Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

1:50AM With 98.91% of the precincts reporting the Pennsylvania secretary of state reports Clinton 54.3% to Obama 45.7%, or a margin of between 8 and 9 points. There is currently a vote difference of 193,377. Hillary Clinton, after all the sound and fury, will only net somewhere between 8 to 11 delegates coming out of Pennsylvania. Barack Obama just spent Hillary Clinton into debt and she barely got a handful of delegates.

10:38PM Philadelphia is coming in very strong for Obama, currently 65% to 35% (with over 125,000 vote margin) with 95% of the precincts reporting. The Philadelphia suburbs are yet to come in. Currently with 76% of the precincts reporting in Pennsylvania Clinton leads 54% to 46%. Her popular vote lead in Pennsylvania is currently about 140,000. That puts her on track for less than 200,000 vote margin out of Pennsylvania. It looks like, if these numbers hold (and they may narrow), Hillary Clinton has lost ground on Barack Obama with time running out. What was impossible is about to become even more so after Pennsylvania is done.

9:35PM With 20% of the precincts reporting, Clinton leads about 53% to 47%. Philadelphia is slow to come in, but enough has come in for the networks to call it for Clinton. Obama is winning Philadelphia with nearly 60%. He needed about 70% to turn the race in his favor. But 60% in Philadelphia may be enough to keep the margin of Clinton’s victory small.

8:51PM MSNBC calls it for Hillary Clinton. Now we wait for all the votes to come in to see what her margin of victory is.

8:37PM MSNBC has changed their designation from "too close to call" to "too early to call". With nearly none of the precincts reporting Clinton has a lead. The change in terminology suggests that MSNBC will eventually call it for Clinton. The real question is by how much will she win.

8:22PM There are some interesting exit polls for Obama. He is taking Philadelphia by 69%, Philadelphia suburbs by 62%, Pittsburgh by 38% and holding at 42% in the rest of the state. Those numbers are in Ed Rendell territory (Rendell beat Casey by 10 points by raking up numbers around Philadelphia). Obama is also doing significantly better amongst white men than he did in Ohio. I am still holding to my prediction of Clinton 52.8% to Obama 47.2%, but these exit polls are pleasantly surprising.

8:09PM The conversation on MSNBC is about how Clinton can exit the race gracefully. The atmospherics coming from the Clinton campaign suggest they are preparing the ground to spin a narrow victory. It’s either rope-a-dope or genuine nervousness. We shall see.

8:00PM As polls close MSNBC has it too close to call. This could be a long night.

7:26PM Polls close in about 30 minutes. Early exit polls abound. On the aggregate, unreliable, early exits Drudge has Clinton up 52% to 48%, while NRO has Obama up 52% to 47%. Both numbers probably mean practically nothing. The internal numbers from exit polls from CNN, MSNBC and others are much more interesting. Gun owners go to Clinton 58% to 42%, African Americans go to Obama 92% to 8%, first time voters go to Obama 60% to 38%, late deciders go to Clinton 58% to 42%, white males go to Clinton 55% to 45%.

Hillary Clinton’s topline number (that with gun owners) is 58% to 42%. Assuming all Pennsylvanians owned guns, Clinton would win by a 16% margin.  Given that some other demographics are going to Obama, and some substantially toward Obama, the exits suggest a single digit Clinton victory at best. The real wildcard is what percentage of the vote Obama wins in and around Philadelphia and what percentage of the total votes comes from that region. Reports suggest huge turnout in and around Philadelphia. We will find out how large in the next few hours.

Hillary Clinton’s closing argument in Pennsylvania:

Barack Obama’s closing argument in Pennsylvania:

and Bill Clinton tells you why you should vote for Barack Obama:

Pennsylvania goes to the polls tomorrow. The polls have steadied over the last week and, while he remains behind Clinton by about 6 points in the polls, there may be a slight Obama momentum going into tomorrow. My prediction is here (I am sticking to it until I am put to shame by the actual results!). But tomorrow evening we will be counting the results of the only poll that matters.

Throughout this race the Clinton campaign has maintained that the superdelegates should use their own judgment in deciding which candidate to back. Clinton has maintained that superdelegates are not beholden to the will of the people. Her thuggish backers have even tried to blackmail Speaker Pelosi and the DCCC - superdelegates - into backing Senator Clinton.

I agree. I think the superdelegates should decide this race. And they should decide it in favor of the candidate who is likely to actually win the presidency - Barack Obama.

As has been noted many times, Hillary Clinton cannot win the nomination. However, it appears that as long as there is a mathematical possibility that Clinton can get to the required number of delegates (2024), she will not drop out of the race. Therefore, the only way to end this race before it does further damage to the eventual Democratic nominee is for Barack Obama to get to the magic 2024 number. This is where the superdelegates have a role to play to prove to us un-super voters that they deserve their electoral capes.

Currently, the race stands at approximately 1412 pledged delegates for Barack Obama and 1251 pledged delegates for Hillary Clinton. With committed superdelegates factored in, Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 1627 to 1497. Ten races remain with the following delegate counts:

If we project out the remaining 10 races all the way to the last primary on June 3rd, giving Hillary Clinton hefty winning margins in Pennsylvania, Guam, West Virginia and Kentucky, at the end of all the primaries Barack Obama will likely lead Hillary Clinton 1889 delegates to 1801 delegates as shown in the table below:

There are currently 333 uncommitted superdelegates. To clinch the nomination, Barack Obama will need 135 uncommitted superdelegates to back him, that is 40% of the uncommited superdelegates. In other words, if at the end of the primaries on June 3rd 135 additional superdelegates commit to Barack Obama, this race is officially over.

To decisively end the race after the May 6th primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, Obama would have to pick up 226 superdelegates as shown in the table below:

However, it is quite plausible that after the remaining big states have voted by May 6th, having the extra 135 superdelegates will be more than sufficient. The writing will be written boldly on the wall, and even the most fervent funders of Hillary Clinton’s campaign will not want to throw away money on such a lost cause.

So, the magic number of superdelegates is probably around 135 for Barack Obama. If by May 6th he has reached this magic number, expect Hillary Clinton to concede soon thereafter.

Already the superdelegate endorsements for Barack Obama are rolling in, with Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Bob Casey, and Senator Amy Klobuchar adding to Obama’s total. There is now news that all 7 members of North Carolina’s congressional delegation are poised to endorse Barack Obama. The superdelegates are beginning to exercise that judgment Clinton keeps reminded them of. The final verdict is likely to come on or around May 6th.

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?