The coming Clinton landslides
flockwoodI’ve analyzed the statistical data and I’ve reached the following conclusion: Hillary Rodham Clinton will absolutely obliterate Barack Obama in the May 20 Kentucky primary. In some counties, she’ll win by outlandish margins — perhaps by as much as 10 to 1.
So far, several states neighboring Kentucky have already voted. Some of them (Virginia, Missouri and Illinois), Obama won. Some of them (Tennessee and Ohio) voted for Clinton. But even in the states that Obama carried, he got clobbered in the counties bordering Kentucky. EXCEPT for Hamilton County (Cincinnati), all of the Ohio counties nearest the Bluegrass State voted for Hillary. So did ALL of the Tennessee and Virginia counties on the Kentucky frontier. Even most of the Illinois counties bordering Kentucky backed Hillary — and that’s Obama’s home state.
The margins are stunning. Scioto County in Ohio (just north of Kentucky) backed Clinton over Obama 81 to 16 percent. But that’s a horserace, compared to Buchanan County in Virginia (just east of Kentucky) where Clinton triumphed, 90 percent to 9 percent. In Macon County, Tennessee (just south of Kentucky), Clinton beat Obama with 76 percent. In Macon County, Edwards (13 percent) beat Obama, too — even though Edwards had dropped out of the race the previous week. Obama claimed 9 percent in this Tennessee County.
These landslides occurred BEFORE Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright became a household name. It’s possible Obama would fare even worse in these counties if the vote occurred today.
West Virginia hasn’t voted yet. But a new Survey USA poll, out today, shows Clinton leading Obama 55 to 27 percent in that state. I haven’t seen a primary poll out of Kentucky yet. But McCain leads Obama 64 to 28 percent in that state, according to another Survey USA poll. [Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, trails McCain 53 to 43 percent.]
Both West Virginia and Kentucky are states with small African American populations and with disproportionate numbers of “downscale” white Democratic voters — elderly, economically disadvantaged and non-college-educated Americans.
Obama will probably hold his own in Jefferson County (Louisville) and in Fayette County (Lexington). But it’ll probably be tough sledding in most of Kentucky’s other 118 counties. My best guess — Clinton carries the counties east of Interstate 75 by at least two-to-one or three-to-one, perhaps four-to-one.
And Indiana could also be tough for Obama, especially if Pennsylvania gives Clinton a massive victory on April 22.
Bill Clinton, speaking in Indiana this week, spun that state as a longshot for Hillary because it borders pro-Obama Illinois. But that’s either a case of bad logic or good expectations-lowering. Indiana also borders Ohio, which clobbered Obama, and it has more in common with the Buckeye State and the Bluegrass State than the Land of Lincoln — or at least Chicago. And as I noted above, Clinton actually carried several of the counties in southeast Illinois that culturally are more like Indiana and Kentucky.
Obama’s a very gifted campaigner, but this contest is getting contentious, and it’s conceivable that he’ll get blown out in Pennsylvania (about 20 points), Kentucky (about 25 points) and West Virginia (about 30 points). Toss in a narrower win for Clinton in Indiana and a landslide win for her in Puerto Rico and superdelegates will be popping Advil — or something stronger.
Why? Because even if all of the above occurs, it’s likely that Obama will still have more pledged delegates. And it’s entirely possible that he’ll still be ahead in the popular vote.
If, at the end of the day, Obama has more popular votes and more pledged delegates, it will be hard for superdelegates to reject him even if they believe he is less likely to win in November than Hillary Clinton.
That’s one of the reasons why Puerto Rico is switching from a caucus to a June primary. They’re hoping to help cut or eliminate Clinton’s popular vote gap.
But will Clinton be able to jump ahead in the popular vote count? That depends on how you count up the votes. If only primary votes are counted (with Michigan and Florida tossed in), it’s likely that she’ll be ahead. If primary and caucus votes are counted (and Michigan and Florida are subtracted), it’s hard to envision Clinton finishing on top.
Now here’s a nightmare scenario for Democrats. It’s possible that Clinton will end up winning the popular vote
- if you count Puerto Rico, but that she’ll be trailing if you only add up the popular vote from the 50 states and Washington, D.C. That would open yet another can of worms. Under the Constitution, residents of Puerto Rico are not entitled to cast votes for president in the general election. The Democratic and Republican parties, however, have chosen to give Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories, commonwealths and possessions a say in the primary election process.
If Clinton is ahead in the popular vote (including Puerto Rico), Democratic superdelegates will risk alienating Hispanics if they downplay the significance of the popular votes coming from this island. But if they deny the nomination to Obama despite his having more pledged delegates and a majority of the popular vote from the 50 states and Washington, D.C., this could alienate many of his supporters as well.
Of course, a win by Obama in Pennsylvania would effectively end Clinton’s candidacy, but polling suggests such a win is highly unlikely. Upset victories by Clinton in North Carolina and Oregon could also tip the contest.
The longer this drags on and the uglier it gets, the better it is for presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
I don’t know Frank, honestly, the tried and true seem to be for Hilary, but the youth and the discontented seemed to be for Barack. I just can’t get a feel on how this is going to go.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
The problem is that there is no party discipline anymore. In the past, the party elders would have solved this long ago, and everyone would have abided by their decisions. Now there are no party elders, and even the superdelegates are being told that their only voting option is to accept the candidate that got a majority — but less than two thirds — of the delegates. The reason the superdelegates were put there wasn’t to reaffirm what someone else had done, it was to make a hard decision if one had to be made. Well, one has to be made. As Frank aptly points out, mathematically, Hillary can’t win by delegates, and I don’t see how winning the popular vote but not the delegate total suffices in a system based on delegate votes. Only the superdelegates can save this. If the party had any sense and any discipline, they would call a conclave of the superdelegates, the superdelegates would decide whom to nominate, and everyone would abide by the choice.
But those days are over, and apparently this thing will go on for a long time, damaging the party to the point where we might be able to blow the best chance in years of electing a democratic president.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Superdelegates weren’t put in place so that they could decide what was best for the rest of us, they were put there so they could decide what’s best for the party. With the Republican party already rallying behind their nominee and this election not being very far removed from one where the electoral votes and the popular vote were contradictory, what’s best for the Democratic party is for there to be a clear nominee who is seen as a representative of the voters.
As with any form of government I know of, there are inherent weaknesses in a democracy. It would be easier if a select few would just tell us who the next leader was going to be, but I doubt anyone would find that idea preferable to the current system, messy as it may be.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Well, I’m a practical politician. In order to get a party’s general policies implemented, you have to not only elect a president, but one who can get the job done. My favorite Democratic presidents of the twentieth century were ones, I think, able to do that: Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson. None were perfect, and none got all the job done. The Treaty of Versailles killed Wilson, and Vietnam killed Johnson. And all were products of the old party boss system. The more democratic, but less effective, primary system has given us only one hero, Bill Clinton, and his record doesn’t look near as well on reflection as it felt at the time.
This is not rocket science. We need a presidential candidate, and the people are, for all practical purposes, deadlocked. When this thing is over, there will be less than 100 delegates between Obama and Clinton, and neither will have the necessary two thirds. And by that time, Hillary will have had three more Bosnia moments and two more bad Obama associations will have come up, and the candidates will be staggering around the ring, bloody and half blind, trying to shield themselves from the other’s punches like boxers in the last round. And John McCain won’t have had a glove laid on him.
Someone needs to step in and stop this madness, and only the superdelegates can do it. I think if they choose either candidate, and give a coherent reason, such as he/she is the candidate best able to beat McCain, I think the people will live with it if they do it soon and let it sink in, and if the candidates will support it and not stir up animosity. But I wish they’d do something soon.