Not only NARAL, but unions and the party itself are experiencing internal fights as this struggle drags on. That is what is going to happen as long as there is not certainty. The Superdelegates need to make their preferences known and bring the mess to an end, so we can all unite behind a nominee and get on with it. If they are going to rush to Clinton -- highly unlikely -- they should make that known. If they are going to go toward Obama in sufficient numbers to resolve this, they should do that now. In organizational life and politics, it is often presumed that delay is costless. But in fact, delay and prolonged uncertaintly are often the costliest options, at least for the interests of the whole endeavor. Right now, delay only helps McCain.

Posted at May 15, 2008 10:12 AM in response to NARAL Affiliates Question Mothership's Endorsement Of Obama

Very interesting numbers. The fact is that EITHER of these Democrats would have a tough fight against McCain. That has been obvious for a long time.

The sooner the Democrats get behind their nominee and get him ready for this fight, the better. We are losing precious days and weeks and inflicting one blow after another on ourselves by allowing this to drag out in a last ditch, bitter struggle by the Clintons -- a self-serving, even solipsitic struggle that interacts with noxious media dynamics. I am one of the few Obama supporters who has defended the putative judgemental role of the Superdelegates -- believing there should be a category of people who make decisions based on their sense of what is good for the party as a whole. But I am changing my mind, because these folks are proving evasive and dilatory. They are not moving in a timely way, but are hiding in the weeds awaiting some electoral conclusion that will not come.

After next Tuesday, if the Supers keep delaying, the Democrats will find themselves in another media-driven set of racially charged arguments about whether Puerto-Rican popular vote margins should or should not count in "proving" Clinton more electable! Hard to think of a more destructive argument to have -- at a time when Obama should be visiting Latino communities in the Southwest.

Like it or not, we know our nominee -- and we ought to wrap this up and let him and the party get ready for the general election. Hillary and Clinton are determined to force the Superdelegates to tip one way or another -- and the Supers should do that sooner, not later.

Posted at May 14, 2008 11:27 AM in response to Poll: McCain Beats Obama And Hillary By Equal Margin Among Working Class Whites

This desperation tactic by the Clinton campaign is both very sad and destructive to the Democratic Party and to the nation as a whole. Public talk about racial divisions serves only to exacerbate and deepen them, so this is not costless if it is their approach going forward. Racial divisions are, of course, out there in the real world, but the way that elites talk and choose to compete with one another can either soften or exacerbate such divides. Social science research is clear on this.

The rationale for Superdelegates is to use their judgement in a timely way for the good of the party as a whole. It is time for them to decide and let all progressives move on from Clinton last-ditchism.

Posted at May 7, 2008 11:20 AM in response to Hillary Chief Strategist: North Carolina Loss Represented Progress Because We Won Among White Voters

Coupled with what Dean said over the weekend -- that he thought Superdelegates would probably move in aggregate to the candidate perceived to be stronger for November -- I don't see this as necessarily favoring Obama or HRC. All that the "elders," such as they are (and they don't have much clout these days), seem to be saying is that Superdelegates, each on his or her own with whatever counsel, should declare decisions after the final primaries, if not before. Seems kind of obvious, and I think it could go either way (despite the fact that I personally favor Obama). Waiting until a divided Convention would be a disaster for any Democratic nominee. Why would HRC's supporters want that any more than Obama's? I must be missing something.

Posted at April 28, 2008 9:51 AM in response to Howard Dean: Party Elders All Agree Race Shouldn't Go To Convention

Mississippi on March 11 was certainly a huge Obama victory in a significant state primary -- unless some people are just discounting or making invisible primaries with large numbers of African American voters.

Will the same technique be used to set aside North Carolina? And why is it that Clinton's claim to win all "large" states does not mean that she must North Carolina as a crucial benchmark? Everyone seems to be buying the spin that Indiana is the next big test for her. By what criterion (actual or self-described), unless black voters just "don't count"?

Posted at April 27, 2008 8:50 PM in response to Gravity Puts Dent in Obama Momentum

Sorry, but CO, VA, MO are already in play for Dems and have been for some time. Several other upper Midwest and central Midwest states that the Dems must have show Obama way over McCain, but McCain over Clinton. And as for MI and PA, polls show Obama beating McCain -- more than Clinton in MI. MI is my native state and I follow it closely. Because of the primary timing dispute, the myth has grown that it is pro-Hillary. But if a fair primary had been re-scheduled, Obama might have won -- and either he or Clinton will take MI in the fall.

I am a New Deal liberal and certainly not against mobilizing working-class support. I just believe that Obama and his running mate will do it in many states (not WV or KY, but Clinton loses there, too). They will also attract the new kinds of voters that Dems need and are mobilizing recently.

Latinos have gone for Clinton in the primaries. They knew Bill Clinton as their friend. But they are very attractable to Obama or any Democrat in the fall -- and a leading Latino fundraiser for Clinton has just defected to Obama! He knows what is going to happen.

Posted at April 25, 2008 5:50 PM in response to Attention Pundits and Press: Tough Questions for Clinton's Last-Ditch Campaign

Louisville,

I think the evidence shows that Obama creates great coattails for Democrats across a large number of states. Every analysis I have seen suggests that the breadth of his likely favorable impact on downlist candidates is one of his greatest advantages. That is a large part of the reason I support him, because I think building strength in Congress is just as important as taking the presidency. This is also why he will quickly get a lot of Superdelegates after either May 6 or June 3. It will happen sooner if he actually wins both states on May 6, and after June 3 if (as I expect) Clinton narrowly carries IN.

The big state issue is a bit misleading in my opinion, because it includes a number of states sure to go to ANY Democrat, such as MA, NY, NJ, MI, CA -- and PA. The Rendell machine and other PA machines will deliver for any Democrat in November (and Clinton was greatly helped by having them in the primary). OH is dicey, but would be for Clinton, too. The only large state I see as significantly easier for her is FL. Obama is way ahead, meanwhile, in many mid-level swing states where she is behind. As I said earlier, the best state-by-state analyses we have show it to be a wash between these two. And, frankly, either is likely to win in November, because McCain will be vulnerable as soon as we have a nominee, and because so many new Democrats are registering or switching.

Clinton would be enormously weakened going into November if she blew the party up to get the nomination. But I am 90% sure that will not happen.

On the New Deal coalition, it is not what it used to be. HRC is a bit stronger with that traditional core, while Obama is stronger with recently growing categories of Dems and with Independents. That is why it is a wash.

I also would expect -- and very much urge -- that Obama pick a Vice Presidential candidate who supported Clinton and could be very strong with blue collars. Ohio Governor Strickland has been mentioned as a possibility, but I am sure there are others. We get so focused on the primaries that we forget there will be additional steps a candidate can take as soon as the person is settled. Obama could also go so far as to designate some of his Cabinet nominations (for example, the Secretary of State), which would build his profile for the general election.

Posted at April 25, 2008 3:37 PM in response to Attention Pundits and Press: Tough Questions for Clinton's Last-Ditch Campaign

I also have a continuing problem with TPM reporting polls without noting the margin of error. How can these very close percentages be outside of any reasonable margin of error? If not, they should not be reported as anything but ties all around.

Posted at April 25, 2008 1:25 PM in response to Rasmussen: Clinton Stronger Than Obama Against McCain In Pennsylvania

This is not meaningful coming right after the primary, and what it really shows is that both are very close in relation to McCain. PA is a traditionally organized state among Democrats, and come November the Rendell etc. machines will turn out the support needed by any Democratic nominee.

Posted at April 25, 2008 1:21 PM in response to Rasmussen: Clinton Stronger Than Obama Against McCain In Pennsylvania

Louisville has reasonable answers -- IF this were much earlier in the primary season and something Clinton could go on to win on overall elected delegates. But now she needs more than a set of reasonable responses to worries, because she (with overwhelming certainty) cannot win on elected delegates by June 3. She needs a beyond-all-reasonable-doubt set of arguments about why superdelegates should literally throw it to her, and she isn't close to that.

As far as polls can tell us, HRC and Obama run evenly against McCain. Both are excellent candidates who will certainly rally most Democrats (primary voters saying they won't vote for one or another just won't stick with that, past research shows). I happen to believe Obama will do much better among Independents (and the young and Af Ams) who have not voted in these primaries, but will be in play in November. But even if HRC has counterbalancing strengths, she certainly does not have enough of them to ask superdelegates to overthrow Obama's elected victories within the existing rules of the game, given the bitterness and chaos that would spark.

It is sad that the first woman and first Am Am presidential contenders with strong claims to the nomination are running against each other, but the fact is that the Clintons (both of them) lost this long ago with their own mistakes. (I regret that Hillary is not more her own person, rather than part of the Clinton brand, but of course she got to the brink of viability that way.) I say all of this as someone who supported both Clintons in the past. Sadly, they are functioning as spoilers.

Posted at April 25, 2008 1:18 PM in response to Attention Pundits and Press: Tough Questions for Clinton's Last-Ditch Campaign