Tad Devine:
"[Hillary Clinton’s] grasp now on the nomination is almost entirely on the basis of victories where Bernie Sanders did not compete," said senior strategist Tad Devine. "Where we compete with Clinton, where this competition is real, we have a very good chance of beating her in every place that we compete with her."
Devine named eight states where he said the Sanders campaign did not compete with a big presence on the ground or much on-air advertising: Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, and Arkansas. Clinton, Devine argued, "has emerged as a weak front-runner.
Two little paragraphs, so much wrong! Let me unpack all the ways:
1) If you are losing to a “weak front runner,” what’s that say about you?
2) Sanders didn’t contest Texas? Really?
Sanders was one of the first presidential contenders of either party to establish a state operation in Texas, setting up shop in November with a campaign headquarters in east Austin that now features an 8-foot-tall, free-standing “Bernie 2016” sign in the front yard.
He may have pulled out in the end from lack of traction, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t contest it. He just failed.
3) Don’t ever, ever, ever suggest that Southern Democrats are worth less than any others. Devine specifically called out these states (plus Texas):
State |
% of Dem Electorate that was black |
AL |
54 |
VA |
26 |
LA |
n/a (State w/ 2nd most AAs) |
TN |
32 |
MS |
71 |
GA |
51 |
AR |
27 |
Four of those seven states featured majority-black Democratic electorates. The other, Texas, was 19 percent African American and 28 percent Latino. What kind of asshole do you have to be to denigrate those states, suggesting that their votes count less than anyone else’s?
4) There’s a reason that Sanders didn’t compete in those states. He didn’t hand them over nicely to Clinton out of chivalry. We all know those reasons. (See chart above.)
5) Clinton didn’t compete in a bunch of states too, and guess what? Those delegates count just as much for Sanders! It’s called “deploying resources tactically.”
6) Remember when Mark Penn was caught flat-footed in 2008, unable to count delegates? So the Clinton campaign found all sorts of reasons to denigrate the states they lost, such as claiming that Obama could only win “small states that Democrats can’t carry in the fall.” Remember that? It was dickish then. Not sure why anyone would want to emulate that stuff.
7) Let’s revisit this part of his quote: “Where we compete with Clinton, where this competition is real, we have a very good chance of beating her in every place that we compete with her.” So, let’s look at the states in which they both competed:
Winner, contested states
|
Winner |
Margin |
Delegates |
IA |
Clinton |
+0 |
+2 |
NH |
Sanders |
+23 |
+6 |
NV |
Clinton |
+5 |
+5 |
SC |
Clinton |
+47 |
+25 |
MA |
Clinton |
+2 |
+1 |
OK |
Sanders |
+10 |
+4 |
TX |
Clinton |
+32 |
+72 |
MI |
Sanders |
+1 |
+4 |
FL |
Clinton |
+31 |
+68 |
IL |
Clinton |
+2 |
even |
MO |
Clinton |
+0 |
+1 |
OH |
Clinton |
+14 |
+19 |
AZ |
Clinton |
+16 |
+13 |
Total that up, and that’s a 191-delegate edge for Clinton, bigger than anything Barack Obama enjoyed in 2008. The “non-compete states” stretch her lead out further, but 191 would be enough in its own right to call this thing.
8) Sanders has won the bulk of his delegates in caucus states—10 of his 14 victories. That doesn’t make his victories worth less, even if we rail against caucuses as crimes against democracy. Fact is, caucuses are part of the current system, and you go to war with the system you have, not the one you wish you had. That was true in 2008 too, as Obama cleaned up the caucuses that year.
Clinton only contested two of those 10 caucus states. Does that somehow make those delegates worth less? Of course not! Because you don’t get to chose your battlefield. You have to win the most delegates from all the contests—the 50 states, DC, Democrats Abroad, and the territories. Tactically retreating from hostile territory doesn’t give you a pass on those delegates.
9) Clinton is leading the popular vote by something like 2.5 million (minus whatever margin Sanders got in low-turnout caucus states, which don’t report turnout because of more primary idiocy). Now our system completely discounts that (just like in the Electoral College). But how can anyone try to subvert the will of the voter when you can’t even remain competitive in the popular vote?
10) It may not matter in the delegate count, but if you’re going to argue intangibles likes “momentum,” then how about intangibles like “Clinton wins the contests that maximize voter participation—primaries, while Sanders wins the ones that limits participation—caucuses”? Seriously, I can whip up arguments like that for both sides all day (Clinton won Democrats decisively! Youth are our future, and they want Bernie! Clinton is battled tested after decades of ‘vetting’ by the Right! Sanders wins over independents! Seriously, I could go on forever … )
Both candidates had different strengths and weaknesses, and deployed their resources accordingly. But you don’t get to then argue that the stuff you’re good at is the only stuff that matters. One thing matters in our primary system: Delegates. And the way the party allocates them might be bullshit, but it’s the system we’re stuck with until we force change on the party. For better or for worse, whoever comes out with the most delegates in the end is the winner.
11. Tad Devine is the guy who created the superdelegates. That’s fine! Everyone makes mistakes! But then don’t rail against their undemocratic nature, then change your mind a few months later when it’s a convenient pretense to keep your campaign going.