Is the Democratic Nomination Locked Up?
EmailABC News’ David Wright, Andy Fies and Sunlen Miller Report: The Obama campaign claims that their eight contest winning streak makes it nearly impossible for Sen. Hillary Clinton to seal the Democratic nomination.
"The only way she can overcome this lead is to win all the remaining contests in blowout form," campaign manager David Plouffe said on a conference call with reporters.
He said, "Sen. Clinton has to not just win, but win by more than 20 points" in order to rack up enough delegates to overcome Obama’s lead.
"The math is the math," Plouffe said.
It’s not yet immediately clear if the Obama campaign math is correct. Counting the numbers of convention delegates won in any given contest can be tricky. News organizations often arrive at quite different conclusions.
But while it may be difficult for Clinton to catch Obama, it may also be difficult for him to win the nomination outright.
For one, Clinton currently holds the lead among superdelegates – party activists who can support whomever they like – regardless of the outcome of primaries and caucuses. If she continues to win support from superdelegates in large numbers, she could potentially beat him.
Also much could depend on the fate of Michigan and Florida, states that voted in early January in violation of a party edict that their contests should take place later.
Clinton won both states – in Michigan hers was the only name on the ballot – but the Democratic party has so far said Michigan and Florida delegates will not be allowed to participate in the convention.
Some Clinton backers are hoping to change that.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
WOw that’s spin! And she is leading by 20 points in Ohio and Pennsylvania and probably Texas. Obama can’t be the nominee if he can’t even win one major state other than his own. it would be a losing ticket to the white house that’s for sure. Obama wants the DNC and super delegates to ignore that Florida and Michigan exist. Well contrary to that oppinion they do exist and they do vote in genral elections.
If Obama can’t win NY, CA, FL, MI, TX, OH, and Penn, he can’t win the nomination. It’s political suicide for the democrats.
Posted by: s.b. | February 13, 2008, 11:15 am 11:15 am
Agree with s.b.
So far, Clinton has won the “red states and blue states and east and west and midland states and large states and small states” (borrowing the statement from well known orator). Thinking pragmatically, she won the states that need to be won for eventual nominee (which I am confident will be her). If, as expected, she wins upcoming contests in Texas and Ohio than she’ll be nominee (like she should be for the sake of our future and future of our kids).
Alex.
Posted by: Alex | February 13, 2008, 11:33 am 11:33 am
Reality time, guys. No one, not even Sen Clinton, is saying Obama wouldn’t win New York and California against a Republican.
And no one, not even Sen Clinton, could realistically predict that any Democrat would win Texas in the general election. The other states are battlegrounds.
There’s a difference between a nominating race and the general election, ya know.
The question is which candidate can do better against John McCain in Missouri, Michigan, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, etc. The key to these states – in fact the key to any national election – is independents.
Blog posts aside, most Democrats will vote for the Democrat and most Republicans will vote for the Republican. Independents will decide the election in battleground states.
The Republicans have elected their biggest gun with independents. Party members may have to hold thier noses, but they will back their nominee, who has an ability to attrack a lot of support among independents. The Democrats had better go with, and seemingly are going with, their best candidate with independents.
Posted by: Paul | February 13, 2008, 11:53 am 11:53 am
To answer the blog question, no, the nomination isn’t locked up. But its getting closer, day after day.
If it comes down to pledged delegates (based on the assumption super delegates won’t in mass go against a candidate who wins more pledged delegates), then Clinton’s difficult but possible path is to 1) convincingly win Texas and Ohio, and 2) translate that into a momentum swing that carries her through remaining states.
Can she do it? It will be tough. Both Texas and Ohio seem to be tightening. If its close, the story on March 5 will be how Obama took Clinton’s best shot and retains a lead in delegates. With that, game over, I think. So she has to win big enough to change the headlines from 1) Obama withstands the counterattack to 2) impressive Clinton victories begin final phase of the race.
Posted by: Paul | February 13, 2008, 12:01 pm 12:01 pm
Questions for ABC:
1) Given that superdelegates can (and often do) change their commitment at any time, why do you add them to the pledged delegate count when discussing whether Obama or Clinton is leading in delegates? At the least, why don’t you list both counts and explain the difference to viewers?
Of course, the issue is important if only for the reason that perceptions of who is “winning” influence voting. Is it too much to ask to give viewers a more complete and accurate picture?
2) What on God’s green earth is going on in places like Colorado, where more than a week after the voting the pledged delegate count is still missing? When should we expect to hear those counts?
Posted by: Spenser | February 13, 2008, 12:21 pm 12:21 pm
I would like to remind people that in Michigan no one campaigned for the Primary, however, Obama supporters campaigned against voting for Clinton. The campaign was going strong here in California via radio and t.v. to vote uncommited. The whole campaign was touted as having people reject her. She still won. In Florida Obama broke rules by releasing an ad on cable, then stated he didn’t realize it was breaking the rules. Please…this guy went to Harvard? Dirty tricks still didn’t get him THAT either, Clinton won Florida. Caucuses are a joke, a few people making a decision for the many. They’re not even Super Delegates. The majority wouldn’t even qualify. Having time to go to a caucus is not something working people are “free” to do. Then the most domineering, verbal people run the show. It’s utter chaos and incapable of being accurate. It is not a democratic process, it’s a bully gets their call process. Think of it this way, Hillary has been in strong even against the Obama (Republican) media fest. Obama is never in a negative light about anything for more than an hour, if it happens. There is plenty negative material out there, we Clinton supporters know as well as the media and Republicans. So why the free positive press from especially Republican pundits? Hmmmmmmnm.
Posted by: irma | February 13, 2008, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm
Irma – that’s not what happened, regarding the ads in Florida.
Obama’s team wanted to place a national ad buy, but realized it would also air in Florida if they did. They asked the DNC if that was a violation. The DNC said if the Democratic Parties from the early states didn’t have a problem with it, then fine. At the time Iowa and New Hampshire had passed, so the Obama team asked the South Carolina and Nevada state parties, and got the go ahead – before the first national ad ran.
Posted by: Paul | February 13, 2008, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
All the (then six) candidates signed a DNC pledge not to participate in the Michigan and Florida primaries, because those states had broken DNC rules by moving up their primaries.
But Clinton – alone among the democratic candidates – left her name on the ballot in those states, thus breaking the pledge the others had honored. That’s not “tough” – it’s just plain cheating. For her get those delegates seated would be declaring her the winner for showing up at a cancelled game.
What does her behavior here suggest about the value of any other pledges she takes? How will she treat the pledges our nation makes to the rest of the world? We can ill afford these kinds of dishonorable tactics – the very Bush/Rove/Cheney schoolyard-bully stuff we were supposed to take for shrewd pragmatism.
Posted by: Judith | February 13, 2008, 2:21 pm 2:21 pm
The general election is about securing the ELECTORAL VOTES of traditionally Democratic states since 1992 such as CA, NY, NJ, PA and MA. The primaries have showed that counting ELECTORAL VOTES of the states won by both candidates, Hillary Clinton would have won more ELECTORAL VOTES than Barack Obama so far. It is scary to think that the Democratic Party can selec a candidate for President facing John McCain (good position in immigration and with independents) having to defend traditionally democratic states like California, NY, NJ, MA, etc. while failing to attract Latino voters so far. The negative attacks against Latino voters by Obama supporters may backfire in states like CA, NY, MA, and Texas dividing the party and decreasing Latino participation in the general election.
Posted by: Angel | February 13, 2008, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm
Paul – Once again, you cut through all of the emotional hyperbole and hyper-partisan claptrap, to lay the situation out simply and precisely as it exists.
The readers of these boards, myself included, owe you a debt of gratitude. Hope you’ll be sticking around for awhile!
Posted by: Mark | February 13, 2008, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
I’ve yet to hear CA, NY, NJ, PA or MA are considered at risk regardless of who represents the democratic party. The states that are truly battleground states Obama has a edge over Clinton due to his ability to attract independents and energize the base – Missouri, Michigan, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado. Obama has little of the baggage Hillary carries. Unless Hillary obtains substantials wins in TX & OH and at least narrows the growing lead Obama has in pledged and total delegates, Obama is the clear and only reasonable choice as the Democratic nominee for president. The cost of over turning the majority of elected/pledged delegates in such an emotionally charged race would be insurmountable. Obama currently leads even including the votes Hillary earned by braking the commitment she and the other 5 democratic candidates agreed on in regard to the MI and FL primaries.
Posted by: Kevin Michael | February 13, 2008, 3:50 pm 3:50 pm
Hillary–You may as well stay at home in you’re nice warm pajamas–because you are not going to win Texas.Carolyn
Posted by: Carolyn Walker | February 13, 2008, 9:07 pm 9:07 pm
Bear in mind that (presuming the “Uncommitted” delegates all go Obama from Michigan) including MI and Florida’s delegates into the vote only gives Hillary about fifty more delegates than Obama. In pledged delegates, if you count the probable delegates not officially set, Obama’s currently ahead by 140.
In order to secure a majority of pledged delegates- never mind getting to 2025- Clinton has to win all remaining contests from March 4 on with 60% or more of the delegate count. Thus far she’s only broken 60% in one race- Arkansas. Even in Michigan, with no serious competition, she only polled 54% in the popular vote. Bear in mind that to overcome proportional assignment of delegates she has to pull in a lot more than 60% of the raw vote to get the delegate advantage.
Clinton, meet 8-ball. Please note you are neither in front nor to either side of it.
Posted by: Kris Overstreet | February 13, 2008, 10:56 pm 10:56 pm
If you are the only name on the ballot–how can you lose??? Carolyn
Posted by: Carolyn Walker | February 14, 2008, 12:06 am 12:06 am
Hillary isn’t going to win Texas. Our Latino population isn’t the same as California’s. She spent the last few days here ignoring Houston and Dallas. Brilliant campaign strategy. Meanwhile, Obama’s local support continues to rise and he’s yet to advertise here and hasn’t been in the state since last summer.
It’s going to cost a ton to advertise state wide in two languages. Obama can match her television spending, but more importantly he’s opening up campaign offices all over the state in places she’s ignoring or simply can’t afford to operate.
I know she’s completely ignored my district (south Ft. Worth, Waco and College Station). Granted this is Bush’s district, but that hasn’t kept Chet Edwards-D out of Congress.
Posted by: Andy | February 14, 2008, 5:38 pm 5:38 pm