Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Last week Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen wrote in The Politico that people who think that Hillary Clinton can still win the Democratic nomination "are living on another planet." Yet today on CNN, the mid-day anchor referred to Barack Obama’s lead in delegates as "razor thin". Giving CNN and other media the benefit of the doubt, it is worth examining how Hillary Clinton can catch up to Barack Obama and claim the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

According to CNN’s count Barack Obama currently leads Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates won by a margin of 171 delegates. Barack Obama has 1413 delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 1242. There are 10 primaries remaining. Barack Obama has built his delegate lead steadily since the primaries and caucuses began in Iowa on January 3rd. The graph below shows how each candidate has collected their delegates since the contest began [click image to enlarge]:

The graph below shows how Obama’s delegate lead over Clinton has grown over time [click image to enlarge]:

The graph below shows the popular vote counts and Barack Obama’s lead over time [click image to enlarge]:

Barack Obama has steadily increased and now holds approximately a 700,000 vote lead over Hillary Clinton in the primaries contested so far. The graph above does not take into account the delegate counts from the caucuses. In a contest for delegates that comprises both primaries and caucuses, the popular vote count is a flawed measure of the will of the people since it unfairly penalizes states that have held caucuses. Nonetheless, I have provided the data for completeness.

The ten contests that remain have a total of 566 delegates up for grabs distributed as follows:

Of the ten primaries remaining, Hillary Clinton is favored to win in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. Barack Obama is favored to win in Guam, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Indiana is considered a toss-up slightly favoring Hillary Clinton. In raw numbers, Hillary Clinton would have to win 369 out of the remaining 566 delegates to edge out Barack Obama in the delegate count. That is, Hillary Clinton would have to win slightly over 65% of the remaining delegates. The only contests so far where Clinton has garnered over 65% of the delegates are American Samoa, where she got 2 out of the 3 delegates, and Arkansas, where she was First Lady.

However, Hillary Clinton is not likely to win the states Barack Obama is favored in. Being conservative, if we assume she ties Obama in these states and territories (Guam, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota), they will each get 101 delegates, leaving 364 delegates up for grabs in the remaining states.  Hillary Clinton would have to win 268 out of the remaining 364 delegates to overcome Obama’s delegate lead. That is, Hillary Clinton would have to win slightly over 73% of the delegates in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. The only contest so far where Clinton has garnered more than 73% of the delegates is Arkansas. In her "triumph" in Ohio, she garnered 53% of the delegates. In other words, to win 73% of the delegates, she would have to beat Barack Obama by around 46 points in each of these states (assuming the delegate percentages will roughly track the popular vote margins in these states). To put things in perspective, according to the polls she currently leads Barack Obama by about 14 points in Pennsylvania (51.2% to 37.5%). She would have to more than triple her lead to 46 points to garner the margin of victory she needs in Pennsylvania. A victory in Pennsylvania of less than 46 points will seriously hurt her chances of overcoming Barack Obama’s "razor thin" delegate lead.

Hillary Clinton’s path to the nomination becomes even more remote if Barack Obama actually wins any of the states he is favored to win. However, since this post is an exploration of Clinton’s path to the nomination I will leave the less rosy scenarios as an exercise for the reader.

As this post demonstrates, Hillary Clinton definitely has a chance to become the nominee of the Democratic party. The anchors on CNN are correct. It is not impossible for her to win. To win, however, given the proportional delegate system in the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton would have to do significantly better in the remaining states than Ronald Reagan did in his landslide victory over Walter Mondale in 1984. If she pulls off this historic (and to some observers, other-wordly) feat, she will have earned the bragging rights of being called a true Reagan Democrat.

 [Click to download the source data for the graphs in this post]

The Washington Post has exposed Hillary Clinton’s little fib about her Bosnia trip. Hillary Clinton told her audience earlier this week that her trip to Bosnia was dangerous. She said:

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

The problem of course is what she said happened never happened. The Washington Post dug up pictures and video from the greeting ceremony in Bosnia. Sinbad was there, an 8 year old girl was there, Hillary Clinton was there. However, there was no running with heads down and there was no sniper fire.

Many have questioned Hillary Clinton’s credibility based on this account. I, however, question her threat perception.

I have no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton is lying. It may just be that her recollection of the events in Bosnia are different than the actual facts. She may have perceived a greater threat than actually existed. Perhaps she feared sniper fire and that fear has made her forget that indeed there was a greeting ceremony. She may have a heightened sense of threat perception. She may perceive threats as much worse than they actually are.

It may be the same kind of heightened and exaggerated threat perception that led her to vote for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. She was susceptible to the propaganda that led the drum beat to war. It may have led her to the one percent doctrine, where possibility becomes probability. It is a view of the world where all risks take on equal likelihood of occurring. It is a view of the world that leads to overreaction - a trait that is dangerous in the hands of the person in charge of the world’s most powerful fighting force. To wit, George W Bush.

As I survey the behavior of the Hillary Clinton campaign during the primaries, I also see evidence of overreaction to perceived threats. For example, Hillary Clinton’s outburst over the Obama campaign mailers questioning her stand on healthcare and NAFTA. Taken together, it is a pattern of behavior that is alarming.

Of course I could be wrong. It is possible that Hillary Clinton was simply lying about her Bosnia trip.

Governor Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama today. Make no mistake, this is huge. Richardson was a member of Bill Clinton’s cabinet and the Clinton’s worked hard to get his endorsement.

Bill Richardson is of course a super delegate. After Richardson, expect the remaining uncommitted super delegates to move toward Obama and end this race. Since February 5th Obama has picked up over 60 super delegates while Hillary Clinton has picked up only a handful. That trend will now accelerate.

The Politico today also signalled the beginning of the end with a story entitled "The Clinton myth":

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

I would anticipate the media narrative of a "close race" to succumb to the actual reality of the race in the coming days and weeks. The move of the super delegates - and I expect some more prominent names to endorse Obama in the next few weeks - will give the media narrative a much needed reality check as well.

My friend, and staunch Hillary Clinton supporter, Taylor Marsh also sees the writing on the wall.

I am certain that when Bobby Kennedy asked us to stand up for our ideals, there was some partisan in American politics who had two questions for him.

I am certain that when John Kennedy asked not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country, there was some partisan in American politics who had two questions for him.

I am certain that when Dr. Martin Luther King had a dream of America for all our children, there was some partisan in American politics who had two questions for him.

I am certain that when Franklin Delano Roosevelt told us that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, there was some partisan in American politics who had two questions for him.

When Barack Obama asked us yesterday to look beyond our prejudices and work toward a more perfect union, there was a partisan in American politics who had two questions for him.

That partisan is Lanny Davis, Hillary Clinton campaign surrogate. Lanny Davis has posted his two questions at the Huffington Post. With his post Lanny Davis has taken the Clinton campaign to its lowest depths this year in its increasingly desperate attempts to convince the Democratic party to give her a shot at the presidency. Juxtaposed against what is perhaps the most important political speech in a generation, Lanny Davis makes his candidate look small.

Lanny Davis and his candidate are now on the wrong side of history.

[Follow up to this Daily Kos diary on Hillary Clinton’s pledge]

Since Hillary Clinton now is trying desperately to change the rules so she can get Michigan and Florida beauty pageant primaries to count in her favor, it is worth remembering the pledge that she made.

On September 1, 2007 the Hillary Clinton campaign put out the following press release (available on her campaign website) agreeing to DNC rules for Florida and Michigan:

Clinton Campaign Statement on the Four State Pledge

The following is a statement by Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle.

"We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

On September 2, 2007 the New York Times reported:

Three of the major Democratic presidential candidates on Saturday pledged not to campaign in Florida, Michigan and other states trying to leapfrog the 2008 primary calendar, a move that solidified the importance of the opening contests of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Hours after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina agreed to sign a loyalty pledge put forward by party officials in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed suit. The decision seemed to dash any hopes of Mrs. Clinton relying on a strong showing in Florida as a springboard to the nomination.

“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.

The pledge sought to preserve the status of traditional early-voting states and bring order to an unwieldy series of primaries that threatened to accelerate the selection process. It was devised to keep candidates from campaigning in Florida, where the primary is set for Jan. 29, and Michigan, which is trying to move its contest to Jan. 15.

The Democratic National Committee has vowed to take away Florida’s 210 delegates — and those of any other state that moved its nominating contest before Feb. 5 — if it does not come up with an alternative plan.

Now that she is behind in pledged delegates, is behind in states won, is behind in the popular vote with no hope of catching up to Barack Obama will she be able to keep the pledge that she made? Is Hillary Clinton’s word any good?

Ever since Hillary Clinton cited her 1996 USO trip to Bosnia with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow as an example of her commander-in-chief qualifications, the pundits have been scratching their heads in bemusement. Today the Obama campaign responded forcefully to Mrs. Clinton’s so called commander-in-chief credentials. Then, unexpectedly, Sinbad has responded by ridiculing Mrs. Clinton for her characterization of the Bosnia trip:

In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he’d eat next. "I think the only ‘red-phone’ moment was: ‘Do we eat here or at the next place.’"

Now, if you are like me, you might think that a would-be commander-in-chief should not be taking so much incoming from comedian like Sinbad. And you would be right. The Clinton campaign responded just as forcefully:

Still, defending Clinton against Sinbad the refuter, Singer said, "The sad reality of what was going on in Bosnia at the time Senator Clinton traveled there as first lady has been well documented. It appears that Sinbad’s experience in Bosnia goes back further than Senator Obama’s does. In fact, has Senator Obama ever been to Bosnia?"

It appears that the Clinton campaign is suggesting that both Clinton and Sinbad have passed the commander-in-chief threshold by visiting Bosnia. Mrs. Clinton already has stated that the Republican nominee, John McCain, has also passed this crucial threshold to the be President of the United States. This leaves Barack Obama as the only candidate left who has failed to cross this threshold.

Since I am a Barack Obama supporter, and since I have now been convinced by the Bosnia test that my candidate is not commander-in-chief material, I have gone googling to find my ideal candidate. I am still not sold on Hillary Clinton and I am also not comfortable voting for a candidate who goes by the one word name of a pirate. So, I have compiled a list of a number of people, who like Mrs. Clinton and Sinbad, have passed the crucial Bosnia test. I ask you the reader to help me decide who to vote for as our next commander-in-chief. All of the following have passed Hillary Clinton’s Bosnia test and should be considered commander-in-chief material:

• singer Mary Chapin Carpenter
• the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders
• Houston based Latin band La Mafia
• New York city based rock band Evil Jake
• Arnold Schwarzenegger (will need a constitutional amendment)
• B. B. King
• Comedians Louis Johnson, Jeff Burghart and Mike Estime
• The Bellamy Brothers
• alternative rock band Oleander
• jazz musician David Sanchez
• Tanya Roberts and Kurtwood Smith
• Ruth Pointer of The Pointer Sisters
• country singers Paul Brandt and Claudia Church
• Football players Russell Carter, Byron Hunt, Roland James, Ronnie Lapette, Don MacNeal, Curtis McGriff, Stephen Baker, Scott Connover, Pete Shaw and Willie Buchanon

[Via Daily Kos]

Barack Obama supporter in Seattle is surprised to find herself in Hillary Clinton’s fearmongering ad. Read and watch the TV report here.

It’s 3AM and the phone rings and rings and rings and rings and rings and rings. The crank caller is scaring the children of America.

In January 1995 a dejected President Bill Clinton stood in front of the United States Congress and delivered his State of the Union address. President Clinton conceded: "Last year, we bit off more than we could chew. This year, let’s work together, step by step, to get something done."

President Clinton was speaking after a year of bruising political defeats that culminated in a sweeping Republican victory in the mid-term elections. His presidency was on the ropes. The reason: Hillary Clinton’s disastrous stewardship of the national healthcare proposal. Failing to heed advice or seek consensus Mrs. Clinton drove Bill Clinton’s grand plans for healthcare into a brick wall. The First Lady proved herself to be lacking in her major brush with policy during President Clinton’s tenure at the White House.

Reflecting on her role in the Clinton health care fiasco, Mrs. Clinton admitted in January of the following year that she had been "naive and dumb":

"I think I was naive and dumb, because my view was, ‘results speak for themselves,’ " she said. "I regret very much that the efforts on health care were badly misunderstood, taken out of context and used politically against the Administration. I take responsibility for that, and I’m very sorry for that."

Mrs. Clinton said she had thought she could reach an accommodation with the Republicans in Congress and had not sought strong political counsel. "I take responsibility for not understanding what was going on," she said. "There was a lack of politically savvy advice. No one had figured out the dynamics."

Mrs. Clinton also reflected on her image problem and her unpreparedness on day one:

Given her regret about the way she handled welfare and her own publicity, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she would have done things differently. "I would have done a lot of things differently, but I am confident I would have made different mistakes," she said. "There is no way in the world to figure out what it’s like to live here. There is so much about it no one ever tells you about. There are little things you never would have thought of. You have to start thinking about Christmas in April."

In 2008 Mrs. Clinton is now touting her experience as First Lady in the White House during the years her husband was running the country. However, other than her ceremonial duties she was entrusted by her husband to work on healthcare. She was woefully unprepared and failed miserably. She nearly sunk Bill Clinton’s presidency in the process.

She was most certainly not ready on Day One. Now Mrs. Clinton asks the voters to consider her experience as First Lady as a qualification for being elected President of the United States. The voters should do just that.