Obama Wins Nevada - Updated w/ Poll
Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:37:58 PM PDT
When considering Obama's Nevada victory and what it means to the overall race, I think it's best to first observe the facts of what happened yesterday, which were a matter of dispute between two dueling diaries on the rec list last night. Each of the following are facts, not opinions.
* There was no popular vote total reported in Nevada.
* Obama won 11 Nevada counties and Clinton won 6.
* Two delegate numbers came out of the Nevada election. Clinton won more caucus delegates 51% to 45%, while Obama won more delegates to the national convention 13 to 12.
* Only the delegates to the national convention have any impact on the nomination.
* Every campaign, including the Clinton campaign, put out statements for days before Nevada about how this is a delegate race, and only delegates to the convention count. They said this because it's true, and it's still true.
* The delegate count to the convention as a result of primary voting thus far has Obama ahead of Clinton by 2 delegates, 38 to 36, as explained below.
* Iowa: Obama 16, Clinton 15 - New Hampshire - Obama 9, Clinton 9 - Nevada: Obama 13, Clinton 12.
More below the fold...
* The defense by the Clinton campaign that those delegates could change prematurely assumes that the race is over (an unwise presumption to make if this year has taught us anything, even morseo for a campaign than for a pundit); the fact is that the only way the delegates could change before their final allocation in April is if Obama were to suddenly drop out and endorse Clinton before then.
* The Clinton campaign had no complaints about getting more delegates in Iowa than Edwards, despite getting less actual votes than Edwards; they also had (and will have) no problem having an institutional establishment advantage getting superdelegates, who have absolutely nothing to do with citizens voting at all. And the fact is, whether that seems right or not, they were absolutely correct in both cases, because those are the rules in a game that's already started. If they're stupid rules (they are), we can (and had better) change them before the next election is already in the middle of happening. The fact is that in life, either we can all suck it up and play by rules that have been agreed upon at the beginning of a process, like adults, or we can complain midway when they don't benefit us at the moment; that goes for every campaign in this election, and their more boisterous supporters (this should just be common sense, but whomever one supports, crying wolf with crying foul in a public forum does not do one's candidate any favors).
With all that finally cleared up with cold hard facts, the question becomes what does Obama's win in Nevada mean to the race as a whole?
Much of the media coverage on TV and online has already begun to shift from "Hillary won" to "Split Decision", and by Monday morning may arrive at a full reversal; this is still in serious doubt though, as the media HATES reversing a call more than anything, vowing never again after the 2000 general election (although in this case it's not about the networks miscounting the data or prematurely calling the race, but simply reporting the wrong set of numbers; it's kind of like if the media, after all the confusion in 2000, had suddenly reported that Bush would not be President despite his electoral college lead - minus the warm feeling :) ). Certainly, though, if the media doesn't acknowledge the results of Nevada by tomorrow morning, they can expect a deluge of comments from citizens more than happy to remind them which delegates are actually relevant to the nomination process. The only valid counterargument that the Clinton campaign could use in this situation is the one they desperately wish they had the claim to, and they one they hope voters are implicitly assuming as we speak: that Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada and thus the will of the voters - except, as noted, the popular vote total in Nevada was NOT reported, and remains unknown; the Clinton team is ultimately left with the argument that an irrelevant set of delegates are more important than the relevant delegates, and that doesn't fly.
That said, Obama's Nevada victory was about the least decisive win possible. In that sense, it's the best possible type of win for him. The last thing he needs are raised expectations, both due to the media guillotine that comes with them, as well as the fact that independent and younger voters are the historically the first to stay home if they think their guy is already ahead. Winning delegates, all the while seeing Clinton being propped up again by higher insider expectations, is the best formula for Obama to move ahead.
However, a lot of the internal numbers in this win also remind those of us who want real change in Washington that we have to work hard for it in our own states, now, while it counts; volunteer, talk to friends, and get new people involved in the process (whether in open primaries, or closed primaries like my state of CT where one can change from unaffiliated to Democrat up to just days before the vote). For Obama to decisively win the nomination anytime soon, we need all those aformentioned young people and independents to turn out in numbers more like Iowa than like NH or NV, particularly if the demographic support patterns in Nevada otherwise continue to hold nationwide for Obama (1-3 Latino support, down 25% with Whites), which they may or may not.
We can do it; Obama, with his combination of the Hart/Tsongas/Bradley voters and four out of five African Americans, is the demographically strongest underdog in modern Presidential primary politics. But - he is still the underdog; the only thing that could make him go from underdog to landing a quick and decisive knockout blow is Iowa levels of young voters and independents. One we pass a certain line with both groups in each state, it's a wave Clinton cannot overcome. But we must work for every vote.
If we are successful in this, we could shock everyone (most of all ourselves) and maybe even see a very decisive win on Super Tuesday (that otherwise, quite frankly, seems unlikely in either direction); if we are not successful, it will almost definitely be a long, long drawn out race, where the odds of winning are - at BEST - 51 to 49 against us. Let's get to work.
Updated 6:35 pm EST with poll:
Permalink | 89 comments