This is the singular message of the Obama campaign--on the official campaign boards, it takes a much higher billing than the actual name of the candidate. History is sure to note this slogan--but will history note that it is ungrammatical?
"Change In Which We Can Believe"--to be correct grammatically, that's how it should be said; just ask any English teacher. One doesn't end a clause with a preposition. That's how it was, but even then, it didn't sound right: the teachings were belied by our ears. That's the Professor Obama we might start hearing more of, if those who plead for less histrionics and more substance are listened to. You know what I mean. I think he's been there, and he's not going back. Vernacular rules!
It's not Ebonics; the denial of this rule in our daily speech is widespread. Secular, even.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Academy Awards Winner as Predictor of Presidential Elections
Here's the data point for tonight:
(one would suppose it's Best Picture, but I also recommend close study of Film Editing+) :
Juno--represents the key Obama constituency, the millennials. Their turnout in Iowa and footsoldier role in all the many state victories since is his core strength.
There Will Be Blood--to me, it's Clintonesque. There is determination to take one's chance and dare destiny, which applies to anyone foolhardy enough to run. But I see it as the direct challenger to its key opponent:
No Country for Old Men--Obama. A preview of the general election. Hillary's the Woody Harrelson character.
Michael Clayton--Who? I'd say McCain, vs. either HRC or BHO.
Atonement--The key group, the swing group. (Not that Obama will need any help with No Country on its behalf.) The application to the subject at hand is very interesting. Briony, the girl who told falsely, is clearly Dubya, and it's he (she, in the movie) who has much of the key to the general election.
+The Film Editing Oscar is highly predictive of the BP outcome and tonight can be read (or misread) either way if the Coens win it under a false name (and thus, the tension should be released early. Also, dispensing with mentioning the word "election" (I have a bet on a low value on the CNN channel).
(one would suppose it's Best Picture, but I also recommend close study of Film Editing+) :
Juno--represents the key Obama constituency, the millennials. Their turnout in Iowa and footsoldier role in all the many state victories since is his core strength.
There Will Be Blood--to me, it's Clintonesque. There is determination to take one's chance and dare destiny, which applies to anyone foolhardy enough to run. But I see it as the direct challenger to its key opponent:
No Country for Old Men--Obama. A preview of the general election. Hillary's the Woody Harrelson character.
Michael Clayton--Who? I'd say McCain, vs. either HRC or BHO.
Atonement--The key group, the swing group. (Not that Obama will need any help with No Country on its behalf.) The application to the subject at hand is very interesting. Briony, the girl who told falsely, is clearly Dubya, and it's he (she, in the movie) who has much of the key to the general election.
+The Film Editing Oscar is highly predictive of the BP outcome and tonight can be read (or misread) either way if the Coens win it under a false name (and thus, the tension should be released early. Also, dispensing with mentioning the word "election" (I have a bet on a low value on the CNN channel).
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Letter to Roger Cohen, IHT
RU Down w/ R2P?
See "Change You Can Believe In",
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/20/opinion/edcohen.php
I applaud your bringing forward the idea of "responsibility to protect" as a limitation on national sovereignty. It is an idea whose time has been long overdue.
I'm sorry the dictates of your format require a lead paragraph (and I quibble: Barack Obama didn't become a serious contender in the last week). I would suggest a better lede would have been how the "internal" issue of Darfur has become an international one with the violence in Chad--and how that happens all the time (think of the connection of Rwanda and the war in the Congo area). Such an argument is more likely to convince the hard-headed pragmatists that this expansion of international law is necessary.
See "Change You Can Believe In",
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/20/opinion/edcohen.php
I applaud your bringing forward the idea of "responsibility to protect" as a limitation on national sovereignty. It is an idea whose time has been long overdue.
I'm sorry the dictates of your format require a lead paragraph (and I quibble: Barack Obama didn't become a serious contender in the last week). I would suggest a better lede would have been how the "internal" issue of Darfur has become an international one with the violence in Chad--and how that happens all the time (think of the connection of Rwanda and the war in the Congo area). Such an argument is more likely to convince the hard-headed pragmatists that this expansion of international law is necessary.
Monday, February 18, 2008
More On (Moron?) Supers
My view that Move On! and other Obama-supporting groups are wrong in urging superdelegates to hang back and declare support en masse for the National Primary Popular Vote Winner (or some other imaginary decisive conceptual outcome) comes from three fundamental perceptions:
1) The race is basically a tie and will be even more so after the last three big states vote;
2) There's a natural predisposition among some of the party hacks and elected officials toward Clinton; to overcome that would require a much more decisive Obama victory than is likely to be possible; and
3) The only outcome that would truly be a disaster would be a bunch of party officials proclaiming themselves to be the arbiters and, acting in concert, throwing the contest to one side or the other in the months after the primaries and before the convention.
I think it's important to point out that 3) would be a disaster for the party no matter which way they threw it, or based on whatever evidence they chose to cite.
The best solution is to have as many superdelegates as possible announce their intentions sooner, rather than later. If they want to wait for popular validation of their leanings, fine, do it after Ohio/Texas, or after Pennsylvania. Not that those are really going to decide anything. It would be better if more of them declare earlier; that way, the voters can react to superdelegate endorsements at the ballot box--in at least a couple of states.
If the number of uncommitted delegates going into the last month before the convention is very small, the chances that neither candidate (in a two-candidate race) could get a majority will be very small. (From statistics: The probability of any particular point outcome in a continuous distribution is 0--this is discrete but with such a high number of "observations", it's close to being continuous.) If, by some chance, it comes out 2024-2024, with 1 for Kucinich (guess who?), OK, we'll take another ballot. It would be the most fascinating thing to happen in a convention in at least 40 years, hardly a disaster. One must avoid the appearance of a fixed outcome at all costs, unless it goes multiple ballots, in which case a backroom deal is a necessity. Again, this should not happen unless there is a significant number for some third nominated candidate, which does not seem likely (there are apparently about a dozen Edwards delegates still committed to him).
1) The race is basically a tie and will be even more so after the last three big states vote;
2) There's a natural predisposition among some of the party hacks and elected officials toward Clinton; to overcome that would require a much more decisive Obama victory than is likely to be possible; and
3) The only outcome that would truly be a disaster would be a bunch of party officials proclaiming themselves to be the arbiters and, acting in concert, throwing the contest to one side or the other in the months after the primaries and before the convention.
I think it's important to point out that 3) would be a disaster for the party no matter which way they threw it, or based on whatever evidence they chose to cite.
The best solution is to have as many superdelegates as possible announce their intentions sooner, rather than later. If they want to wait for popular validation of their leanings, fine, do it after Ohio/Texas, or after Pennsylvania. Not that those are really going to decide anything. It would be better if more of them declare earlier; that way, the voters can react to superdelegate endorsements at the ballot box--in at least a couple of states.
If the number of uncommitted delegates going into the last month before the convention is very small, the chances that neither candidate (in a two-candidate race) could get a majority will be very small. (From statistics: The probability of any particular point outcome in a continuous distribution is 0--this is discrete but with such a high number of "observations", it's close to being continuous.) If, by some chance, it comes out 2024-2024, with 1 for Kucinich (guess who?), OK, we'll take another ballot. It would be the most fascinating thing to happen in a convention in at least 40 years, hardly a disaster. One must avoid the appearance of a fixed outcome at all costs, unless it goes multiple ballots, in which case a backroom deal is a necessity. Again, this should not happen unless there is a significant number for some third nominated candidate, which does not seem likely (there are apparently about a dozen Edwards delegates still committed to him).
If We're the Front-Runner...
...why doesn't it feel like we're winning?
This week's primaries in Washington ("beauty" only), Wisconsin, and Hawaii should all go to Obama. Wisconsin's getting the attention because it's close, but the other two will be more significant. A large Obama win in Hawaii should help pad his lead (to about 100 delegates, by most counts), and the narrow outcome likely in Wisconsin will really only matter to those counting state victories or imagining that there is some kind of momentum shift going on.
There is no momentum--this race has basically been a tie for a month or more. Obama's recent win streak is just playing out his advantages in these states--advantages which were apparent to all. He does have a small edge in delegates, but after this week things get tougher.
Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania--those are the big states left (though there are a couple of medium-sized ones worth mentioning, like North Carolina and Kentucky). The conventional wisdom is that Hillary needs to win all three to get the nomination, but that she would indeed get it if she did so. The argument is not that she would make up the ground in pledged delegates by winning them, but that she would then be able to claim wins in all the big states (basically true, except for Obama's Illinois) and that would bring enough superdelegates around to her in the end to win.
The part I don't like about this is that Obama--now that he's the "frontrunner"--is being set up for being taken down a notch. This is the game the media have been playing all along--build them up, so you can cut them down. Ohio and Texas each show something like a 15-point margin for Hillary today (Pennsylvania is closer). If the only way a candidate can win his nomination is by making up huge deficits, that doesn't sound like much of a front-runner.
The Huckabee Factor
Conspiracy theorists should like this one (sounds like a thriller title, no?) The hypothesis is that McCain's campaign people should actually like the fact that Huck, who's really no threat to defeat McCain and win the nomination, is staying in the race. Here's why:
Think of a population of 10% or so of the general election voters who we can call "Potential McCain Voters" (or PMV's). These people are mostly independents, and the hypothesis (which actually seems quite likely) is that their second choice would be Barack Obama. In an open primary (which is the case in both Ohio and Texas), they can go either way.
Now look at the Texas poll results released last week showing McCain leading only 45-41 over Huckleberry. If you were a PMV, and you were thinking you'd go ahead and vote for Obama because the Republican race were over, that might give you cause to re-think and show up for Johnny Mac on March 4. This could cut something out of Obama's vote and tend to give the edge in the Texas Democratic vote to Hillary. Which is what McCain & Co. want. Q.E.D.
The same argument does not apply as well in Ohio, where McCain has a seemingly safe 50-33 lead over Huckabee in the most recent polling. Here one would expect PMV's to consider voting for Obama as the surest way to stop Hillary.
Ohio or Texas?
This must be the question vexing the Obama campaign leadership at this time. I don't think it's the same for the HRC campaign, where it's got to be both.
These two states pose very different problems for Obama. Ohio is, of course, a key swing state, with a very strong tradition for electing moderates in its statewide elections. The Democrats are ascendant for now, with a moderate Democratic governor (Clinton-supporting) and the suburban blue-collar vote predominates.
When you think of "prominent Texas Democrat" you think of...nobody who's alive today. It's unclear what kind of character, if any, the state's party presents. I would say that Obama should win the two largest cities, Houston and Dallas, fairly handily, while Clinton should win most of the 200 or so other counties (I don't exaggerate). To me, the swing areas that could determine the outcome are the heavily Hispanic cities of San Antonio and El Paso. Again, based on prior voting patterns from other states, an uphill battle. And then there's that Huckabee Factor.
In the debates leading up to these primaries, then, Obama needs to come across as a credible centrist challenger to Clinton, avoiding being categorized as a left-winger. He needs to put his vaunted ground game into play to counteract party machine forces going against him in both states. He has the money to buy TV in both. He should make a late decision to focus on one or the other, based on any late trends presenting an opportunity. I'd look particularly to see if Huckabee's support in Texas falls as news seeps in that he, in fact, has no chance and no business staying in the race--if so, plunge there.
This week's primaries in Washington ("beauty" only), Wisconsin, and Hawaii should all go to Obama. Wisconsin's getting the attention because it's close, but the other two will be more significant. A large Obama win in Hawaii should help pad his lead (to about 100 delegates, by most counts), and the narrow outcome likely in Wisconsin will really only matter to those counting state victories or imagining that there is some kind of momentum shift going on.
There is no momentum--this race has basically been a tie for a month or more. Obama's recent win streak is just playing out his advantages in these states--advantages which were apparent to all. He does have a small edge in delegates, but after this week things get tougher.
Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania--those are the big states left (though there are a couple of medium-sized ones worth mentioning, like North Carolina and Kentucky). The conventional wisdom is that Hillary needs to win all three to get the nomination, but that she would indeed get it if she did so. The argument is not that she would make up the ground in pledged delegates by winning them, but that she would then be able to claim wins in all the big states (basically true, except for Obama's Illinois) and that would bring enough superdelegates around to her in the end to win.
The part I don't like about this is that Obama--now that he's the "frontrunner"--is being set up for being taken down a notch. This is the game the media have been playing all along--build them up, so you can cut them down. Ohio and Texas each show something like a 15-point margin for Hillary today (Pennsylvania is closer). If the only way a candidate can win his nomination is by making up huge deficits, that doesn't sound like much of a front-runner.
The Huckabee Factor
Conspiracy theorists should like this one (sounds like a thriller title, no?) The hypothesis is that McCain's campaign people should actually like the fact that Huck, who's really no threat to defeat McCain and win the nomination, is staying in the race. Here's why:
Think of a population of 10% or so of the general election voters who we can call "Potential McCain Voters" (or PMV's). These people are mostly independents, and the hypothesis (which actually seems quite likely) is that their second choice would be Barack Obama. In an open primary (which is the case in both Ohio and Texas), they can go either way.
Now look at the Texas poll results released last week showing McCain leading only 45-41 over Huckleberry. If you were a PMV, and you were thinking you'd go ahead and vote for Obama because the Republican race were over, that might give you cause to re-think and show up for Johnny Mac on March 4. This could cut something out of Obama's vote and tend to give the edge in the Texas Democratic vote to Hillary. Which is what McCain & Co. want. Q.E.D.
The same argument does not apply as well in Ohio, where McCain has a seemingly safe 50-33 lead over Huckabee in the most recent polling. Here one would expect PMV's to consider voting for Obama as the surest way to stop Hillary.
Ohio or Texas?
This must be the question vexing the Obama campaign leadership at this time. I don't think it's the same for the HRC campaign, where it's got to be both.
These two states pose very different problems for Obama. Ohio is, of course, a key swing state, with a very strong tradition for electing moderates in its statewide elections. The Democrats are ascendant for now, with a moderate Democratic governor (Clinton-supporting) and the suburban blue-collar vote predominates.
When you think of "prominent Texas Democrat" you think of...nobody who's alive today. It's unclear what kind of character, if any, the state's party presents. I would say that Obama should win the two largest cities, Houston and Dallas, fairly handily, while Clinton should win most of the 200 or so other counties (I don't exaggerate). To me, the swing areas that could determine the outcome are the heavily Hispanic cities of San Antonio and El Paso. Again, based on prior voting patterns from other states, an uphill battle. And then there's that Huckabee Factor.
In the debates leading up to these primaries, then, Obama needs to come across as a credible centrist challenger to Clinton, avoiding being categorized as a left-winger. He needs to put his vaunted ground game into play to counteract party machine forces going against him in both states. He has the money to buy TV in both. He should make a late decision to focus on one or the other, based on any late trends presenting an opportunity. I'd look particularly to see if Huckabee's support in Texas falls as news seeps in that he, in fact, has no chance and no business staying in the race--if so, plunge there.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Expiration Date: March 4 2008
In my last post on the horserace, I suggested that this would seem to be the time to sell.
That might still be the case, but that window will close with Ohio and Texas. If Her Royal Clinton-ness can pull off the combo win in those two biggies, I think she will still finish with the nomination, weakened as she is.
(Weakness: Today's Rasmussen tracking poll has Obama with an insane 49-37 lead over Clinton. John Edwards better swallow hard before he goes the wrong way on this...)
Otherwise, with a split decision between OH and TX seeming to be the most probable outcome (don't ask me which of the two to Clinton and which to Obama, as I wish to preserve "strategic ambiguity"!) , it will fall to my man to clinch the deal in the rugged mountains of western Pennsylvania and with the suburban hausfrau of Philly. Possible, though never easy.
His recent numbers suggest he is getting through to a more diverse audience, and that will make all the difference.
(link to follow)
That might still be the case, but that window will close with Ohio and Texas. If Her Royal Clinton-ness can pull off the combo win in those two biggies, I think she will still finish with the nomination, weakened as she is.
(Weakness: Today's Rasmussen tracking poll has Obama with an insane 49-37 lead over Clinton. John Edwards better swallow hard before he goes the wrong way on this...)
Otherwise, with a split decision between OH and TX seeming to be the most probable outcome (don't ask me which of the two to Clinton and which to Obama, as I wish to preserve "strategic ambiguity"!) , it will fall to my man to clinch the deal in the rugged mountains of western Pennsylvania and with the suburban hausfrau of Philly. Possible, though never easy.
His recent numbers suggest he is getting through to a more diverse audience, and that will make all the difference.
(link to follow)
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Twilight of the Baby Boom?
Thus (without the question mark) was titled the Jonathan Alter piece in this week's Newsweek. I think it made some very important points, and its thesis of a political and sociological divide between the Early Boomers and Late Boomers was right on target.
Like me, he's actually right from the peak years which were neither Early nor Late Boom. He seems to feel that if you're not Early, you're Late, but no matter: I think he's way too pessimistic and dismissive of the boomers--as only a boomer should be. Obama--clearly representative of Late Boomer thinking (though no "late bloomer"!) represents only the beginning of the end of boomer political dominance (especially Early Boomer) ; these are the earliest expressions of post-boomer politics.
As I've said before, while I love the term "post-partisan", and it does fit, in the sense that Obama is clearly "post-" something, I don't think anyone should think the future's politics will not be partisan. Just that the cleavages will be somewhat different from those in the cycle now ending with the final days of Bushite Misrule.
Like me, he's actually right from the peak years which were neither Early nor Late Boom. He seems to feel that if you're not Early, you're Late, but no matter: I think he's way too pessimistic and dismissive of the boomers--as only a boomer should be. Obama--clearly representative of Late Boomer thinking (though no "late bloomer"!) represents only the beginning of the end of boomer political dominance (especially Early Boomer) ; these are the earliest expressions of post-boomer politics.
As I've said before, while I love the term "post-partisan", and it does fit, in the sense that Obama is clearly "post-" something, I don't think anyone should think the future's politics will not be partisan. Just that the cleavages will be somewhat different from those in the cycle now ending with the final days of Bushite Misrule.
This would seem to be the time to sell
if one wanted to sell one's Obama shares. The bid number on his winning the nomination is up to 72; on the Presidency itself it's up to 49.5.
The wins tonight were of the crushing variety; the Clinton campaign looks to be panicking; however, they had already retreated behind their fallback position to hold Texas, in order to go on and battle in Pennsylvania. If she can win both of these, I think she could still resist the Obama momentum and prevent his getting a clear majority.
Those are both tough states for Obama and states where the politics can be rough and crude. I pray for his safety.
The wins tonight were of the crushing variety; the Clinton campaign looks to be panicking; however, they had already retreated behind their fallback position to hold Texas, in order to go on and battle in Pennsylvania. If she can win both of these, I think she could still resist the Obama momentum and prevent his getting a clear majority.
Those are both tough states for Obama and states where the politics can be rough and crude. I pray for his safety.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Superdelegates, Come On!
Democratic political veteran Tad Devine (of the Mondale and Gore general election campaigns, among others) opines in the Times today that he wants the Democratic superdelegates (elected and party officials guaranteed a seat at the convention) to avoid committing to any candidate, so that they can react to the final primaries and push someone over the top, thus avoiding a convention deadlock ("Superdelegates, Back off"-- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10devine.html).
This, Devine says, is what he helped Mondale do in '84--called in enough superdelegate chits to get Mondale to assured nomination status the day after Hart beat Mondale in California.
I disagree that waiting for this kind of call to decide after the last primary is what superdelegates should do. These people were given convention seats because of their presumed political expertise, specifically so that they could use their judgment to select the best candidate for the nation and party. That's what they should do.
I also disagree with the notion that superdelegates should be compelled or coerced to pledge their vote in agreement with the judgment of the primary electorate. Leaving aside the question of how that would be decided (national or local popular vote, national or local pledged delegates), they should determine for themselves the constituency they represent and do what they think best.
What I do want is the opposite of what Mr. Devine suggests. That is, they should announce their decision when they come to it, rather than holding back for one, two, or X more primary results. Once they have announced their pledges (or, if they truly cannot decide, announced their intention to remain uncommitted until a) something specific happens or b) some policy position is resolved), then the voters in the remaining primaries can decide what they think of the decisions of the superdelegates and whether they want to follow the Supers' leadership.
Finally, I question the premise Devine suggests, that Mondale had outpolled Hart in '84, and more generally, that it was a good thing that Mondale got the nomination. With all respect to Walter Mondale, a fine American and a fine Democratic senator and Vice President, does anyone think Hart would've done worse than Fritz in the '84 smackdown with Reagan? Mondale won 13 electoral votes.
This, Devine says, is what he helped Mondale do in '84--called in enough superdelegate chits to get Mondale to assured nomination status the day after Hart beat Mondale in California.
I disagree that waiting for this kind of call to decide after the last primary is what superdelegates should do. These people were given convention seats because of their presumed political expertise, specifically so that they could use their judgment to select the best candidate for the nation and party. That's what they should do.
I also disagree with the notion that superdelegates should be compelled or coerced to pledge their vote in agreement with the judgment of the primary electorate. Leaving aside the question of how that would be decided (national or local popular vote, national or local pledged delegates), they should determine for themselves the constituency they represent and do what they think best.
What I do want is the opposite of what Mr. Devine suggests. That is, they should announce their decision when they come to it, rather than holding back for one, two, or X more primary results. Once they have announced their pledges (or, if they truly cannot decide, announced their intention to remain uncommitted until a) something specific happens or b) some policy position is resolved), then the voters in the remaining primaries can decide what they think of the decisions of the superdelegates and whether they want to follow the Supers' leadership.
Finally, I question the premise Devine suggests, that Mondale had outpolled Hart in '84, and more generally, that it was a good thing that Mondale got the nomination. With all respect to Walter Mondale, a fine American and a fine Democratic senator and Vice President, does anyone think Hart would've done worse than Fritz in the '84 smackdown with Reagan? Mondale won 13 electoral votes.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Four Things for Sure When we Vote Here,,,
... in New Mexico. I'm talking contested national elections.
1. It will be close. Real close.
2. Results will be late.
3. Rio Arriba County will be mixed up with some monkey business.
and, of course,
4. "There Will Be Blood".
We're fulfilled on the first three, so we're up watching for the outbreak of number 4.
Seriously, though, New Mexico did prove that Obama's appeal can reach to Latinos. We felt here that Obama could do well, if people knew that the campaign was alive and well and reaching out to them. Our local group raised funds to buy radio ads on various stations, including ones we recorded in Spanish and in Tewa. The results here (roughly 50-45 for Obama) were good, though one can not deny there was a strong women's vote for Hillary.
The voter lists were foul--blame of whom? The frequency of provisional ballots was unusually high (I estimated about 10% at the precinct where I observed most of the day). The number to be counted far exceeds the current margin (though I heard it's up to about a thousand, favor of HRC), so it's still 2C2C.
Ultimately, the outcome of the statewide race will mean one delegate's fate. Even that's worth getting right, though, if somehow that can be done with this mess.
1. It will be close. Real close.
2. Results will be late.
3. Rio Arriba County will be mixed up with some monkey business.
and, of course,
4. "There Will Be Blood".
We're fulfilled on the first three, so we're up watching for the outbreak of number 4.
Seriously, though, New Mexico did prove that Obama's appeal can reach to Latinos. We felt here that Obama could do well, if people knew that the campaign was alive and well and reaching out to them. Our local group raised funds to buy radio ads on various stations, including ones we recorded in Spanish and in Tewa. The results here (roughly 50-45 for Obama) were good, though one can not deny there was a strong women's vote for Hillary.
The voter lists were foul--blame of whom? The frequency of provisional ballots was unusually high (I estimated about 10% at the precinct where I observed most of the day). The number to be counted far exceeds the current margin (though I heard it's up to about a thousand, favor of HRC), so it's still 2C2C.
Ultimately, the outcome of the statewide race will mean one delegate's fate. Even that's worth getting right, though, if somehow that can be done with this mess.
Friday, February 08, 2008
I'm More Than Willing To Be Proven Wrong
This is the post in which I have to admit that I predicted that Barack Obama's underdog bid would come down to the result of the Feb. 5 California primary.
Victory, said I, would come down to three areas: delegate count, the CA outcome (in delegates and in popular vote), and the unofficial national popular vote. I was glad CNN came out with the latter, though they waited until midnight or so to mention it. It was a tie, as was delegates (mas o menos). So the outcome of The Big One didn't matter so much.
Both candidates labor on. I do believe those who now estimate that the key contests appear to be Ohio and Texas--Hillary and Obama will be nearly tied going into those--with Pennsylvania to follow and validate any decision-like behavior to emerge from those two. Ohio and Texas will be tough challenges for Obama, but if he can win them he will be hard to stop. Even if he did lose California.
The California defeat (201-169 in delegates, according to my favorite tracking blog: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/) resulted from a carefully considered Obama strategy. The campaign sent its troops of organizers out into flyover territory and relied on media buys in California. The results have to be judged largely successful.
Still, to go for a stale boxing analogy, he failed to land a knockout blow though she's hurt badly; this could go 15. I don't see a brokered convention, though, except in the form of a credentials challenge on the Florida and Michigan delegates. It is incumbent on Howard Dean to move to defuse this one before the convention. Otherwise, as the unknown delegates become known and the superdelegates identify their interests with one or the other, there should be no more than a handful of uncommitted going into the convention. Somebody's got to have the edge, and the spread is more likely to be greater than that uncommitted number.
In the days following her Marginal Super Tuesday Win, Clinton's Rasmussen Markets numbers have dropped sharply, probably on the news of the financing of Hillary's campaign. The offer of a debate a week from the Clintonites is a good attack angle, with Obama losing if he accepts and looking weak if he doesn't. His response has been cagey, which is wise: it would make sense for him to agree to only a couple more debates with HRC, on location in Columbus, Dallas, and/or Philadelphia. The lesson from California is that Obama does have to lend his physical presence in a committed way for the magic to happen.
I find the numbers on Rasmussen showing Obama with the highest probability of becoming our next president to be way too optimistic. He's at 37, McCain at 36.6, and Hillary at 27. (Huckabee is at 0.7, which I suppose represents the real possibility that he could be the beneficiary as running mate if McCain should die before November). I don't want to sell on my guy, so I'm staying out of that market for now, but still...
Victory, said I, would come down to three areas: delegate count, the CA outcome (in delegates and in popular vote), and the unofficial national popular vote. I was glad CNN came out with the latter, though they waited until midnight or so to mention it. It was a tie, as was delegates (mas o menos). So the outcome of The Big One didn't matter so much.
Both candidates labor on. I do believe those who now estimate that the key contests appear to be Ohio and Texas--Hillary and Obama will be nearly tied going into those--with Pennsylvania to follow and validate any decision-like behavior to emerge from those two. Ohio and Texas will be tough challenges for Obama, but if he can win them he will be hard to stop. Even if he did lose California.
The California defeat (201-169 in delegates, according to my favorite tracking blog: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/) resulted from a carefully considered Obama strategy. The campaign sent its troops of organizers out into flyover territory and relied on media buys in California. The results have to be judged largely successful.
Still, to go for a stale boxing analogy, he failed to land a knockout blow though she's hurt badly; this could go 15. I don't see a brokered convention, though, except in the form of a credentials challenge on the Florida and Michigan delegates. It is incumbent on Howard Dean to move to defuse this one before the convention. Otherwise, as the unknown delegates become known and the superdelegates identify their interests with one or the other, there should be no more than a handful of uncommitted going into the convention. Somebody's got to have the edge, and the spread is more likely to be greater than that uncommitted number.
In the days following her Marginal Super Tuesday Win, Clinton's Rasmussen Markets numbers have dropped sharply, probably on the news of the financing of Hillary's campaign. The offer of a debate a week from the Clintonites is a good attack angle, with Obama losing if he accepts and looking weak if he doesn't. His response has been cagey, which is wise: it would make sense for him to agree to only a couple more debates with HRC, on location in Columbus, Dallas, and/or Philadelphia. The lesson from California is that Obama does have to lend his physical presence in a committed way for the magic to happen.
I find the numbers on Rasmussen showing Obama with the highest probability of becoming our next president to be way too optimistic. He's at 37, McCain at 36.6, and Hillary at 27. (Huckabee is at 0.7, which I suppose represents the real possibility that he could be the beneficiary as running mate if McCain should die before November). I don't want to sell on my guy, so I'm staying out of that market for now, but still...
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
UNP: Evening in Review--II
We are waiting breathlessly here for final outcome in NM, but it looks extremely good. The reporting was delayed tremendously by a combination of ice, snow, turnout, and bad planning. The third, in particular, is a good omen for Obama, while the last may end up hurting Bill Richardson the most. The ice and snow, ultimately, were not a factor--we here in Taos turned up consistently, all day. Did not get the local results, though--will post those here later as a comment.
I was poll observer for the Obama campaign in the main polling place in town. All of the problems were ones caused by unexpectedly large turnout.
From the Obama point of view, this can all be only good news.
From the Rasmussen Markets point of view, a successful outcome in NM is key to a successful night. My expectations were very accurate, but my trading execution was not. I lost $400 on the CA primary when I tried to hedge my winning position on Obama tonight (his value had gone way up) and I ended up going the wrong direction on the Clinton account (selling her, when I should have picked a convenient price and bought her winning). We had a sizable winner on MN, a smaller one on DE, a well-priced loss on MA (I thought) , and a very small loss on NJ (going for the pricing on the longshot).
Obama's narrow loss in CA did overshadow his later victory in MO and the impressive one here in NM.
I was poll observer for the Obama campaign in the main polling place in town. All of the problems were ones caused by unexpectedly large turnout.
From the Obama point of view, this can all be only good news.
From the Rasmussen Markets point of view, a successful outcome in NM is key to a successful night. My expectations were very accurate, but my trading execution was not. I lost $400 on the CA primary when I tried to hedge my winning position on Obama tonight (his value had gone way up) and I ended up going the wrong direction on the Clinton account (selling her, when I should have picked a convenient price and bought her winning). We had a sizable winner on MN, a smaller one on DE, a well-priced loss on MA (I thought) , and a very small loss on NJ (going for the pricing on the longshot).
Obama's narrow loss in CA did overshadow his later victory in MO and the impressive one here in NM.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
UNP: Evening in Review--I
I loved the CNN graphic on the national vote--combined with delegates won on the night--but it took them until after midnight EST to bring it out. It showed HRC ahead "49-48", though actually she was only ahead by 100,000 votes on 12 million (0.1% lead, instead of 1%). I wonder if they got the people behind the numbers in the caucuses...
I think things are on target for very close to a draw on delegates won for the night.
Even CNN is not even close to keeping up with projections on the CD-level delegates; with 76% of the popular vote in (as they had on that graphic), they had only assigned about half the delegates won for the night. In order to keep up with the vote, one would have to use prior elections to project CD's and use Chi-squared-type monitoring to see whether there's enough data to reject the null--for most of the delegates--and then look closer (systematically, with a program) at the tie-breaking rules and how they would play out in each individual case.
I think things are on target for very close to a draw on delegates won for the night.
Even CNN is not even close to keeping up with projections on the CD-level delegates; with 76% of the popular vote in (as they had on that graphic), they had only assigned about half the delegates won for the night. In order to keep up with the vote, one would have to use prior elections to project CD's and use Chi-squared-type monitoring to see whether there's enough data to reject the null--for most of the delegates--and then look closer (systematically, with a program) at the tie-breaking rules and how they would play out in each individual case.
UNP--Final Preview Notes
I did the spreadsheet analysis on delegates. It turns out, that if one assumes that both HRC and BHO compete in all or most states, each winning a few, and a couple big (i.e., IL for Obama, NY for Clinton) the proportional representation provisions are going to drive toward a very close result on the night. For the record, I came up with Clinton 843-818 in my exercise. Then I stopped.
The move in overall preferences in the last few days suggests that using formulas on the demographics in each state won't help that much. Also, the trend seems to be toward Obama for some of the smaller states (like Idaho, Delaware).
It should be interesting, and California, still, will decide the night. In both parties: McCain will have a slam-bang evening which Romney could throw off with a win there.
The move in overall preferences in the last few days suggests that using formulas on the demographics in each state won't help that much. Also, the trend seems to be toward Obama for some of the smaller states (like Idaho, Delaware).
It should be interesting, and California, still, will decide the night. In both parties: McCain will have a slam-bang evening which Romney could throw off with a win there.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
UNP Predictions--Pt I
Posted as a comment on CNN article citing the recent Field Poll (allegedly post-Edwards) showing Clinton over Obama with a statistically insignificant 36-34 lead ("with 18% undecided"--does that mean 12% committed to Others? Seems unlikely.):
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/03/poll-suggests-obama-clinton-in-dead-heat-in-california/#comment-450480
I'm doing a more serious spreadsheet analysis for tomorrow, but I'll go with some intuitive prediction (based on a national 46-46 tie, with 8% "OTHER" or "True Undecided" (subject to decision in the last day) after Edwards votes are allocated:
Open primaries: AL, IL, and GA; Closed primary: NM; and Semi-open primary CA.
Open caucuses ND and MN; and Closed caucus KS.
The only ones I would consider to be upsets are NM for Obama and CO (Closed caucus) for Clinton.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/03/poll-suggests-obama-clinton-in-dead-heat-in-california/#comment-450480
I'm doing a more serious spreadsheet analysis for tomorrow, but I'll go with some intuitive prediction (based on a national 46-46 tie, with 8% "OTHER" or "True Undecided" (subject to decision in the last day) after Edwards votes are allocated:
Unofficial National Primary popular vote: 50-47 Clinton
Feb. 5 delegates won: Obama 870-810 (one undecided)
States won (popular vote): Clinton 14-8
(not counting Amer. Samoa, Americans Abroad)
Given this split decision,
the key to claiming a Perceived Victory is California. Obama will edge Clinton there, 48-46, and win the delegate count 205-165. By a narrow margin, Obama will be perceived to have the edge coming of Super Tuesday, though this will not be established until well into Super Wednesday (EST).
Open primaries: AL, IL, and GA; Closed primary: NM; and Semi-open primary CA.
Open caucuses ND and MN; and Closed caucus KS.
The only ones I would consider to be upsets are NM for Obama and CO (Closed caucus) for Clinton.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Rasmussen MKTS Update on UNP-D; Some of my Bets
CA still looks like a bargain to bet on Obama, with the current prices at 63-35 HRC vs. 60-40 on the overall nomination. I would want to look more closely at the delegate allotments per district there, but I don't buy the argument that Obama's pattern of likely results (big wins in some African-American districts, narrow losses in the rest) means he will not get his fair share of delegates at the end of the day: so far he's been drawing delegates above his popular vote %. If a district has an even number of delegates, he'd still get half in a close race that he loses.
In terms of states, the new states in the Rasmussen betting pool have mostly sorted themselves out (and they've added NY finally). It looks like this:
2 States Decisive Clinton (80% or more for, with Obama less than 20%): OK, NY
7 Probable Clinton (67% or more for; Obama less than 33%, so 2-1 odds or more): NJ, AZ, AR, MA (borderline, at 67-31), NM (84-29), TN (83-25--has clarified, "like buddah"), UT.
3 Leaning Clinton: MO 67-39, DE 73-35, CA 63-35.
6 More or less even (both 40+): AL, CO, CT, MN, AK, ID (all except MN with 10-25% edges currently to Obama).
1 Probable Obama: KS (25-80)
3 Decisive Obama: GA, IL, and the surprising ND (17-84).
So the CNN bet on which candidate will win the most states--meaningless as it is--looks like a probable win for HRC: 9-4, 12-4, or 13-9, depending on how much precision you assign to these odds.
I've been playing CA successfully (against the Obama nomination odds) and playing around with some of the other bets. The one I like best is on the number of seats the Democrats will hold (I believe that would exclude both Independents--the Democrat Sanders of VT and the future Republican Lieberman of CT). To me, it's a close call whether to go with 51-55 Dems or 56-60. Unlike the other races, which are driven away from the unstable 50-50 position as the day of decision nears, there are many 0-1 "random" variables at play in this one, which makes it likely this could remain a close bet--and thus a little more interesting--all the way to the end.
The new arbitrage play I recommend is on the Pennsylvania primary, which is absurdly late and for some reason has been out there to bet upon for a long time. One has to assume that a primary that late and that major will go for the presumptive nominee if there is one, which means it can be played against the overall nominee odds. The chances of a brokered convention for the Democrats are now pegged at 13%, which seems way too high for a two-way (excuse me, 3-way) Democratic race. You can bet I'm betting against that outcome.
In terms of states, the new states in the Rasmussen betting pool have mostly sorted themselves out (and they've added NY finally). It looks like this:
2 States Decisive Clinton (80% or more for, with Obama less than 20%): OK, NY
7 Probable Clinton (67% or more for; Obama less than 33%, so 2-1 odds or more): NJ, AZ, AR, MA (borderline, at 67-31), NM (84-29), TN (83-25--has clarified, "like buddah"), UT.
3 Leaning Clinton: MO 67-39, DE 73-35, CA 63-35.
6 More or less even (both 40+): AL, CO, CT, MN, AK, ID (all except MN with 10-25% edges currently to Obama).
1 Probable Obama: KS (25-80)
3 Decisive Obama: GA, IL, and the surprising ND (17-84).
So the CNN bet on which candidate will win the most states--meaningless as it is--looks like a probable win for HRC: 9-4, 12-4, or 13-9, depending on how much precision you assign to these odds.
I've been playing CA successfully (against the Obama nomination odds) and playing around with some of the other bets. The one I like best is on the number of seats the Democrats will hold (I believe that would exclude both Independents--the Democrat Sanders of VT and the future Republican Lieberman of CT). To me, it's a close call whether to go with 51-55 Dems or 56-60. Unlike the other races, which are driven away from the unstable 50-50 position as the day of decision nears, there are many 0-1 "random" variables at play in this one, which makes it likely this could remain a close bet--and thus a little more interesting--all the way to the end.
The new arbitrage play I recommend is on the Pennsylvania primary, which is absurdly late and for some reason has been out there to bet upon for a long time. One has to assume that a primary that late and that major will go for the presumptive nominee if there is one, which means it can be played against the overall nominee odds. The chances of a brokered convention for the Democrats are now pegged at 13%, which seems way too high for a two-way (excuse me, 3-way) Democratic race. You can bet I'm betting against that outcome.
So, It's Down to a 3-Way Race...
...that's Hillary, Obama, and Gravel.
Edwards' move to withdraw is the most dramatic event to occur so far in this final, hectic week before the Unofficial National Primary.
It has put a large element of unpredictability in the overall Democratic results we can expect for Feb. 5. The polls without Edwards in them are few and far between--at least the ones being quoted; however, I can well imagine the direct Clinton-Obama matchup has been tested for weeks by the candidates' pollsters, including Edwards'. How else could Edwards assess the math and determine that his most significant impact would be to withdraw and endorse no one?
I feel that his strategy at this point is to let events take their run in the UNP; then, if Obama wins CA, to endorse him.
....And 4 in the Boring Race...
by my count (McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Paul).
What's really boring about the Republicans is their quest for conformity, their obvious pack behavior. McCain's winner-take-all triumph in Florida has started a landslide of the Republican establishment that can end only one way. So far, it's the "moderates", like Rudy and Arnold, but eventually those who see themselves as "mainstream Republican" fish will all swim with the other minnows to the Only Candidate Who Can Prevent Disaster. A few outliers will remain outside McCain's eddy to be scooped up by Ron Paul's 3rd party bid, Obama if he wins, or just Stay Home. Sounds like a plan.
Edwards' move to withdraw is the most dramatic event to occur so far in this final, hectic week before the Unofficial National Primary.
It has put a large element of unpredictability in the overall Democratic results we can expect for Feb. 5. The polls without Edwards in them are few and far between--at least the ones being quoted; however, I can well imagine the direct Clinton-Obama matchup has been tested for weeks by the candidates' pollsters, including Edwards'. How else could Edwards assess the math and determine that his most significant impact would be to withdraw and endorse no one?
I feel that his strategy at this point is to let events take their run in the UNP; then, if Obama wins CA, to endorse him.
....And 4 in the Boring Race...
by my count (McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Paul).
What's really boring about the Republicans is their quest for conformity, their obvious pack behavior. McCain's winner-take-all triumph in Florida has started a landslide of the Republican establishment that can end only one way. So far, it's the "moderates", like Rudy and Arnold, but eventually those who see themselves as "mainstream Republican" fish will all swim with the other minnows to the Only Candidate Who Can Prevent Disaster. A few outliers will remain outside McCain's eddy to be scooped up by Ron Paul's 3rd party bid, Obama if he wins, or just Stay Home. Sounds like a plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
