Courtesy of the good people at MSNBC, namely Chuck Todd, here are their latest updated delegate counts following the IA imbroglio:
Pledged Count: Obama leads 1,409-1,250
Superdelegates: Clinton leads 253-217
OVERALL TOTAL: Obama leads 1,626-1,503
Obama netted 10 delegates from this new Iowa exercise; that's more delegates than Clinton netted out of Ohio on March 4. Wonder if the Clintons want those negative comments about caucuses back? Will this negative caucus talk cost Clinton more delegates when other caucus states meet for state conventions?
Obama is winning the pledge total (52.9 %) to (47.0 %) Hillary the Supers (31.8 %) to (27.3 %) and Obama the totals (52 %) to (48 %). 81.7 % of the pledged delegates have been decided while 77.3 % of all delegates have been 'decided'. We are obviously very far down the road in this process, with roughly about 20 % more delegates to be decided.
There are 594 remaining pledged delegates and 325 remaining super delegates, not including FL and MI, for a very interesting take on the FL and MI situation see American Prospect. Many of us have seen MSNBC' s Chuck Todd demonstrate the #'s Hillary would need to pull even with Barack, let alone pass him by a significant number. It would require a collapse of epic proportions for Clinton to overtake Obama in the pledge delegate lead, she would have to win the remaining contest by about 64 % to catch Obama, and he is 'favored' to win some of these upcoming events, making the process all the more daunting for her. Last weeks revelations regarding his spiritual advisers incendiary comments, perhaps only slightly threaten his chances. Accordingly, despite all outward experience to the contrary, the Clinton campaign is fighting a battle that seemingly can not be won. Even with a victory in PA, and more and more it look like she's headed that way, she will trail Obama by a significant number of delegates. And with the prospects of alienating a key and loyal constituent group, African-American voters, the prospects of the Party denying the nomination to the likely pledged delegate leader, Barack Obama, appear incredibly remote.
So the question now turns to Barack Obama, can he win the general election without Hillary Clinton as his Vice-Presidential running mate ? Thanks to some great work at Open Left, we can see a composite breakdown of the Democratic nomination exit poll data. (Does not include events on or after March 4).
A quick look at the data shows what many have already ascertained; Obama needs to do better with white women and Latinos. Is there another running mate who might help deliver these votes to Obama, or especially in the category of white women, who make up a major faction of all democratic voters, is there a ceiling that he has hit with these voters that can not be broken through ? Even in states where Obama won by big margins VA (Obama/Clinton ) 623,141/347,252......64 %/35%......54/29 and WI 646,007/452,795.....58%/41%.......42/32) he still lost the white women vote (VA 53/47 WI 52/47---according to CNN exit poll data).
Ron Brownstein of The National Journal has an excellent article on Obama's strengths and weaknesses as a candidate, and the dilemmas democrats face in the choice between Obama and Clinton:
Obama has usually polled better against McCain than Clinton does, but the difference is typically modest, and in some surveys conducted since Clinton's Ohio and Texas victories the gap has vanished. Probably more revealing at this point is the contrast between the coalitions that Obama and Clinton are attracting.
With the general election choice still so unformed for voters, the trends are not consistent across all surveys. Still, the emerging picture indicates that against McCain, Obama might cast a wider net than Clinton, but also need to plug more leaks in his boat.
In a recent Pew Research Center survey, for instance, Obama carried independents against McCain by 6 percentage points, while McCain carried them against Clinton by the same amount; the difference mostly reflected Obama's stronger showing among independents earning at least $50,000 annually. Other surveys, such as a Quinnipiac University poll in the key battleground of Pennsylvania, have found that Obama also swipes more Republicans from McCain than Clinton does.
This all tracks Obama strengths familiar from the primaries. But primary-season trends more troubling for Obama are also persisting. In the national Pew survey, and in Quinnipiac polls of Ohio and Pennsylvania, Obama lost more Democrats to McCain than Clinton did. In the Pew survey, Obama struggled particularly among the same blue-collar white Democrats resisting him in the primaries: Fully 30 percent of white Democrats earning less than $30,000 a year preferred McCain over Obama. Clinton would lose only half as many of them to McCain, the polls indicate. In the Quinnipiac surveys, Clinton likewise outpolled Obama against McCain among white women without college degrees, a key general election swing group that has overwhelmingly preferred her in the primaries. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
Assertions that a a primary loss does not equal a loss in the general election appear true enough, election cycles are replete with such occurances, but as Brownstein posits, in OH and PA, two states critical to a Democratic victory in the general, especially PA, there is a stubborn resistance of whites making under $ 30,000, especially women, to vote for Obama.
There are many questions to be asked from a purely electoral point a view, leaving aside tremendously important aspects such as chemistry and compatibility, which need to be answered.
Is Hillary Clinton a net plus or minus for the ticket, or is it a wash. Will Obama's Democratic supporters be upset with her perceived 'harshness' during the primary and sit out the general? Will her appearance on the ticket merely serve to fire up the republican base, thus eliminating the advantage that Obama seems to offer the electorate for a 'new politics ? Does it drown out his 'change" theme ? Will she drive Independent voters toward McCain in such massive numbers, that it would eliminate the pull she has demonstrated with white women in the below & $30,000 demographic ? And these are just some of the questions Obama will face as he ponders Hillary Clinton as a running mate.
But to those who have studied JFK's choice for LBJ as his VP nominee, easy dismissals of Clinton seem a bit naive. LBJ with John Connally's help, brought up Kennedy's severe health issues, claimed he had Addison's Disease, a potentially crippling issue, and impugned Kennedy's father as an appeaser to Hitler, not the classic move of a man aiming to be considered for the Vice-Presidency. In fact, according to Clark Clifford, Kennedy first offered the VP slot to Stuart Symington, who accepted in private, but electoral and internal Democratic Party politics prevailed. It was thought that without Johnson, Kennedy could not win Texas and without Texas, he could not win the general election. Kennedy didn't hesitate, winning was everything, and Johnson served him well and loyally in the Vice-Presidency.
Obama's calculations appear to be simple, choose the person that best helps you win the Presidency. Whether Hillary Clinton is that person is one of the more intriguing and important, and as yet, unanswered questions left remaining in this battle between these two powerhouse candidates.