Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

It is the last weekend before the Pennsylvania primary. Most of the polling has been completed and now all that remains is for the Democrats in Pennsylvania to make their preferences known. In the last month and a half, Barack Obama has shrunk what appeared to be a 20 point Hillary Clinton advantage to about 5 points, according to the latest poll of polls at Pollster.com. According to Pollster, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 47.4% to 42.3% with 10.3% undecided. Because of the large number of undecideds among voters whose demographic favors Clinton, many are saying that this could result in a double digit Clinton win in Pennsylvania. If the results indeed show a double digit Clinton win it would conform to what has been long expected in Pennsylvania. However, my sense is that the results will be much closer.

My prediction for Tuesday is that Hillary Clinton will win 52.8% to 47.2%, approximately a 6 point victory over Barack Obama.

When reading polls this late, the conventional wisdom is that late deciders break for the candidate who is ahead - Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania. A look at the polls before the Ohio and Texas primaries seem to confirm this observation. In both cases, Hillary Clinton received a higher percentage of the vote than what the final polls indicated. It appeared that those shown as undecided in the polls went toward Clinton. However, a more likely explanation is that those undecided in a primary within a day of the primary are likely to just stay home. A closer look at the polling and the results support that conclusion and offer some clues as to what we might see in Pennsylvania.

Currently in Pennsylvania Hillary Clinton garners 47.4% to Barack Obama’s 42.3% and 10.3% show as uncommitted in the polls. The decideds amount to 89.7% of those polled. If only those who appear as decided vote on Tuesday one would expect Hillary Clinton to get 52.8% (47.4 divided by 89.7) and Obama to get 47.2%. I posit that this is the most likely outcome as the undecideds this late in the game are likely not motivated enough to get to the polls. Undecideds are not the same as late deciders that will show up in the exit polls. The late deciders are already likely factored into the polls this close to the primary. Just for comparison, if we were to give all of the "undecideds" to Clinton (as the conventional wisdom suggests) the outcome in Pennsylvania would be Clinton 57.7% and Obama 42.3%. That outcome is highly unlikely, but you can consider that to be Hillary Clinton’s top-line number.

Now, let us look at the numbers in Ohio and Texas. Hillary Clinton won Ohio 54% to 44%. The final polls in Ohio before the primary had Clinton winning 49.6% to 43.6% with 6.8% undecided. The decideds amounted to 93.2% of those polled. By our calculations Clinton would have won Ohio 53.2% to 46.8%. If the undecideds had moved into Clinton’s column, she would have won 56.4% to 43.6%. As it turns out the results are very close to our prediction that assumed the "undecideds" stayed home.

In Texas, Hillary Clinton won 51% to 47%. The final polls in Texas before the primary had Clinton winning 47.8% to 45.9% with 6.3% undecided. The decideds amounted to 93.7% of those polled. By our calculations Clinton would have won Texas 51% to 49%. If the undecideds had moved into Clinton’s column, she would have won 54.1% to 45.9%. Once again the results were very close to our prediction that assumed "undecideds" stayed home.

You will notice that in both Ohio and Texas Obama underperformed the predictions by about 2%. The 2% went to "other". A similar percentage in Pennsylvania may go to "other" giving Clinton a 52.8% to 45.2% win. That would give Clinton a 8% margin of victory.

How the final numbers ultimately turn out will depend a lot on the get-out-the-vote efforts of each campaign. But the numbers suggest a likely 6 point Clinton victory and maybe a margin as high as 8 points. With this kind of a margin, out of Pennsylvania’s 158 delegates Clinton is likely to get at best 84 delegates to Obama’s 74 delegates - a net gain of 10 delegates. In reality, because of Obama strongholds in delegate rich areas of the state Clinton’s net delegate gain is likely to be smaller. When all is said and done, Hillary Clinton will likely come out of Pennsylvania - her last best state - without winning anything close to enough delegates to cut into Barack Obama’s insurmountable delegate lead of 163. For all the sound and fury surrounding Pennsylvania, this "neck and neck" race has been lost since February. Hillary Clinton hopes to keep up the illusion of this "neck and neck" race by a double digit win in Pennsylvania. However, if the polls hold and the voters do their part the illusion will have died in Pennsylvania.

Dateline Ramadi June 18, 2006 from the Associated Press:

RAMADI, Iraq - Thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops set up outposts Sunday in southern parts of Ramadi as part of an operation to establish Iraqi army bases in the country’s largest Sunni Arab city and wrest it away from months of insurgent control.

The United States Military is poised to retake the insurgent stronghold of Ramadi from the Iraqi insurgents. Keeping with the theme of progress this week, the press is dutifully reporting "progress" in the Iraq war.

The White House is busy taking victory laps after the killing of al Zarqawi a week and a half ago. In his latest "Freedom is on the march" tour, the President has snuck into the Green Zone bunker in a display of virtual freedom, Maliki has cracked down in Baghdad for the cameras, and the city of Ramadi is being retaken from the insurgents.

In spite of the PR blitz, the picture in Iraq remains largely the same and is getting steadily worse. The American Embassy in Baghdad, having not received the Karl Rove memo, reports in a cable to Washington that things are going from bad to worse.

The pundits in the press want to hear none of it however. The more interesting news is the bounce President Bush is likely to get in the polls. The more interesting news is how Karl Rove can now use Iraq to bludgeon the Democrats into defeat in November. Well, at least that was the preferred storyline this week until the deaths kept on piling up in Iraq. President Bush’s dead cat bounce in the polls is not translating into progress in Iraq.

So, how do we measure progress in Iraq? At a bare minimum, in a war, one sign that you are winning is defined by how much territory you control. Arguably, the United States and the Iraqi government do not control very much outside the Green Zone in Baghdad and the Kurdish regions. Since Ramadi is in the news now and the press is breathless about the impending violence, it is worth looking at how many times we have taken Ramadi only to lose it again. Surely, if we are doing the same thing over and over again, we are not making progress; we are at best treading water. And given the loss of lives and treasure in recapturing the same city over and over again, we are in fact going backwards, i.e., losing.

Dateline Ramadi December 2, 2005 from the BBC:

US and Iraqi forces have launched a military operation in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, the day after insurgents staged a show of strength in the city.

Dateline Ramadi February 26, 2005 from the BBC:

Reports said three died in a gun battle in Ramadi, as US and Iraqi forces try to clear insurgents from key areas in the so-called Sunni Triangle.

People in Ramadi said there was a prolonged exchange of fire.

Dateline Ramadi July 23, 2004 from the Christian Science Monitor:

RAMADI, IRAQ – Some of the heaviest fighting in months erupted on Wednesday in the troubled city of Ramadi. Throughout the day, the thud of mortars, bombs, and machine-gun fire echoed down desolate streets as insurgents battled hundreds of US Marines.

An estimated 25 insurgents were killed, and 25 people - including two Iraqi police - were detained in a day of clashes, which saw 13 US soldiers lightly wounded in firefights and multiple ambushes.

At sunset, as American helicopters swooped over central Ramadi, a small funeral procession for Iraqis killed in the fighting moved slowly through town. But stores remained locked behind metal gratings and few residents ventured onto streets littered with debris and cratered by bombs.

The pattern in Ramadi, and much of Iraq, has been insurgents fleeing the area as US troops move in. When the troops inevitably leave the insurgents creep back in. After the insurgents come back in, they kill or chase away whoever the US has put in charge:

Large swaths of Ramadi have been in insurgent control for months. Powerful roadside bombings and gunbattles take place every day, confining U.S. patrols to small sections of the city. Prominent tribal leaders who have cooperated with U.S. forces have been assassinated or forced to flee outside the country.

It’s the same story every time. Ramadi is a microcosm of what is happening throughout Iraq. Add to the insurgency the sectarian violence and growing civil war and you have a real quagmire.

This is apparently the "progress" Karl Rove accuses the Democrats of "cutting and running" from. Our Iraq policy is no longer (if it ever was) about winning. It is not even about avoiding defeat. Our Iraq policy is now all about domestic politics. The Republican National Committee has officially dubbed the Democrats’ Iraq policy alternatives as "Cut and Run". Serious policy debate is no longer possible. The RNC political strategy is quite shameless. It will use our troops and the Iraqi people to try to garner enough votes in November to retain control of Congress.

I think the Bush Administration must know by now that they have failed in Iraq. The best thing the United States could do right now for the Iraqi people is to start pulling out. Unfortunately, having lost Iraq, the Administration and its allies are now trying to salvage their political careers. American soldiers and Iraqi citizens are dying in the battle for control of the United States Congress.

So, once more unto the breach. Once more into Ramadi we go.