Barack Obama crosses the 50 yard line
Momentum is one of the most overrated aspects of contests. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist; it does. But the importance of it is continually overstated in all aspects of competition, from sports to politics.
There’s a saying in baseball: momentum is only as good as the next day’s starting pitcher. You may have won 6 straight and feel like you are on a roll, but you’re throwing out a chump starter against Josh Beckett, you don’t have momentum going into the next day. That’s just reality.
So it is with politics. Momentum is real. When you win, people talk about you in good ways, which exposes the best of your message to more people, which creates excitement, etc, etc. But it’s only as good as the next contest. If you are fundamentally behind in that next contest, you may not be able to catch up, and your “momentum” suddenly seems to disappear. But that’s just because it wasn’t nearly as strong a force as people thought it was.
Which brings us to this primary season. The chaotic nature of this primary season isn’t really chaotic at all. The beginning of this primary season went across states where each of the two Democratic candidates had clear advantages. Obama had a great Iowa organization, and he was from neighboring Illinois. Clinton had a massive well of support in New Hampshire and the support of the Shaheen machine. Clinton had support from the institutional party in Nevada plus a deep well of support among Hispanics. Obama had the overwhelming support of the African-American community in South Carolina. Sure, hindsight is 20-20, and the NH and NV races were very close, but the fundamentals in each race favored the eventual winner.
But last night, Barack Obama broke that trend. He began to play on Hillary Clinton’s side of the field.
It showed in some individual states, mostly MO, DE, CT, and NM (no matter who wins the final vote in NM by a hundred or two). But, more globally, February 5th, by luck or design, was Clinton’s day. The makeup of the primaries and caucuses was almost perfectly designed for her. You had the machine states of the northeast in NJ, MA, and NH; a neighboring state of CT that gets much of its media from NY; a clump of states bordering Arkansas; the Hispanic-rich Southwest; and then some caucuses sprinkled elsewhere. Caucuses are supposed to put a premium on organization and networks (and they do), and the clear belief among most observers was that Clinton would have the strongest organization by far. And all of the other states are right, smack-dab in the middle of Clinton’s demographic or geographic wheelhouse.
This was supposed to be coronation day. But something happened on the way to the coronation.
Barack Obama grew an organization that dominated the caucus states. He put pressure on Clinton in the northeast, even picking off CT and DE. He poached the largest of the border states in MO. And he fought her to standstill in the southwestern state of New Mexico. He didn’t completely collapse her bulwark with wins in NJ, MA, and CA, but that would’ve been the end of things if he had. Clinton still has a strong campaign, so that was very unlikely.
But Barack Obama’s is now stronger. He has crossed the 50-yard line and started to take the fight to Clinton. Now, with a string of states more friendly to him (caucuses this weekend, VA-MD-DC next week), he can begin to wear down the Clinton campaign. He has a larger activist organization by far, and he is beginning to put some distance between them in the money race as well. And he’s gaining mind-share all the time among the American people.
Now the terrain is much more friendly for Obama. The states are better for him, and he’s starting to assert some control. This is a tough, hard-fought campaign between two heavyweights, so the normal narrative of momentum and collapse just doesn’t fit. It’s all about the slow establishment of control, and right now, Obama is moving forward much more than Clinton.
13 Comments
New comments for this entry are closed.
The overstatement of the wins by media, and as conduits for the Clinton machine, built over 15 years of chits, contacts and payback, don’t give us the real progress. I’m concerned that some of the vote for change might get scared, enough to change their vote for Obama.
We need better TV blatherers, with this message to counter.
This was an interesting look at the process to Super Tuesday, how states were chosen, and how formidable the Obama team. Maybe like Kerry’s primary success.
I am sure they will avoid the general election mistakes, as Clinton was our opponent last time, as well.
Fact check: did we win more delegates last night, even though slightly less overall?
Nice, sane, fact-filled analysis, Brian. Thanks for the insight and perspective. Onward!
Could Sen. Kerry or his staff explain super delegates? Is it true that in a close primary, even if one candidate say Sen. Obama has more delegates won by voters than the other candidate, super delegates could vote for the other candidate and that candidate can win the nomination?
Jeanne,
Super delegates are delegates to the convention that have an automatic berth and aren’t pledged to either candidate, a group made up of the Members of Congress, Governors, DNC members, and some others. Some of them have personally pledged their support to one or the other candidate. And, yes, they can vote for whomever they want, and they can change their minds at any time. So, theoretically, they could swing the nomination.
However, the concern over this situation is a bit overheated right now. Over half of the superdelegates haven’t pledged support to anyone, and they probably will go with the winner of the pledged delegates. Remember, these are elected officials, and they don’t want to get on the wrong side of the people on something like this.
Also, the race of superdelegates is going to be close, and one candidate would really have to blow out the other candidate among superdelegates for that to be the deciding factor.
Look at it this way: if Barack Obama wins the nomination among pledged delegates (the delegates from the primary/caucus process) by a small number like 100, Hillary would have to beat him nearly 2-1 among superdelegates to win. That’s just not going to happen.
So, the basic answer is that, yes, theoretically that could happen, but in the real world, it almost surely won’t. The only possible way it could would be for a near-tie to happen in the pledged delegates, causing the fight to be among superdelegates.
I pray that doesn’t happen. And, as you can guess from this post, I don’t think it will. I think Obama is slowly seizing control of this process.
In looking ahead to November, there is a real concern that if Hillary wins, the democratic party loses. The intense enthusiasm and energy, especially among the new, young voters, generated by Obama’s campaign would fizzle if he loses. I find it hard to believe the DNC (Howard Dean, et. al) would disagree with that. Any thoughts on how to address this concern?
Thanks Brian for the information.
It is amazing how Sen. Obama has made up a lot of ground and is getting a good share of the delegates even in States he didn’t win. The Clintons still have a lot of connections everywhere though.
I would like to hear Sen. Obama talk about his ecomonic plan. I think people will listen now.
Brian Young should check his math. 2 to 1 out of 795 is 265 not 100.
I am with Donna Brazile—If the super delegates determine the outcome vs. the pledged delegates,
I and I am sure others are done with the Democratic Party
I’m with Paul, if Obama wins more delegates than Hillary by the time of the convention - and the Super Delegates pull the nomination over to the Clinton campaign, there will be blood floor.
Also, it was good to see Obama win the caucus here in Washington; I was actually (happily) surprised to see that he won by a 2 to 1 margin. Here in Washington, we (the Dems) hold both chambers of the state legislature - by wide margins - the governorship (who supported Obama in the caucuses) and virtually every other state wide office (the notable exception is the AG - which we should fix in November).
Now I say all this because of how the Dems pulled this off here. It’s all ‘big tent’ stuff. There is a coalition here of progressives and blue dogs. (Some folks call the blue dogs Reagan Democrats - I absolutely hate that term.) We do operate under a great big BLUE tent here and we do get things done. That’s not to say we have our share of food fights every so often, but we have been able to build and keep a solid majority together.
That’s how I see Obama. Someone at the top of the ticket who can not only defeat McCain and the GOP, but have coattails long enough to pull Dems in to Congress from all over the country - progressives and blue dogs alike - and build solid majorities; majorities that can get things done. It won’t be easy, but I’ve seen it done here and it can be done elsewhere, too.
You’re right, Paul. I was actually talking about the remaining super delegates who have yet to pledge, although I wasn’t really thinking through the real numbers.
My point still stands, though: the idea that the super-delegates would overwhelmingly line up behind the loser of the primary process stretches credulity.
I’ll try to do a post with real numbers that’s a bit more accurate and precise on the numbers, though.
I was a committed supporter of John Kerry in 2004. I sent money. I stood for him at my caucus. I’ve been getting his emails ever since. And I’ve taken action and contributed money to candidates on his request. Sorry, but I cannot get behind him on Obama.
I know most of you are convinced that Obama can win and Clinton can’t. John Kerry was not the first Democrat to be unjustly smeared by Republicans and he, an experienced politician, couldn’t overcome the attacks. I truly don’t see Obama weathering the storm that will be unleashed by the Republicans.
But winnability is not the reason for my decision to support Clinton. My reasons are best reflected in this essay: http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html
I keep hearing that all the new voters that Obama has attracted will drop out if their man is not the nominee. I’m sorry but that strikes me as a cult of personality and less about ideas, issues, and policies. I am a proud liberal Democrat and have always voted for the Dem no matter if it was my first choice or not. If this new attitude prevails I am not hopeful for the future of the Democratic party.
By the way, I am unsubscribing to JohnKerry.com. Best wishes to all.
Thank you Brian for your insights......
While I think Obama might be fine I am not sold on him. I have listened to the debates, read his place on issues..read his book and am still not convinced.
I have accorded Hillary the same effort including reading Carl Bernstein’s book on Hillary--A Woman In Charge. The sense from also hearing her in person that I am left with is appreciation for the depth and commitment Hillary has shown for decades to causes and issues that affect and impact us all.
While I appreciate John Kerry’s endorsement and position on Obama I am surprised at the persumption it seems that the 3 million people on his email list are of the same mind set. I think he should write his letters more carefully as of course this is not the case.
My husband I are Ohio Democrats. We are worried that the Republicans (and the media--same thing) may be choosing our presidential candidate. Obama has won predominately Republican states in the primary. What’s to say that Republicans aren’t crossing over to pick someone whom many people feel cannot be elected--especially in the important southern states.
For example, Republicans my husband works with say that they are going to do that very thing here in Ohio in March, because their candidate is already known.
This country cannot endure another minute of Republican rule.
This election season really has me caught in a dilemma. After the last Bush victory, I was sure that I wouldn’t participate again, as the electorate in general was so foolish, so misinformed....
Now I find myself interested again, but filled with trepidation. I get a feeling that there are those that think MY money is THEIR money. Taxes should be raised, enforcement of mandantory health care could include further dipping into MY pocket, regulation upon regulation costing ME more because someone thinks government is best able to spend MY money and direct ME in the ways that are best for ME.
As a lifelong liberal from the hippie days of the 60’s, I remember that part of the nostalgia from there must’ve been from a smaller government, less inclined to interfere with MY life, even if they think it is whats good for me.
Obamas message is filled with encouragement but without clear proposals. Healthcare for all he offers, like Hillary, when a thoughtful person KNOWS that without fixing the insurance and medical cost side there is no way to afford it. Frankly, who would want healthcare if it is to be similar to that which is and has historically been given to our veterans. Everyone knows or has horror stories regarding the long waits, the less than stellar care, in facilties older than we are.
Is this the BAIT we have to offer as Democrats? An untennable, unaffordable “cause”?
Please try to remember that George Bush ran on a platform of CHANGE! Boy we got it!, so just be careful what you wish for! Two party politics are ruining this country. Everyone trying to force their beliefs on everyone else - right or left. The great divide puts US right where they want us......the formerly huddled masses - now simply splinter groups…