with the Hillary Dead-Enders than the delegates seem to be.

* Picking Warner as the keynote may have been a mistake. We will see tonight.

* The Obama girls were awesome and I loved the way the corrected their Dad's misstatement of what city he was in.

* Hillary Clinton needs to put an end to this roll call controversy.

* Why the hell can't the networks show the conventions for more than 1 hour a night? You would think they could take 2 weeks every four years.

* The Cable news shows have too many rethugs on. I hope the dems get equal time next week. (and an idea: Biden and Obama should show up at the RNC next week)

Looks like it is Biden

Well, so much for the text message....

Shortly after midnight on August 23, the news networks, and major newspapers began reporting that Barack Obama asked Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware to be his VP.

Unless this is some brilliant head fake (and the evidence seems to be the following: the secret service showing up at Biden's home, and at least a couple of anonymous democratic officials confirming it as well as statements from the camps of other VP hopefuls that they were told that they had not been picked), it looks like this is the real deal.

As I mentioned the other day, I thought Biden was probably Obama's second pick. I thought he would pick Kathleen Sebelius. I guess not, but I am happy it is Biden. He brings a lot to the table and it is going to be fun watching him tear John McCain up.

Some random thoughts....

* Biden is 65. So clearly he is not going to be President (he would be 74 if Obama/Biden gets 2 terms)
* I hope the story of how the pick was made comes out someday. It has to be a good one.
* Don't be surprised if Biden's son is named/runs for his senate seat (not sure how Delaware would pick Biden's replacement)
* My parents live about 10 minutes from Biden. Hope he doesn't shut down the roads a lot over the next four years (LOL)

Back in the Saddle: 76 Days until E-Day

As usual for me, posts to this blog have been few and far between. What can I say, life happens. But, as of today, there are 76 days until election day. I am going to try and get at least one post a day from here on out. Hopefully these posts will be more than just a recap of the days news however, for today at least, it will have to be just a summary of where I think the election stands.

So, here goes...

Obviously right now the issue consuming the most attention is who will be Obama's VP. The conventional wisdom is that it is going to be Joe Biden. I am not so convinced.

The thinking behind Biden is that he would help shore up Obama's perceived weakness in national security and be a great attack dog. However, I think Obama is not thinking that way. He has made it clear that he is confident in his ability to handle foreign policy and does not view it as a weakness at all and that the primary criteria for his selection is going to be someone who he can work with, agrees with him on his "new politics" philosophy.

If I had to guess who his pick is going to be I would put my money on Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. Picking her fulfills all of the criteria listed above and all the criteria Obama has laid out to the press for his VP.

Now, the Clinton lovers will probably go ballistic over this pick but I view that as an added benefit to picking Sebelius. Obama has made it pretty clear he has bent over backwards to accommodate the Clintons (prime time convention speaking slots, roll call votes, the stupid statement in the party platform about the "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling", changing portions of his health care proposal to reflect the Clinton plan, helping Clinton retire her debt) and, up until now, he has gotten little to show for it (see Bill Clintons statements re: qualification for president, compliments regarding John McCain's environmental record). By picking Sebelius the message to the Clinton dead enders is this: Hey. Here's a qualified women who shares my philosophy. If you really think its Hillary or no one else then you are a bunch of hypocrites and I don't need you. Either get on board the train or not.

Is it a gamble? Yes. Right now the polls show that where Obama is under performing is with democrats (he is getting about 80% of the self-identified democrats in most of the polls I have seen, which is less than Kerry got). If he can bump that up to about 90% of self-identified democrats, he wins the election. Picking a women (even though it is not Hillary) would do two things: attempt to lure some of those dems back into the fold and, given who Sebelius is and her record, make a serious play for the rational wing of the republican party.

So, that's my guess. As to the timing: I would not be surprised if he did not announce until Saturday morning although I think the Obama campaign is open to announcing earlier, depending on the news cycle (for example, how much air time is the new - and most likely flawed - Zogby poll showing McCain with a lead for the first time going to get? If it gets too much, then maybe the VP announcement comes to get it out of the headlines).

Clinton Debt = $21 Million, Just Say No, Obama

The LA Times is reporting this morning that Clinton is $21 Million in debt. Given the fact that this race is over and Obama has (or soon will) win, there has been alot of speculation that Obama will offer to help Clinton pay down the debt. I say no...

Look, any reasonable observer knows that winning this race was a long shot for Clinton after March 4 and the Obama winning streak. ( see this Chuck Todd post for the breakdown). We also know that Clinton was out of powder (i.e. money $$) at that time. Yet, she still chose to vigorously continue her campaign. That was her right.

Yet, as it became more apparent that her hopes were becoming slimmer as OH, TX, PA, et. al, failed to change the dynamic of the race, she has still (rightly or wrongly) refused to suspend her campaign. She has continued to spend, spend, spend. The result? Mountains of debt and vendors unpaid (although if I were her, I'd tell Mark Penn that he's never going to collect what she owes him).

Now that Obama has won the majority of pledged delegates, all the pundits keep saying is it is all about how Clinton exits the race. All signs point to the fact that she will not get out until after June 3. Again, that's her right. But, how the heck can she justify the spending?

More importantly, how can Obama and his supporters justify helping her pay off this mountain of debt? Speculation is that Clinton is going to position herself to negotiate with Obama that in exchange for her suspending her campaign, Obama will help her pay down this debt. At this point though, unless Clinton is willing to suspend within days, I have to think that Obama has to say no. He cannot justify this to his supporters.

How is Obama going to go to his supporters and ask them to help pay for the debt that was incurred by Clinton after most reasonable people knew her chances were slim to none? Even worse, how can anyone justify paying down the additional debt that is going to be incurred by Clinton to campaign in the June 1 and June 3 states?

Moreover, where the hell were Clinton's financial people? How could they let this happen? I can't believe that they deluded themselves into thinking that it was worth it. I mean, what is the best possibility right now for Clinton? She gets half of MI & FL and says she finished the primary season but still lost? Maybe she gets to influence the health Care plank of the platform and gets some sort of veto power over the VP choice (I take it for granted that the VP will not be Clinton for a lot of reasons, the biggest being that she brings nothing to the ticket that Obama does not already have). Is this worth $21 million plus?

Historically when candidates ran out of money the gracefully exit the race. It is well past time to Clinton to do so on that basis alone. For her to continue now and then have the audacity to come back to Obama in two weeks when it is over and ask him to help with her debt is morally wrong. It is unfair to Obama, his supporters, and democratic chances in November as she will be diverting monies that should rationally go to the presidential campaign and/or down ticket candidates.

Obama has to just say no.


UPDATE: I should have made this clearer in the post originally, Obama cannot give Clinton the $21 million out of his fund raising coffers. What he can do is host raisers for Clinton and/or ask his donors to contribute and/or give Clinton access to his donor DB (which is probably the most coveted political DB in existence today - I am sure down ticket candidates are just salivating at getting access to it). So the real question is whether Obama should do these things on Clinton's behalf. I still say no way.

March 4 Predictions

Well, I suppose I should post my predictions for tomorrow night's democratic primaries.

Right now the conventional wisdom seems to think that Ohio & Rhode Island will be won by Clinton,Vermont by Obama and Texas as a toss-up. I suppose I could go with the conventional wisdom. The polls certainly support this view. But, I am going to go out on a limb here - mostly because the polls have been wrong.

So here goes, for posterity sake:

Ohio: Obama win by 1%. Counting will go late into the night. Why? I think Ohio is going to be a combination of Wisconsin and Missouri - remember that the networks called Missouri for Clinton, but then retracted and then Obama finally won. I think thats going to be the case here. Now, most polls show Clinton up by an average of 6%, and the NAFTA/Canada flap probably has hurt Obama. Even the Obama campaign seems to have written off Ohio. But I just have a feeling the pollster's models are not taking everything into account. So I'll stick with my pick: Obama by 1%.

Vermont: Obama by 15%. This is pretty much in line with the conventional wisdom.

Rhode Island: Sometime around 8 PM tomorrow night, the networks will call RI for Clinton, noting that she has finally broken Obama's 11 state winning streak. Clinton by 10%

Texas: Its a dead heat right now. There's all kinds of talk about how Clinton might win the popular vote but Obama will win the caucus. Again, I'm going out on a limb: Obama wins the popular vote and the caucus. Obama by 6% in the popular vote. Don't be surprised if we don't know the result until the next day.

So there it is. I predict Obama will end the Clinton campaign tomorrow night. Come Wednesday, we'll start to see the super delegates flock to Obama.

The End or the Beginning of the End?

I am slowly coming to the realization that we may be heading to the worst possible situation - a fight for the democratic nomination all the way to the convention. We are now 3 days from March 4 and it is looking like the primaries are going to deliver us a split decision. We may well be at the exact same place we are now on March 5th. If we are, this race is a whole new ball game.

So here's the scenarios:


1. Rhode Island: Clinton Win, Vermont: Obama Win, Ohio: narrow Obama win, Texas: Obama win: I put this as the least likely scenario (10% chance) simply because I don't see an Obama win in Ohio.

The most recent polls put Ohio in Clinton's column:

ARG: Clinton 51, Obama 44, Undecided: 4
Zogby (for what it's worth): Clinton:45, Obama: 45, Undecided: 6
Rasmussen: Clinton: 47, Obama:45
Fox/Opinion Dynamics: Clinton: 46, Obama: 38, Undecided: 14
SUSA: Clinton: 50, Obama: 44, Undecided: 3

Now, polls have been all over the place this year, none of them have been very reliable but, it seems apparent that Clinton has solidified her position in Ohio. We'll see how the late breakers are going when polls come out tomorrow and monday, but the Obama camp can't be hopeful. I suspect the Obama campaign saw this in their internals earlier this week when they left Ohio and went back to Texas and Rhode Island (most likely just to try and keep Clinton's Ohio numbers down) before returning to Ohio tonight.

Clinton's base - folks over 65 and folks who make less than 50K/year are clearly in her camp, and there may be a tinge of racism to overcome in Ohio (see also Ed Rendell's comments on Ohio's neighboring state, PA):

If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, this man said, he'd not only vote for but work for McCain, "and I hate McCain."

"Why not Obama?"

"He's too inexperienced."

"And why else?" a woman down the bar asked.

"Because he's black."

The only hope for an Obama win in Ohio is for the Obama GOTV to outperform and, for these <50K Hillary supporters to stay home.

Which brings us to scenario #2....

2. Rhode Island: Clinton Win, Vermont: Obama win, Ohio: Narrow Clinton win (6 pts or less), Texas: Obama win: I put this as the most likely scenario (50%).

But, there does seem to be some concern here too. Obama appeared to be pulling ahead in Texas the middle of this past week, but the most recent polls seem to show a Clinton come-back:

ARG: Obama:47, Clinton: 47, Undecided: 4
Zogby (again, for what its worth): Obama: 45, Clinton: 43, Undecided: 8
Rasmussen: Obama: 48, Clinton: 44, Undecided: 8
SUSA: Obama: 49, Clinton: 45, Undecided: 3

it looks like Obama has the upper hand in Texas, but as this comment at myDD states, it looks like, over the past couple of days, Clinton's base (<50K/year, >65, Hispanic) is coming home to her at the end.

Which brings us to scenario #3...

3. Rhode Island: Clinton Win, Vermont: Obama win, Ohio: Narrow Clinton win (6 pts or less), Texas: Clinton popular vote win, delegate loss. I rank this as a possible outcome Tuesday (30%) and it is clear that this is what the Clinton camp is hoping for.

I'll address this scenario in more detail below, but lets get on with the remaining possibilities for now...

4: Rhode Island: Clinton win, Vermont: Obama win, Ohio: Narrow Clinton win (6 pts or less), Texas: Clinton win (popular vote and delegates). Obviously this is the Clinton dream scenario but I think its unlikely (5%).

Now there are some other variations on these scenarios: an Obama win in Rhode Island, big (>8%) wins for Obama in Texas and Ohio, big (>8%) wins for Clinton in Texas and Ohio, but each is very unlikely (1-2% chance).

So how does this nomination play out given these scenarios?

Scenario #1: If Obama wins Ohio & Texas, no matter what the margin, Clinton is done. She will be forced to suspend her campaign within days, if she does not do it Tuesday night. The Super Delegates will break for Obama in droves, headlined by Edwards, Richardson and possibly even Gore. Obama will then be free to begin the campaign for the general election as he wraps up the nomination in WV, NC, PA et. al.

Now, I have seen several comments about how it would be better for Obama if Clinton were to stay in so that Obama can have the chance to build up his organization in these post-March 4 states. I say hogwash. The sooner this ends, the better for the nominee. I would argue that the reason Obama seems to be slipping in Texas the past couple of days is because he has had to wage a two front campaign the past 10 days: one against Clinton and one against McCain. If Obama has to do this from now until Puerto Rico, he will be wounded for the general election. The sooner he can take over the reigns of the party, the better.

Scenario #2: This is the tough one. Clearly Obama has broken the Clinton firewall. But, the Clinton campaign has been laying the ground work to continue on if this is the scenario that comes to pass. It seems clear that they are going to argue that the Texas rules (primary & caucus) are unfair, and possibly file a (BS) lawsuit to try and put the Texas results into question. Clinton will argue that the goalposts have to moved again - to Pennsylvania on April 22, and we will be right back where we are now - Obama ahead in states, popular vote & delegates and Clinton somehow still hanging on waiting for something to turn the race her way. Between March 4 and April 22, Obama should be expected to win Wyoming (12 delegates) on March 8 and Mississippi (33 delegates) on March 11 so there is the possibility that Obama blow-outs in those states could put the pressure on Clinton to drop out on March 12, but, given the Clinton campaign's penchant for dismissing caucuses and red-state wins, this is unlikely.

With this in mind, if scenario #2 is what we end up with on Tuesday, there will need to be a game-changer to put the pressure on Clinton : Edwards or Gore endorsement, party leaders sitting her down and telling her to suspend etc, or we are waiting until PA. If the race goes to PA, Obama has to win PA or keep it close the argue that he's won the most delegates.

Scenario #3: If this happens, its off to PA. I don't think Obama would have the moral authority to argue that Clinton should suspend, even though there is still no realistic way she can catch him in delegates. We'll have to see what the PA results show - PA becomes a must win for Obama. Under this scenario I suspect the nomination goes all the way to the convention.

Scenario #4: Again, off to PA. I suspect this is the game changer scenario for Clinton. All of her arguments concerning Michigan and Florida will have to be addressed and PA will probably be the deciding contest, with the winner being the nominee.

So, here's where I think we are at:

10% chance the race ends Tuesday night.
50% chance the race ends sometime between March 4 and March 12
30% chance the race goes all the way to the convention
10% chance the race ends April 22.

Waiting for the Damn to Break: It's Obama's to Loose

Digby's Got it:

Personally, I don't think we'll have a tie much longer. It's hard to see how either candidate can unify the country if they can't demonstrate that they can unify the Democratic Party. Something has to break and I suspect voters will be the ones to do it.

That's the way I see it too. We are heading for a showdown March 4th that will decide this election.

Get ready folks, the dam is going to break. Who gets washed away is still unknown, but someone will. Lets set the scene:

1. Right now, as everyone knows, Obama has had a hell of a weekend - blow out wins everywhere (and margin of victory is very important now as I will argue below) and a Grammy to boot.

2. More bad news for the Clinton camp as they shake up their campaign. This is actually a good time to do it - better now than after the beltway primary, which is probably going Obama's way. That way there won't be weeks of talking about how shaken the Clinton campaign is. Get it over now, suffer the news cycle until Tuesday night when the narrative will change.

3. Mini Tuesday: the Potomac / beltway primary: MD, VA & DC. Most likely going 3-0 for Obama but there are some upsides for Clinton:

(a) Win 1 state - If Clinton can pull a rabbit out of the hat and win at least 1 state, with some good "spin", she's probably back in the driver's seat for March 4.

(b) I think (a) is unlikely but I do think this is essential - Clinton cannot loose 59-39 or 60-40 like she has this weekend. She has to keep the margin of victory within 10 points in at least 2 of the 3 states. Why? Because after this weekend people are going to start to notice how Obama has really been blowing her out. There's starting to be a pattern to this and if it continues, it will be discussed over and over in the Media.

4. The Big MO: so far this election nobody seems to be able to keep the MO. But if Obama goes 8-0 this week, all basically 59-39 or better, he's probably got it and that will run right into ...

5. Feb 19 WI & HI. Right now, these are probably narrow Obama wins but with MO, Obama could run off another couple of 59-39 blowouts. It will be interesting to see after Tuesday what the Clinton campaign does - do they put all the eggs in the basket and go to TX & OH or do they try and compete in WI to hope for a win to stop momentum? Also, look and see if Obama does the unthinkable and makes a flyout to HI. Even though HI should be a "home state" for Obama, Clinton does have some advantages there (Inouye endorsement, large Asian population, large senior population). If you see Obama visiting is old HI haunts then we'll know that his internal polls show him in a tight race with Clinton in HI or he doesn't have the blow out and wants to try and run up the numbers.

and now...

Dam #1: March 4.

OH & TX will be incredibly important. They are essentially the ball game now. Obama wins both - Clinton gets a visit from the party elders telling her to drop out. Obama wins one, Clinton gets one - depending on how big the margins of victory are in TX & OH it could go either way (either Clinton starts getting pressure to drop out or she gets to go to Dam #2). Clinton gets both - we go to Dam #2.

Dam #2: PA - April 22. This is it. This is where it ends. If we get here whoever looses will be told to drop out for party unity.

Right now, I see dam #2 as only a remote possibility. I suspect that the voters are going to see the Obama's 8-0 run, begin to let the Clinton campaign troubles start to seep into their consciousness and give Obama some more 59-39 blow outs in Feb 19. All of this will then snowball, along with what I expect to be MASSIVE media buys in TX & OH by Obama. He'll surf this wave of MO for a win in OH and a win in TX. And that will be it. The voters will have effectively ended it.

Yes, I know its a long time between now and then and anything can happen. I also know there's a lot of assumptions to this scenario, but like I said, Digby's right - the voters are going to decide this soon. I think that means that the soft Clinton supporters are going to start moving.

Now, this may just be wishful hoping on my part but if we do get to the "Thermonuclear Option" where we go all the way to Puerto Rico with both campaigns and no clear leader and it becomes apparent that super delegates are going to decide the nominee at the convention, I propose that instead of pressuring them to pick a side now, they take the following pledge:

As a super delegate I pledge to support with my super delegate vote at the convention:
a. If I am an elected official, either the winner of my State's primary or caucus or my congressional district or..
b. The person who has the pledged delegate lead after the last primary or caucus.
If I am not an elected official, I will support with my super delegate vote at the convention, the person who has the pledged delegate lead after the last primary or caucus.
The term pledged delegate lead means that person who has a majority of pledged delegates (50% of the assigned delegates +1) under the DNC rules.

While I am a super delegate, until the last primary or caucus, I am free to support any candidate in any manner except I may not imply in any manner that I will promise my super delegate vote at the convention to that candidate of he or she does not have the pledged delegate lead overall, in my state or in my congressional district.

Mapping the Nomination From Here...

Time to start wondering how this will all end.

Maybe its a bit premature, but I think this will be relevant come Tuesday night.

As I see it, TX and OH could end this campaign. I see two issues to end it:

1. Will Obama win TX & OH?

2. Will Clinton see the writing on the wall and bow out if he does?


So, as I see it, counting only pledged (not super) delegates, Obama is ahead:

Obama: 1,012
Clinton: 940

Tomorrow is Maine so lets assume, a split 12 to 12
which brings us to:

O: 1,024
C: 952

Next week we have the Beltway Primary. Assume this shakes out for Obama:

DC: O 11, C 4
MD: O 40, C 30
VA: O 47, C 36

After Tuesday we could be at:

O: 1122
C: 1022

On the 19th, we add in HI and WI. HI is a home state for Obama so lets assume that goes for him 13 to 7, and give Clinton the benefit of the doubt in WI and split the delegates 37-37. Then we have:

O: 1172
C: 1066

Now, assume Obama wins TX & OH, say 53-47. Lets assign delegates here for our scenario:

OH: O 73 C 68
TX: O 101 C 92
and RI and VT:
RI: O 12 C 9
VT O 8 C 7

At this point we are at:

O: 1366
C: 1242

Now, assuming this happens, Obama now has the pledged delegate lead and has run the table on Clinton since Super Tuesday. Here are my questions:

1. Is it over? Is Obama the presumptive nominee? Remember there are still states to vote - they are:

State Date Delegates
WI 3/8 12
Miss 3/11 33
PA 4/22 158
Guam 5/4 4
Indiana 5/6 72
NC 5/6 115
WVA 5/13 28
KY 5/20 51
OR 5/20 52
MT 6/3 16
SD 6/3 15
PR 6/7 55

So there's still 611 delegates out, but even if it went 70-30 for either candidate, nobody is gonna get the majority needed to guarantee the nomination. I guess what I am asking is this: do democrats come together at this point and say to Clinton, you lost everything since Super Tuesday, you lost TX & OH, time to hang it up?

2. If the answer to #1 is yes, should she drop out? I'm very interested to hear from Clinton supporters here. BTW, please don't argue how FL & MI count - lets not get into that right now. If you want to argue FL & MI, they you have to provide a solution to the problem of how to count them and be fair to Obama.

3. So if the consensus is she should drop out if she looses FL & TX, then here's my final question - Do you think she will do it? Is it in her character to bow out gracefully or will she fight to the bitter end?

So those are my questions.

Just to get it started, I think if Obama runs the table through March 4, pressure must be brought to bear on Clinton to drop out. Personally I don't think she will and she'll fight to the bitter end. On the other hand, if Clinton can take one of either OH or TX, I think she's earned the right to continue until at least PA. If she wins that, she's earned the right to fight on (either until the end or until it becomes obvious she can't win the overall pledged delegate count).

Real Delegate Count: Obama 1,012 Clinton 940

This is pledged delegates only, no supers.

This includes projections for those delegates that have not yet been officially awarded from super Tuesday.

Forget super delegates for now, forget Florida and Michigan for now. The only number that matters is pledged delegates.

Obama Total: 1,012
Clinton Total: 940

Yes, these numbers are the same as the Obama campaign but, when I run them on my spreadsheet, this is what I get too. All campaigns will spin but Obama's has been pretty straight up with delegate counts from day one (they were right on Nevada going 50-50 and they are correctly assigning New Mexico 50-50 even though there's no final count).

CNN's numbers are just stupid. They include super-delegates and they have yet to assign a bunch of delegates from super Tuesday.

California Delegate Math Deciphered

So, there's lots of confusion how you count delegates in California.

I'll take a shot at trying to start off the explanation. Hopefully someone can do the math....

CA has 53 congressional districts.

In 21 on those there are an odd number of delegates to win.

So, in the districts with an even number of delegates available, Clinton and Obama will split them (i.e if 4 are available, Clinton gets 2 and Obama gets 2). However, if one candidate gets more than 62.5% in an even number district, then they can "win" one of the other candidates delegates and thus "win" that district. Last I checked, (3am), Clinton is only up by 62.5% in a couple of congressional districts. So, in 30 or so districts, Obama and Clinton split the available delegates

Here's a link to all the districts in CA: CA Congressional District results

Here's a link that lists how may delegates each district gets: delegates

So, its only in the remaining 21 where an odd number is available that Clinton or Obama can win and extra delegate.

I suspect Obama's folks have done the math and know that no matter what, they end the night + or - 10 or so delegates (they just sent an email that they have won the most delegates tonight so maybe the did the math and they are up a few delegates).

Now, Clinton keeps adding her Super Delegates to her totals. Personally, I think thats BS since supers can change their mind at any time. I think the important number right now is how many delegates were won in the election. If this race looks like its going to the convention then supers come into play.