Obama To Clinch Nomination at 10pm EST

It's now *very* clear that Barack Obama will clinch the Democratic nomination within minutes - and probably within seconds - of the close of the polls tonight in Montana at 10 pm EST.

Many superdelegates have already said they'll be committing to Obama at the close of the polls, including some of the most potentially influential superdelegates such as Jimmy Carter and several US Senators.

Hillary Clinton may not concede the race tonight though I'm guessing she will do so, and immediately announce her unqualified support for Obama. Network TV is reporting that Clinton has said she'll accept an Obama VP spot based on conversations with campaign insiders.

Florida voters disenfranchised ... again

The extremely poor coverage of the big story of this election has been a disgrace of mainstream media incompetence more than bias but I think both are a problem in this election. Party insider politics rather than voting are determining the outcome of the election. Most in the press are fretting that it will be Clinton who would pull a backroom play while they fail to talk much about the most significant aspect of the Democrat primary so far - the disenfranchisement of *every voter* in Florida and Michigan.

The first problem is that the popular vote should be determining things rather than state by state voting. The idea is to mimic our seriously problematic electoral college system which determines the national election, but with all the superdelegate and back room disenfranchisements it's not having that effect anyway. The people - not the party hacks - should control all the elections and America is dangerously close to failing in that area ... yet again.

Did the voters make the decision to hold these primaries early? NO! Did Florida and Michigan voters decide to delete their votes? NO! Party hacks determined this outcome though I don't understand how or why. Presumably both the Obama and Clinton campaigns saw strategic advantages to this or they would have bitched louder. But that is not particularly relevant. The key question regarding teh nominee should be simply this: Who do Democrats want to represent them? Party insiders have made it hard to determine this with clarity. The race is extremely close and a huge number of delegates may not be seated. The superdelegate process is an anti-Democracy outrage, clearly designed to take control away from voters and give enough control to party insiders to determine the outcome.

Florida voters must be getting used to being disenfranchised - in 2000 the butterfly ballots of Palm Beach County were seriously flawed (they were designed by Democratic Party officials). Ballot spoilage threw the entire state - and the presidency - to George Bush. The focus was all on the chads which would *not* have affected the outcome had a recount been allowed. However the Palm Beach Butterfly ballots - Designed by a democrat - almost certainly threw the election to Bush.

Yet the Democratic Party had few qualms about the decision to delete the Florida vote from the current primary.

It is certainly true that rules should matter, both campaigns agreed to these rules (why?!), and Obama supporters are right to say that it's not "fair" to allocate to Clinton votes that might have gone to Obama if Florida party hacks and national party hacks had not mangled this process, but it's *even more unfair* to disenfranchise the Florida voters - again.

However if they did allocate the delegates according to votes in Michigan and Florida here are some scenarios:

Michigan popular vote: 55% to Clinton, 40% Uncommitted to Obama -
Clinton gains 23 delegates.

Michigan split the uncommitted vote: 75% to Clinton, 20% Obama -
Clinton gains 85 delegates

Florida: 50% to Clinton, 33% to Obama. Clinton net gain of 36 delegates.

Thus if we count these states Clinton would gain a net of either 59 delegates or 121 delegates depending on how you allocate the Michigan uncommitted vote.

As of today 1884-1718 = 166 votes separate Obama and Clinton so even the rosiest picture for Clinton would still have her trailing Obama by some 55 delegates, throwing the election squarely to the superdelegates and more party hack back room wheeling and dealing.

A solution to this mess? Clearly, new elections are needed in Florida and Michigan. Party hacks decided against this earlier in the year, but they were wrong to discard the only fair option. However this is very unlikely to happen. Welcome to our new Banana Republic voting system.

Gamesmanship is deciding the outcome of the election. Ironically this is likely to lead to an Obama victory as his strategists have more masterfully played their cards than Clinton's have and Obama really does seem to have a kind of groundswell support sorely lacking in Clinton voters.

Historically there has always been gamesmanship and strategy - but the extent to which that trumps the pure and unadulterated Democracy we all should seek is the extent to which we have a good vs a bad system. What shoud be clear to all after the elections debacle of 2000 and the questionable backroom politics of 2008 is that we have a bad system that is subject to uncertainty and manipulation.

The solution is simple - one vote to one person and no electoral college.

Clinton Wins West Virginia

The votes are not yet in but Clinton will certainly win the West Virginia Democratic Primary, throwing somewhat more uncertaintly into the complex and poorly constructed Democratic primary process. Although most pundits are exaggerating the demise of the Clinton dynasty West Virginia to some extent confounds the notion that "it's over", given that Clinton is likely to win by as much as 20% or more. Race appears to be a key factor in this victory, though it's simplistic to see race as a one way factor in an election where Obama consistently can count on some 80 or even 90% of the African American vote in most states.

Surprisingly few have challenged the incomprehensible system that almost all the candidates and parties signed on to over a year ago, but it's making it very hard for the Democrats to define their process clearly in the face of this close election.

If Clinton can leverage this victory into better treatment for the Florida and Michigan delegations which in turn might shift superdelegates to Clinton, the race would become even closer, and Obama's "frontrunner" lead could evaporate overnight. Is that likely? No, but neither was the GW Bush victory over Al Gore in 2000, and the Democratic process is looking more like it could hinge on defects in the process or on elitist insider plays rather than the popular vote.

Battleground: Oregon

Here in Oregon the TV advertising is starting to get very heavy, especially for Obama. It appears he may be trying to set up the campaign to effectively "declare victory" after this primary, arguing that his delegate total is greater and superdelegate total about equal.

However I'm inclined to think that both campaigns are going to settle this at the convention- probably in an amicable fashion and probably with Obama as the victor although skeletons in the closet could still rear their ugly heads and totally derail either campaign. This election is in the hands of the superdelegates now and it is not at all clear how they'll respond to the circumstances.

The Democratic party really should be ashamed to have such an un-Democratic process for choosing candidates. Although there are a handful of justifications for having "elite" voters with much more power than regulary people, the notion flies so flagrantly in the face of true Democracy and good elections practices that it's surprising the party hacks didn't realize this would create problems in a close election.

Clinton Wins Indiana

Although the Indiana race is going to be close the exit polling, which is almost *always* correct, indicates that Hilary Clinton will win Indiana by a narrow margin:

Male (45% of vote ) 51% for Clinton 49% for Obama
Female (55% of vote) 53% for Clinton 47% for Obama

The Male and Female stats cover all the bases, and therefore the likely outcome, assuming the exit polling was done fairly well, is that Clinton will get (.45 x .51 .2295) + (.55 x .53) = 52.1% of the total Indiana vote and Obama will get 47.9%. There is enough error in polling that this outcome is not certain, but it is very probable.

Contrary to what many think the exit polling in Florida was correct to suggest that Al Gore won the state. The key factor in Gore's "loss" in Florida was that the butterfly ballots of Palm Beach County which led to thousands of spoiled votes due to double voting. The exit polls can't measure this spoilage - they have to assume that people's votes actually *counted* where in the case of Florida the cast ballots were destroyed.

An important tangent to that is that the chad situation - even if Gore's Supreme Court challenge had moved ahead with a recount - would still have decided the election for Bush. Only certain unusual treatments of hanging chad counts, or the calculation where the spoiled palm beach ballots were mathematically allocated to Gore would have given him the edge. In a sense most of the analyses there were wrong. Republicans did not steal the election, but Gore did in fact win it. Blame our foolish Democracy and ballot procedures which fail to do a good job in some close elections.

Obama's Momentum into the final stretch

Although neither Obama or Clinton will have enough votes to win from the primary voting, most analysts reasonably suggest that if Obama wins Texas and Ohio he will effectively be the presumptive nominee.

More complicated are the scenarios where Clinton wins narrowly in the last three big states of TX, PA, and Ohio. This would leave Obama and Clinton with similar delegate totals and put the race firmly in the hands of the superdelegates as well as a possible change in the elimination of the Floridan and Michigan delegates from the process.

It appears increasingly unlikely that Florida and Michigan delegates will be included given the Obama momentum and also the polling indicating he's far more likely to beat McCain than Clinton. Democratic Party players want to win in 2008 far more than they want a particular candidate, so expect the party to rally around Obama if his March 4 performance is good. If not, expect more indecision as the wild workings of American politics move along.

Big Mo for Obama?

Does Obama have so much momentum now that Clinton cannot stop him from winning? Bill Kristol suggests today that Obama's recent victory sweeps will propel his campaign to have a clear delegate lead soon.

It is certainly clear that Obama, unlike Clinton, has captured the imaginations of many young voters as well as many mainstream Democrats. Where Clinton offers capability, experience, and the first serious female candidate to run for President, Obama offers the same affirmative action advantages to the democrats but also inspires confidence and enthusiasm. Historically the people that win are not the smartest and most capable - they are those with leadership qualities. Obama's superb speaking style, which combines power and humility, gives him leadership points that simply do not match Hilary Clinton's persona.

With many Obama wins in caucus states where a few can influence many, it's not clear Obama can translate his appeal to the big audiences of Ohio and Pennsylvania. California went to Clinton and this is a strong indication that in populous states Clinton still has the edge. Will this be enough to win? No. The decision is now very likely to be made at the convention, and increasingly it looks like the superdelegates issue could make all the difference.

New Hampshire Primary - will it change the game?

Light posting here because I'm at the consumer electronics show in Las Vegas right now, and posting a lot about that at JoeDuck.com.

However it's looking like Obama will win NH and pretty much inherit the Clinton "Frontrunner" mantle, providing a powerful buzz boost for the campaign as it enters the races that have many more delegates at stake. If Edwards takes second it'll be even a more serious blow to the Clinton Campaign. Look for Clinton to hire a new campaign manager...tomorrow. I predict Carville will come on board, and I predict he will turn things around. Is Edwards a contender? Of course - though he seems to face the challenges of being seen as something of a Washington "insider" like Clinton and lacks the superb speaking style and "shiny new" appeal of Obama.

On the Republican side McCain looks like the clear winner, with Romney again the bridesmaid where he hoped to be the bride. It appears many are souring on Romney, appearing to fear his polished style and perhaps his Mormon religious heritage. Could "Big Love" have sunk Romney before he even had a shot? It's fair to say the Republican field is even more open than the Democrats with McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee all real contenders for the prize.

Biden, Dodd out

Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have dropped out after poor Iowa showings. Meanwhile Huckabee and Obama are the media toasts of the town, getting more buzz than even big advertising money can buy.

The New Hampshire results won't necessarily reflect the national opinion but unlike Iowa they'll include a lot more groups. If Obama and Huckabee do well in New Hamphire - which probably means second or strong third, they may come out as presumptive frontrunners although the race is likely to tighten after New Hampshire since it is unlikely to be nearly as friendly to Huckabee as Iowa's small and dedicated Christian lobby turned the tide there. Even for Obama it'll be tough to pull out a New Hampshire win.

But ultimately the race will be decided in February on super mega primary day when more than half of all the delegates will be awarded in the huge number of major races around the country - from New York to California. Any predictions before that time are pretty speculative, though we plan to make them anyway.

CNN Iowa entrance Polls: Tight Obama v Clinton and Romney v Huckabee. Edwards down

CNN Iowa entrance Polls: Tight Obama v Clinton and Romney v Huckabee. Edwards down.

CNN's got some great coverage tonight from *inside* five Iowa Democratic Caucus locations. there are some 3500 locations so it won't be very helpful in terms of prediction, but it's a great insight into the Iowa process, which is at one level very democratic and open yet at another level it is not very participatory (only a small fraction of the electorate participates) and also to my mind is very biased in favor of more assertive folks who are willing to stand up for their opinions. This last feature is very questionable, as it effectively may disenfranchise some " shy" folks, which is not democratic. The Republican system, a simple straw poll, is arguably more "fair" to all involved.

Giuliani released from MO hospital and is OK, Tancredo drops out of race.

Rudy Giuliani was hospitalized yesterday with flu-like symptoms. He's been released from the Missouri hospital and CNN is reporting he has a "clean bill of health", but they don't seem to have much information.

Although there is no reason to believe Giuliani's problems have anything to do with his past cancer, it's clear that health issues could impact this election more than most. John Edwards wife had cancer as did Giuliani, and it is reasonable to wonder what effect a health flare-up would have on these campaigns.

Giuliani vs Romney and Clinton vs Obama

OK, I think even the probable winners are clear now (Romney and Clinton), but it's very hard to think any of the "third place" folks have much of a chance now. Some suggest we may see a repeat of the democratic primaries where John Kerry came out of early poor shows to capture the nomination, but the ballgame is very, very different now. First, Clinton is the "heir apparent" to the nomination for the Dems, and it would take simply *enormous* political risk not to back her if the campaigns heat up. You don't build up decades of political capital for nothing, and I can hardly see mayors and governors come out of meetings with Bill Clinton telling him they are not going to publicly support Hilary.

Pundits love races, so people like Chris Mathews are enthusiastically hoping for a horserace and overplaying Obama's recent poll successes in Iowa. He's not talking enough about the fact that even if Obama squeaks by with an Iowa win (unlikely), this won't leave him with enough time and money to spend in the upcoming primaries. The "must take Iowa" strategy was probably wise, but I'm guessing from the polls it's taking it's toll on the Obama campaign. If Obama loses in Iowa he's pretty much out. If Obama wins in Iowa it's an enormous uphill struggle to capture votes in even one of the next several primaries. Ergo..... Clinton wins and this will be clear soon. Dems don't want to be fighting when they can be bashing Bush and the Republican nominee.

Next: Why Romney will win the Republican nomination

The Hilary Hater Factor

It is often suggested that Clinton can't win the election because her "negative" numbers are so high in many polls. Clearly Clinton is probably one of the most negatively viewed presidential candidates in some time, but I think people are mistaking current perception as future perception. George Bush, in addition to winning reelection, had positive perceptions of himself and his presidency until the Iraq war drained his reservoir of goodwill from the electorate. Conversely I think Clinton's solid campaign style, complete with her somewhat extreme personality makeover, will warm enough of her mild critics to prevent her losing on the basis of negative views about her.

Chris Mathews has been even more unstable than usual on Hardball, suggesting today - I think - that he's predicting Hilary will lose to Giuliani due to the negativity with which many perceive her, especially men.

Presidential Polls

This site has a GREAT summary of many presidential polls for the 2008 election.

On the Democratic side it's pretty clear that Hilary Clinton will be the nominee. My take is that even with a minor scandal or major gaff Hilary would withstand anything Obama could throw her way, and he's shown himself to be inexperienced enough to scare away the core Democrats that are essential to a 2008 victory. Hilary could be derailed with a major scandal but it seems unlikely there are any big skeletons in the Clinton closet or we'd have seem them "outed" by now as the New Hampshire and Iowa primaries loom, perhaps within a few months.

The Republican field is still wide open in my opinion, though Mitt Romney would seem to be the likely winner of the Republican Primary. Giuliani is also a possibility but his record, quirky style, and personal baggage seem to me an overwhelming liability when competing against more mainstream Republican candidates. Thompson is more along the lines of the traditional Republican conservative but in this election that may actually be seen as a liability by moderate Republicans. Also, his young and beautiful wife, combined with recent sex scandals on the Republican side, could be a liability for a candidate who will have to play the "family values" card to be viable with the core Republican constituency, especially against Romney's squeaky cleanness. McCain has all but fallen victim to his combination of Iraq War support and several election gaffes. The media, once enamored with McCain's honest and freewheeling style, seems to have tired of him and this is almost a death sentence for a politician.

The best campaigns money can buy

The 2008 Presidential primaries are still far away but the money trains for the top candidates are steaming ahead full speed. Each quarter seems to bring a new campaign finance record, and quarterly totals for the candidates would have run *entire presidential campaigns* in all but about the past decade. Compete.com has a great article about how online strategy could affect the election combined with some numbers reflecting support.