Has Obama Won The Nomination?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary
By some really, really bad oversights by the Clinton campaign is looks as if it’s highly unlikely she’ll be able to catch Barack’s pledged delegate total. And that’s even if she wins in the bigger primaries. Because not only would she have to win, but she’d have to win BIG, and with so much time between now and then, it’s inevitable that Obama will close the gap.
In fact, I just read this from Drudge Report as a teaser to a NY Times story out tomorrow…
NYT THURSDAY: Clinton’s advisers acknowledged it would be difficult to catch up in race for pledged delegates even if she succeeded in winning 3 states on which she is most pinning her hopes: Ohio and Texas in March and Pennsylvania in April. Dem party’s rules would be decided obstacle in efforts to catch up to Obama before voting phase of nominating process ends later in spring… Developing…
So that leaves the super delegates, and as I’ve mentioned before there’s literally no way she’s going to win the nomination that way. It would be akin to stealing it from the voters, and there’s no way you’d ever want to go down in history as the Democrat that was so desperate for power you stole the nomination. And let’s be clear, while the Clinton camp is saying the super delegate system is part of the process, it was made SPECIFICALLY to subvert the will of the voters because they were picking nominees that party insiders didn’t like. That IS why they exist.
The question then…has Obama won?
Sure, he hasn’t technically won, but if Hillary needs massive wins to even come close to parity in the pledged delegate counts, well, I think it’s safe to say that it’s just not going to happen. Yes, there’s always a possibility and I’m certainly not suggesting she should give up now, but the momentum is behind Obama in a big way, he’s closing in national polls, he’s polling better against McCain and he has a couple primaries coming up next week where he’s poised to win yet again.
I ask again, has Obama won?
UPDATE:
Hillary’s camp correctly points out that nobody can actually win the nomination, meaning get 2025 total delegates, without the aid of at least some super delegates:
On that conference call earlier, Hillary spokesman Howard Wolfson signaled what will be the Hillary camp’s main argument when the spin wars over super-delegates start in earnest: Neither candidate can win this race without super-delegates.Wolfson repeated variations of this point multiple times on the call.
Yes. That’s technically true, but I’ll again state that the winner will be the candidate who has more pledged delegates. Because whoever has the lead there, even if it’s only by ONE, should be the nominee. That’s the will of the voters, and anything less would be seen as changing that will.
Now, if Hillary and company want to keep making that case, they’re free too, but I hope they know how ill advised this is. Because what it suggests is Hill favors the decision of beltway insiders over the voters. To me that’s a losing strategy on many different fronts, not the least of which is that it continues to solidify the notion that Hillary is the ultimate insider.
More as it develops…
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 13th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Hillary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Has Obama won? No, not yet.
It ain’t over ’til it’s over.
It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings. (Yeah, but WHICH ONE?? ;p )
Obama hasn’t won–but at this point, it’s his to lose.
He could always do something stupid and… “Jacobellis” the whole thing!
February 13th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
And I’ll answer again. NO.
But I will grant you he has the inside track.
Here is the scenario how Clinton could win: She must win Ohio and Texas. She does not have to overtake Obama in overall delegates or popular votes (whatever that means when so many states are actually caucuses and not votes, and Michigan and Florida are not seated). If she wins both of those states (she might have to win Pennsylvania too). She makes the very plausible case that she won in all the BIG STATES (except Obama’s home state Illinois) plus one must consider all the people that voted for her in Michigan and Florida, regardless of whether they are seated. These are all states that the Dems MUST WIN in November to win the white house. That provides political cover for the super delegates to support Clinton. It is a plausible argument. Even if Obama has a plurality in pledged delegates and the popular vote.
Is it a subversion of a purely democratic process? Yes. But nobody has ever said that at any point in its history the Democratic Party nomination for President was a purely democratic process. Ever. Full Stop. It just isn’t. You can argue whether it should be, but it cannot be argued that it is, or it ever has been. The closest it ever came was the McGovern nomination, which – interestingly, was the single biggest defeat in Democratic Party Presidential election history.
So there you are. If it is close, lets say within 150 delegates, it is a tie. If it is a tie, the superdelegates pick the nominee.
If Obama wins Texas or Ohio, the Clinton argument and political cover for the superdelegates falls apart, and at that point Obama has won. But not yet, and it does not matter what happens in Wisconsin. Ohio and Texas will tell the tale.
February 14th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Justin you are doing a pretty good job spinning this yourself.
Barak Obama continues to win in states that have and always have been GOP bastions. I wonder why that is given the fact that the GOP will do anything to make sure Hillary is not the Nominee or the next president.
Does anyone thing that Obama will pull out a stunning landslide victory where his wins are coming in GOP states while loosing to Hillary in Traditionally Democratic States.
You are writing off Hillary and the fact of the matter is that as of today the official committed delegate count stands at.
Obama 1276
Clinton 1233.
Big wins in those 3 states Hillary is banking on will put her in the lead and more importantly it will read this next line closely:
Put her in the win with the states that are going to vote Democrat. If Obama is in the lead his lead is because he has won Idaho, Utah, Alabama, Georga. Places where the GOP WILL win come november.
I do not see Hillary’s demise and I do not see honestly how Hillary will not win the nomination. But for a further analysis see the following web link.
Barak Obama? Electable.
http://bobaggins.wordpress.com/
February 14th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Actually the number of delegates does not equal the popular vote, since a candidate can win the majority of votes in a state and still walk away with an equal number of delegates to the person who finished second, depending on where those votes were cast.
mw is correct of course, it is not a democratic process, it’s just one which allows some voter interaction. Superdelegates _are_ part of the current process, and if you can’t accept that since it’s too undemocratic for you then you have no right offering an alternative view (that of pledged delegate count being all) that is just as undemocratic. Let us not forget that many of those superdelegates hold their positions because of the will of the people who elected them to a role which came with superdelegate status attached.
February 14th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Anytime I hear, “Yes. That’s technically true, but…”, I reach for my wallet because somebody’s trying to pull a fast one.
The rules of the game are the freakin’ rules of the game. If Obama cant get enough total delegates than tough. Same for Clinton…especially when she talks about the Michigan and Florida non-delegates.
The truth is Clinton’s base of support among lower income and blue collar workers IS disadvantaged by the spate of caucuses that Obama’s more well heeled supports can dominate, so Obama has a built in advantage (particularly in Republican dominated states), and he has played that for all its worth. Good on him. But Clinton, because of her ties to the establishment has an advantage in the Superdelegates and she is playing that for all its worth. Good on her.
To say that if Clinton wins on the strength of SUperdelegates she “stole” anything is complete and utter BS. If the Dems dont like the system they can change it next time.