An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Momentum and Expectations: Keeping the Obama-Clinton Race in Perspective

It seems increasingly likely that, at best, Clinton will win narrowly today, perhaps by a few points in Ohio and by a point or two in Texas. (She’ll lose Vermont, but she’ll win Rhode Island.) In terms of delegates, not much will change.

Still, victories in Ohio and Texas would be huge. Obama has won 11 contests in a row — and everything since Super Tuesday — but the media, which are already turning on Obama, are looking for a new story, a new chapter, a new narrative. The one about Obama’s rise and seeming invincibility has grown stale. They want sensationalism, and Clinton victories would have the smell of sensation about them. (Clinton the Comeback Kid, and all that nonsense.) But they would only smell like sensations because of ever-changing expectations — and media-driven expectations are very much what these races are all about.

Put today’s contests in context: Clinton was, not so long ago, the decisive frontrunner. The race was hers to lose. Doubting Obama, like many others, I thought her eventual victory was pretty much a sure thing. Obama might win Iowa and perhaps even South Carolina, but Clinton would win New Hampshire and pull ahead for good on Super Tuesday. And that would be that.

But, well, a funny thing happened on the way to the nomination. Obama rose to the occasion and proved to be one of the one of the most impressive political figures of our time. All in a span of a few weeks. The potential was always there, but he seemed to find his voice, and his mission, and, well, he just caught fire. I endorsed him just before Super Tuesday, but even then it wasn’t clear just how impressive his run would be. He became not just the frontrunner after Super Tuesday but the head of a movement that has engaged Americans in a way that I didn’t think possible. Clinton has repeatedly belittled him and his campaign — as well as, by implication, his supporters — but he is a man of outstanding style and substance. His supporters know it. I know it. And I am excited about what I have come to call his capacity for greatness in the White House. Millions of Americans are behind him, and believe in him, as do millions of us non-Americans around the world.

But back to the race: Obama pulled even on Super Tuesday and ahead in the contests that followed. In response, Clinton (or her campaign) has repeated shifted the goalposts (as they say). While Obama was winning contests around the country in states as diverse as Washington and Virginia, Nebraska and Maine, Hawaii and Louisiana, Clinton was waging a divisive scorched-earth camapign against Obama, hurling accusations and smears with reckless abandon — and talking up Ohio and Texas, which would relaunch her campaign once again. She was losing and losing, and not even admitting it, but these two key states would turn be the turning point. And she was well ahead in the polls in both states. In early-February, she was up by about 20 points in Ohio, according to some polls. In Texas, she was up by almost 10 points, according to some polls. And now? Again, she is ahead by a few points in Ohio and more or less even with Obama in Texas. Given this context, it is Obama who has done dramatically well — and who, even with close losses tomorrow, would continue to be moving in the right direction, that is, up. And yet, given how well he has done, close losses will look like huge victories for Clinton. This is what the media will tell us. The truth is otherwise.

For Clinton, it’s now all about Ohio and Texas — and, should she win today, Pennsylvania. These are big states, to be sure, but the other states count, too. Whatever happens tomorrow, Obama should win Wyoming on Saturday and Mississippi next Tuesday. Pennsylvania follows over a month later, on April 22. So much could happen before its primary, but let’s assume that it’s also close. Indiana (May 6) and West Virginia (May 13) could be tough for Obama, but he should do well in North Carolina (May 6), the biggest state after Pennsylvania, as well as in Kentucky and Oregon on May 20, Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and even in Puerto Rico on June 7, the final contest.

In other words, whatever the Clinton spin, it isn’t all about Ohio and Texas. It’s about all 50 states, and Guam and Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Democrats Abroad. Every vote counts, every delegate counts — and, on both counts, Obama has done remarkably well. Just look back at our table — in case you’ve forgotten (and the media have), check out those massive and decisive post-Super Tuesday victories for Obama: 37 points in Washington, 29 points in Virginia, 17 points in Wisconsin, etc., etc. Clinton was supposed to have had the nomination wrapped up before those contests. And she was supposed to have won states like Virginia and Wisconsin. Instead, Obama pulled ahead and just kept on winning and winning. He may soon be a victim of unrealistically lofty expetactions, driven both by the media and the Clinton campaign (which hopes to benefit, in Bush-like fashion, from surpassing appalling low expectations), but, in context, it is Obama, and not Clinton, who will have surpassed all those early expectations.

Keep all this in mind when you watch the returns later today — and when the pro-Clinton spin comes spewing out of a scorched-earth campaign that keeps changing the rules to accommodate its losing ways.

  • mw
    "...when the pro-Clinton spin comes spewing out of a scorched-earth campaign that keeps changing the rules to accommodate its losing ways."


    Interesting sentiment Michael, but your extreme bias is showing. Just because you prefer Obama, does not make every Clinton assertion "spin".

    This is, after all, a political contest, and it is very much an open question who will win the nomination. There is absolutely no reason for Clinton campaign to do anything except to compete and fight as hard as they can and explain why they believe she is a better candidate and more deserving of the nomination than Obama.

    I just cannot get over how Obama supporters continue to delude themselves that the Democratic Party nomination process is something that it is not. The fact is that the Democratic Party nomination process is not a democratic process and never has been. It is not based simply on who wins the most elected delegates. It just isn’t. Deal with it. It is best descibed as a partially democratic selection process that includes some voter input.

    Among the wildly undemocratic elements, are: caucuses, which do not reflect the will of the voters in their states; undemocratic byzantine rules that arbitrarily allocates some voting districts in Texas more delegates than others; undemocratically excluding the voters of two huge important states; and of course, the undemocratic superdelegates.

    Sorry Obama supporters if you don’t like it, but it is your party and this is how you pick your nominee. An undemocratically selected majority of elected delegates has no more inherent validity than a selection by superdelegates.

    Instead of whining about what they think the rules should be, Obama supporters would be better served by competing hard by the rules of the game as they are to win the nomination, exactly like Clinton is doing, rather than how they think the rules should be.

    That can be done a variety of ways, including piling up enough undemocratically selected elected delegate to make the superdelegates moot. Oh wait - I forgot - Obama cannot do that any more than Clinton can. As a result, whoever makes the best case to the superdelegates will win, by - for example - winning all the big important states, and winning with more momentum at the end, and winning in Ohio and Texas even if outspent 4 to 1. That is the case Clinton will make.

    It sounds like a pretty darn good case to me.

    And - BTW- the party will not be split in two, because Obama will take the VP slot, if the superdelegates decide for Clinton.
  • pacatrue
    DWSUWF, you display your bias here. :)

    Sorry, couldn't resist. Let me be more constructive now.

    I think everyone is well aware of what the rules are for the Democratic nomination and no one is suggesting they be changed in the middle (oh, wait, there's that whole Florida/Michigan reseating thing after agreeing to- well, nevermind). I understand your reservation about the inherent "undemocraticness" of caucuses and districting rules in Texas, but it seems you are using those flaws to argue that, therefore, elected delegates and superdelegates are equal, since they are both undemocratic. I don't think it follows. It's like saying there were voter suppression in one state, therefore, an oligarchy is democratically equivalent.

    If 35,000 Democrats show up to a caucus (such as in a small state like mine of Hawaii, but as you indicated in another comment, victories in small states are also irrelevant to this campaign), that's surely more democratic than having one person decide on their own who the candidate should be. It is inherently unfair to the democratic spirit to have a few hundred people overrule the decision of their very party members who voted in the hundreds of thousands. They certainly have a right to do so because that's how the party rules are set up, but it would be both unwise practically (why start off angering a majority of your own party?) and morally, for lack of a better term. We are stuck with superdelegates this time around (and both candidates are campaigning for them heavily from what I understand), but I would support removing them from the next nomination process. We do not need their fail-safe mechanism. My guess would be that the Clinton campaign was always organized with the goal of winning the most elected delegates, not getting a party bigwig vote-in.
  • DLS
    You cannot count Clinton out unless she does badly in both Ohio and Texas; if she does well in both states you will have to wait until after Pennsylvania before you can safely predict anything. If you don't like Clinton or you like Obama, he's certainly doing far better than expected but he's lost his miracle luster among the intelligent, who know this race hasn't ended yet and who worship no candidate.

    And what if the party decides to finance new elections in Florida and Michigan?
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC