Doing The Math

Before the Texas and Ohio primaries Bill Clinton made the out-on-the-limb statement that if Hillary did not win both the Texas and Ohio primaries she would probably not get the nomination, and if she won in those two races she probably would. At the time Hillary's team tried to out scramble one another in backtracking and qualifying his statement, which in conventional political terms was setting a bar which if not met would come back to bite the campaign. Of course, everyone was relieved at the result, and once again the uncanny political reputation of 'The Bill' was somewhat rehabilitated, having been in the doldrums since his seeming misadventures in the Carolinas where he stepped into the racial and messianic minefield surrounding Obama.  

Before the Texas and Ohio primaries Bill Clinton made the out-on-the-limb statement that if Hillary did not win both the Texas and Ohio primaries she would probably not get the nomination, and if she won in those two races she probably would. At the time Hillary's team tried to out scramble one another in backtracking and qualifying his statement, which in conventional political terms was setting a bar which if not met would come back to bite the campaign. Of course, everyone was relieved at the result, and once again the uncanny political reputation of 'The Bill' was somewhat rehabilitated, having been in the doldrums since his seeming misadventures in the Carolinas where he stepped into the racial and messianic minefield surrounding Obama.  

What have been the repercussions of the wins in Ohio and Texas? For Hillary this is the second 'comeback' after her previous New Hampshire primary victory. Both she and her campaign surrogates have now become more aggressive in their challenge to Obama, maximizing the window of opportunity opened both by her victories and by a new mood of skepticism that began with the Saturday Night Live lampoon addressing the fawning approach the media has taken toward the Obama campaign. This window is not likely to last, unless there is another major big state victory in the coming weeks. The Clinton campaign, which has repeatedly gone through its ups and downs will no doubt soldier on in much the same fashion as before, but the punches it throws will be a bit more aggressive as the time grows tighter.  

Repercussions in the Obama camp have been more revealing. First of all you hear a lot of talk about numbers, super delegates and polls. In his first interviews after the Texas results were in, Obama sounded even more like a lawyer than usual as he parsed out the math of the 'delegate count' going toward the convention. On the surface he had a point, but he certainly did not sound like a person who was certain of victory. (By the time this thing reaches the convention the phrase 'delegate count' will no doubt be rendered as meaningless by constant repetition as have the words 'hope' and 'change').

More interesting yet is the performance of various supporters and surrogates in the past week. The other day I watched a discussion with four 'super delegates' representing both sides and found the contrast striking. The Hillary supporters, Leon Panetta and Geraldine Ferraro, both made the point that the candidates thus far had been relatively easy on one another, contrasting this with what is likely to occur when the race is against Republicans. Both appeared supremely confident in both their candidate and the process. The Obama people, Bill Bradley and Jesse Jackson offered a distinct contrast. Bradley trotted out the numbers, while pronouncing almost with a sneer the inevitable Obama nomination while Jackson appeared more conciliatory, voicing a concern that the ensuing process if taken to the convention might compromise the chances of either candidate to succeed.

Meanwhile the media romance with the Obama camp appeared to be running low on fuel as stories calling into question various policy positions cast a more piercing light on a campaign that thus far is largely based on an appeal to wishful thinking. The results have not been favorable. The story about the Canadian NAFTA conversation, first leaked by the Clinton camp, has been running now for almost two weeks in places like the New York Times and the Boston Herald (in Canada they are referring to it as "NAFTA-gate"). This week's "monster" statement by Samantha Powers supposedly resulted in her resignation as foreign policy advisor. I believe it wasn't so much the 'monster' statement, as it was the fact that in that same interview she appeared to contradict the stated position of the Obama campaign vis a vis an Iraq withdrawal timetable.

The result of both of these incidents is that the candidate has had to distance himself from his own advisors and is now forced to defend himself as the people begin to question his commitment to his own policies. As the Kerry campaign amply demonstrated, being put on the defensive in a national campaign is the surest way to lose. Personally I have great admiration for Samantha Powers, and I think it unfortunate that she walked into this political trap and had to fall on her sword, but the incident exhibits a level of inexperience that in a general election can sink a candidacy with a single wrong move or ill thought out statement which has to be retracted or defended repeatedly in the echo chamber of the media.

People in both camps are equally passionate and equally committed to the outcome. As the race drags on nerves are frayed and people are more likely to say things out of passion that don't necessarily represent well thought out positions. Take a look at almost any blog since the beginning of the race and you will see increasingly raw emotion displayed on all sides. This is another area where Hillary may have the advantage both in experience and age and of being more or less a 'known' quantity. The Obama people rely on their candidate fulfilling their highest ideals by pursuing an ill-defined brand of  'change' politics. Obama is forced into the nearly impossible position of being more than perfect, and he is hampered in the pursuit of the kind of hard ball politics that will dominate any race with the Republicans. His followers are younger, more volatile, and have a tendency toward overconfidence that can be deadly in the race to the finish. If the blogs are any indication, they are much more likely to parade a certain arrogance and have shown a marked tendency to overreact to any criticism of their candidate.  

In an article in the Washington Post, March 6,'Tough Math on the Democratic Side'  Marie Cocco points out, "Hillary Clinton is not the only Democrat with a math problem. But the arithmetical difficulty that Barack Obama faces is fundamentally different from Clinton's: She doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to the nomination. He doesn't have the numbers that plot a clear path to a Democratic victory in the fall."

What she means is that if you count up the numbers in terms of Electoral votes in a general election in the states won in primaries by the two Democratic candidates you find that the Obama states add up to 193 while the Hillary states add up to 270. Another factor is that Obama has been much more successful in states where the caucus process excludes many mainstream voters, while HIllary has done better generally in states with more participatory primaries. Add to this the likelihood that many of the Obama states are more likely in the general election to go Republican (Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas, Alaska) while the states that Hillary has won (California, New York, Ohio, Texas, Florida, Michigan) are swing states that are more likely to determine the outcome of a general election. In this analysis the conclusion drawn from numbers is decidedly different than what we've been hearing from many pundits and party functionaries.

So, do the math. The Obama scenario appears to depend somewhat on a romantic idea that in a general election a significant number of Republicans will cross party lines and vote for Obama along with most independents. Given the results so far, independents will be as split as the general electorate according to race, gender and income levels. Anyone who has watched politics over these past 30 years knows that most Republicans will swallow their reservations and vote with the party if it means not losing the White House. Even now the Republican ranks, including he evangelicals, the wing-nuts, and many others are beginning to fall into line and the Republican Party, which has already raised a huge war chest for the general election is preparing for a united front. By the time a Democratic candidate emerges out of the gate they will be ready and waiting.