Clinton Versus Obama: Handicapping The Democratic Primary (Part 2 of 2)

by Christopher McIntosh
03/04/2008

You can read Part One here.

Rather than bother you with the obligatory gambling metaphor, followed by the "but, seriously folks," I thought I'd just get right down to it.

Who ya' got?

Who's your horse? Who you backin'? What's your play?

With one notable exception (futures markets) applying the principles of handicapping to politics is a bit more art than science. Some things come across easily, like never getting indebted to a guy with the middle name "the", e.g., "Vinnie the Snake" or "Bobby the Wrench," but they're usually just good life lessons and not very helpful. If something is going off at 50-1, there's probably a reason for it. If it's the one time out of a hundred you've got good reason to believe the conventional wisdom is not so wise, then by all means, go ahead and play your longshot. Get ready to go to Sizzler, go ahead and imagine the stacks of cash (and IRS forms) you'll be buried under after you're shown to be a genius. Start counting the number of people you'll be telling "I told you so" as you make it rain around them.

Just don't forget one thing. They're called longshots for a reason.

I've tried to tell you how a handicapper would approach this election, and got confirmation that I was on the money when I spoke to a pro I know who immediately stated his opinion that while Hillary Clinton shouldn't be favored, she was, as they like to say, a "live" longshot. And he spoke as if this were a metaphysical certitude.

Quick glossary check: Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the Democratic nomination - live longshot. Roger Clemens chances of avoiding being charged with perjury - not a live longshot. He's in a bit of trouble and I don't think taunting federal agents, bring it on, is really a good strategy for avoiding indictment.

I'll split my thoughts into two categories: Tuesday and the overall Democratic nomination.

Tuesday.

I think this is fairly straightforward. Polls have Clinton and Obama in a statistical dead heat in Texas and that second step caucus (I guess everything's bigger in Texas) favors Obama. He's shown an ability to win caucus states by getting out the ground operation necessary to win those specific type of contests. Also working in his favor is the fact that the delegates are counted in a bit of a screw-y way which privileges urban centers where you're more likely to find the people who have supported him so far - professionals, the highly educated, high income brackets, as well as the concentration of African-Americans which he's been winning by some absurd margin, along the lines of 8-1.

Ohio goes to Clinton, although I'm not sure of the overall count. Vermont will go to Obama by some ridiculous 72-28 like margin, but Clinton should win Rhode Island which has more votes. At least, that's what the traders in the futures markets would have you believe.

The key question, then, is Texas. And here is where spin matters. Given the structural advantages that the Obama campaign has in Texas I can't see much worse for them than a near draw delegate wise. Texas has 193 delegates, but for either side to pick up just 20 delegates on the other it's going to require a greater than 10% win. Same is true in Ohio, but smaller (since OH has only 141 delegates). To pick up 20 delegates a candidate would have to win by about 17%.

Turning back to Texas, I don't think it's likely that she wins outright - given the poll numbers especially - but I do think it's possible we could wake up Wednesday to a world where Clinton has won Ohio, Rhode Island, and "lost" Texas (delegate wise), but just nicked a win by the smallest of margins in the overall Texas popular vote.

If Clinton wins Texas by a single vote in the primary vote, yet loses anywhere from 2-5 delegates, does that means she can credibly claim victory in the Lone Star state?

Bottom line: Delegate-wise, I don't see much change. I think if Vermont breaks heavily for Obama and Texas is a stalemate (let's say for the sake of argument, Clinton picks up 2 delegates), the size of the victory in Vermont (the land of Ben and Jerry's and weekly Reggaefests, one of the more liberal law schools in the country specializing in pro-environment law, and one of the New England lands bereft of African-Americans) should offset any weak win in Texas plus Rhode Island. Which leaves Ohio.

Even if he gets shellacked by more than twice what the polls are predicting, he only loses net 11 or 12 pledged delegates. More realistically, I see Obama picking up more votes in Texas than Clinton does in Ohio and the size of the Vermont win canceling Rhode Island and maybe a couple of Ohio delegates out. In other words, I think the most likely outcome is Obama waking up either statistically tied (+/- 4 delegates) or with a slightly larger net gain delegate wise (6-8 delegates).

Handicapping the Long Run

The nomination, however, is a whole different ballgame - thank you, thank you, I realize I was just nominated simultaneously for pun and cliche of the week. Handicapping Tuesday is like watching one football game. Looking at the nomination, even at this late date, is like trying to make a bet on an entire season after watching one preseason game. As one of my friends says:

"I wouldn't bet that with your money."

(See, you can't accuse me of plagiarism, although in fairness I believe Tim Russert would want to know that I live a few blocks over from Minister Farrakhan and I have yet to denounce, renounce, or reject my apartment - the pipes, though, that's another story.)

Ultimately, I, along with the rest of the Western world, have got Obama winning this one, but I will say that I think people are pulling the plug on Hillary too quickly. Obama's the choice not because he's ahead necessarily, but because he's got an astronomical amount of money to play with, many of the upcoming states are either pro-Obama or caucuses or both, and reports from the top of the party indicate that they don't want a convention that is anything more than a coronation. No superdelegates making decisions a la 1984 when they chose Mondale over Hart only to watch Mondale and Ferraro get beaten like a rented mule. I think they lost something like 41-1 in electoral votes. 525-13, Ronald Reagan. I'm not sure they made it out of the first round, but I am sure it wasn't close.

Which brings me to why I don't think this election is necessarily over. Identify the possible, before you evaluate the probable. Mondale got absolutely destroyed in that election. Think about it this way: ratio-wise, his beating was akin to a basketball team losing 123 to 3.

Even Bill Belicheck would've taken his foot off the pedal at that point. John Heisman wouldn't, but he was at Georgia Tech and they're [redacted] who are [redacted].

But. There's always a but. Mondale won around 40% of the popular vote.

Read that again.

Mondale got beaten Tiger Woods circa 2000 style, he got beaten Mike Tyson pre-Buster Douglas style, he even got beat as bad as if prior to a Bulls game you'd singled out MJ to question his game and insult his father. But despite all that, he still won 40% of the country's vote.

Which leads me to the reason I won't count out Hillary. She has won California, New York, and New Jersey. Michigan and Florida went to her as well (arguably) and if things go to form she will claim Ohio and probably Pennsylvania.

Obama, by comparison, despite the countless states he's racked up like poolballs in The Color of Money, has won precisely two states with more than 10 electoral votes. Virginia, and that blue-est of blue Midwestern strongholds,and most importantly, his home state, Illinois. That's it. I'm not making this up.

Now there's really only one way that Hillary can win, and anyone who tells you differently is working for the campaign, still thinks the Rockies are going to keep that streak going and beat the Red Sox, or has a nationally televised show and can't say this for fear you'll turn off the TV and stop believing the next primary is always the most important.

So what play does she have left? Superdelegates. The math is just too hard and too wrong to win in regulation. She's got to play for penalties. In order to pick up the requisite delegates she either has to remove his name from the ballot of certain states or somehow win places like North Carolina or Mississippi. I'm from the South and I'll go out on a limb and say that the white women she'd have to rely on to beat the demographic structures aligned against her (white men, African-Americans, the affluent, the educated) don't find Ms. Clinton... um... "suitable" for the position she desires. And they ain't going to the polls to show their feminist credentials.

But she can probably fight him to a draw. Most importantly, she can stay within the number of delegates that would arguably or potentially remain outstanding. There are 350-400 superdelegates left to commit. (To which I ask: what in God's name are you waiting for? We've had 20 debates, listened to questions about Barack's underwear, and seen Hillary cry. Is there something we've failed to cover that's crucial to your vote? Really? Maybe, one could take the initiative and attempt to address these concerns, but, then again, it's not like you work for the party or anything... oh, wait a minute, you do).

And the superdelegates don't even get into the little issue of the lost delegates of Michigan and Florida. They add up to a little over 350 (366) That's potentially over 700 delegates still outstanding come Denver and the convention. That's got the potential to be both real ugly and a slow moving train wreck. No one wants it, but no one really knows how to stop it either.

Time magazine had a cover talking about the nomination contest as a battle for the soul of the Democratic party. You want to talk about a battle for the soul of the Democratic party, you've got the first internet fundraising king (Howard Dean) as head of the DNC and not coincidentally boss of more than half of the superdelegates, against Hillary Rodham Clinton, a force in her own right, but lets not forget a woman who possesses (and I use that word deliberately) a husband you might have heard of. What happens if the superdelegates play it close to the vest, do not come out and vote for one candidate or the other in a cascade effect and Dean does as Dean has declared - gets the two campaigns in a room and hash it out.

Bedlam. It's one thing if your boss tells you to fall in line and go against another employee. It's quite another if that employee you're supposed to oppose is potentially going to be your boss' superior (and superior to every single person in the free world, I might add) and has no qualms about reminding you she has a long memory and short trigger finger.

What would you do?

So where does that leave this scenario? Hillary fighting to a draw then trying to outmaneuver Obama politically at the convention. On one side you've got the Clinton(s), arguably responsible for many of the superdelegates' positions as such and notorious backroom politicians who can alternately fete you with food and wine or take you out back and give you an old-fashioned beat down. On the other side, you've got Obama. 1 million internet supporters will take you far, but they ain't going to do to much in an old school, backroom politics showdown.

All she has to do to get in that ball game is (persuasively) point out that the reason the superdelegates exist is to pick the most electable presidential candidate. And she can say, not unpersuasively, "I've got California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, and played to a draw in Texas, plus a whole mess of other states. You all counted me out when he won 11 states in a row, but I came back strong. Obama is a hell of a candidate, but I took his best punch and am still standing. What do you think I'll do to (poor) John McCain in the general election?"

(I feel obligated to mention that John McCain is/was a war hero since his name came up and that seems to be the proper move. I feel like I'm in church whenever his name comes up and wonder if I should genuflect as I recite, "he is a war hero.")

Now, Obama supporters please close the window, cap the bottle of Drano, and put down the paper bag and breathe, slowly and easily. Now, I don't think any of this is likely for three reasons.

A. Given the damage it would wreak on party unity, I think the only people who want it to go to the convention work for the Clinton campaign

B. I can't see the superdelegates sitting on the fence all the way until the convention and if the only argument Clinton will have going into the convention is that they should seat the delegates of Michigan and Florida because she is losing both the current pledged and superdelegates, then I don't think she could sustain the disenfranchisement argument without getting laughed out of Colorado for being so supremely egotistical and engaging in such a crass and blatant conflict of interest.

C. Hillary is a young-ish woman. She could lose, sit on the sidelines for eight years even, and still come back and be the first female president. The question is whether she sees now as her only shot. If so, I think she's willing to burn whatever political capital she and Bill have built up over decades to try and get it done. If not, which I find much more likely, she pulls out delicately (or at least as gracefully as one blessed with the political equivalent of an offensive lineman's size, demeanor, and rhetorical skills can do.)

Plus, there's one last thing to remember should the nightmare scenario of going to the convention occur if you're trying to pick a winner.

Those convention speeches by the nominee? They're currently considered window-dressing and just scripted. Mostly because 99% of the time the nominee is already picked. There's no need for the nominee to argue their case to a group that's already de facto elected them their candidate.

If there is no nominee, those speeches become Clinton's and Obama's 8 Mile moment. One shot. One speech. And the delegates decide yea or nay.

If it came down to one speech at the convention for all the marbles, who ya' got?

Yeah, me too.

Technorati Tags

Primary Democratic Obama Clinton Hillary Gambling Odds Betting Politics Democrats Voting Election Presidential

Comments [post a comment]

ATTENTION: OBAMA FINANCIAL BACKER REZKO TRIAL STARTS TODAY MUST READ BEFORE YOU CAST THAT IMPORTANT VOTE!!! NOT ONLY DID HE GO BEHIND VOTERS BACKS AND MEET WITH CANADA AND PUBLICALLY LIED ABOUT IT! SEE OBAMAS CONNECTION WITH SADDAM HUSSEN AND REZKO! Land deal 'mistake' piles the pressure on Obama Mr Auchi, leading supplier of arms to Saddam's regime and convicted for corruption in France, the British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions and millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fund just weeks before an imprudent land deal investigation. In addition money transfer from Nadhmi Auchi, Obama used to buy his Georgian mansion in Chicago. Mr. Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million!!!. Mr. Auchi's money was made doing business with the regime of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Auchi was a leading supplier of arms to Saddam's regime. A former Belgian ambassador to Luxembourg charged that a bank in Luxembourg owned principally by Mr. Auchi laundered funds -- including oil for food money -- for Saddam and other Islamic dictators. Auchi helped French and Italian firms win a huge oil pipeline contract in Iraq, chiefly by paying off Iraqi officials, according to testimony given by an Italian banker to prosecutors in Milan. In 2003, he was convicted for his role in what was then the largest scandal in French history, involving payoffs from executives of the oil company now known as Total to political figures in Spain, Germany and Africa.. The connection between Mr. Auchi and Sen. Obama is cause for great concern in the U.S. The national news media have been remarkably incurious about Sen. Obama's relationship with Mr. Rezko, and his with Mr. Auchi. The Obamas bought the house for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price -- perhaps because Mr. Rezko's wife purchased from the owner an adjacent garden plot for $625,000. (The sellers deny they offered the Obamas a discount.) The Times of London wondered where Mrs. Rezko got the money to buy the garden plot. At the time, she had a salary of $37,000 and assets of only $35,000, the Times learned. Her husband told a court that at the time he had "no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets," the Times said. Auchi participated in more than just Rezko's pizza and property ventures, however; he also contributed to Barack Obama's campaign by donating to a 2005 fundraiser through a company of which is wife is a Director. I quote the relevant paragraph from a London Times exclusive: Times has, however, discovered state documents in Illinois recording that the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA lent money to Mr Obama's fundraiser. Fintrade's directors include Ibtisam Auchi, the name of Mr Auchi's wife. Mr Auchi's spokesman declined to respond to a question about whether he was linked to this business. The donation is significant, obama is the Ill politican mentioned in the following ABC News report on the FBI affidavit filed in US Attorney Fitzgerald's case against Rezko before Obama's political godfather was arrested on Monday: According to an FBI affidavit filed in the case, Rezko sought to get a visa for Auchi to visit the United States by contacting "the same Illinois government official (Obama).	Posted By: jose 03/04/2008 07:47 AM
Great article. Equally enlightening and entertaining. I hope you're right.	Posted By: godfrey [Website] 03/04/2008 07:47 AM
The majority of the American Black community claims that they want to live in a society where discrimination doesn't exist, but appears they are not practicing what they are preaching. when Obama continually pulls 90%+ of the black vote, it's obvious that most blacks are voting for a candidate because of skin color. The odd thing is people like John Lewis who marched for equal rights jumps on the prejudice bandwagon, I’m sure he realizes what it does to his credibility. Obama camp have been calling African-American superdelegates to target, harass and threaten,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who supports Clinton. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving “nasty letters, phone calls, threats, being called an Uncle Tom. Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., also is receiving several e-mails from individuals saying they won’t vote for her if she doesn’t change her support to Obama, she should vote for him because she, too, is black. Rep. John Lewis, a black civil rights icon, sadly enough has given into the racial threatning politics of the Obama camp and switched his support from Clinton to Obama.JUST MORE OBAMA CAMP DIRTY POLITICS, LIKE BEING CAUGHT IN A LIE ABOUT CANADA MEETING! HE IS CORRUPT! THEN ALL NON-BLACKS AND WOMEN VOTE FOR CLINTON?	Posted By: lucy 03/04/2008 07:47 AM
OBAMA LOOSES JOBS FOR MINORITIES Ms. Obama, VP Chicago Hosp, that charges minorities 6 times as much, isn’t cold hearted enough; she also caused hundreds to loose their 11.hr jobs, to be more efficient she said! In 05, elected to the BOD Westchester-based TreeHouse Foods, she received $12,000 and $33,000 from a subsidiaries, in Nov announced closing its La Junta, plant, that claimed the jobs of 153 workers, most of them Hispanic! Huge blow to a rural town jobs paid a starting wage of $11hr, Company pays top execs like MICHELLE OBAMA tens of millions a year while destroying middle-class America. Raises the question not only about corporate values but about Barrack Obama's own values. Specifically, while he bashes Wal-Mart, why does his wife, make $45,000 and up a year serving on the board of Chicago comp that pays her a very hefty amount of money while laying off mostly minority workers in economically deprived areas? No. 1 customer is Wal-Mart??? Obamas attack on middle class and minorities- The Crowns and employees of their family-run holding company have given at least $195,000 to Obama's presidential campaign. Maytag shut the Galesburg plant after Labor Day 2004 Union member say senator did little to save jobs in the blue-collar town of 37,000. Obama connection to Maytag: Lester Crown, company's director’s records show, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for Obama's campaigns. Maytag shut the Galesburg plant after Labor Day 2004.	Posted By: Kurt Shumann 03/04/2008 07:49 AM
OBAMA WOULD VOTE FOR HILLARY! I think very highly of Hillary. I admire her. I think she's one of the most disciplined strong dedicated people I know. She's one of the toughest. She's got an extraordinary intelligence, and outstanding public service record, she's somebody who's in this stuff for the right reasons and no doubt would make an excellent “President of the United Sates”. She's passionate about moving the country forward especially on issues like economy, health care and children. “Barack Obama “	Posted By: Maria Lopez 03/04/2008 07:49 AM
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-) If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE! You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton.. You Might Be An Idiot! If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-) Best regards jacksmith...	Posted By: jacksmith 03/04/2008 08:23 AM
The 'you might be an idiot' poster Jack Smith strikes again. Thanks for another clone of your 'insightful' cut and paste argument for Hillary Clinton. I've been forced to read this post at least 15 times now. Please stop flooding the (any and all) message boards with your Clinton bent libel and let people stay on topic.	Posted By: derek hasenstab 03/04/2008 08:52 AM
I must be an idiot I am a Republican that will vote for Obama today in Ohio. Obama is running a brilliant Presidential campaign and beating Hillary at her own game. He is not even using negative attacks and bully tactics like the Clintons. Hillary will pay for her attacks in the general election if she wins the nomination. Obama is without a doubt an excellent speaker. but more important Obama is not an empty suit. Obama was a professor and taught constitutional law. Something that should be required by anyone running for President of the United States. Obama is a uniter not a divider. Obama's experience to be president is just as good as that of Hillary or Mccain. Obama is a one in a life time to vote for a leader that will actually lead and not submit to the ruling elite. I really hope he wins. He can be one of the best presidents in my generation for sure.	Posted By: Maria 03/04/2008 11:55 AM