Checking in on the forgotten race...

Well, apparently the polling organizations have given up on polling the Clinton/Obama races in KY, OR and elsewhere, so we'll just have to wait for the most important poll of all, the one on Tuesday. Let's look back at my previous predictions and the long and difficult road Clinton would have to take to be nominated and compare them with where the race stands as of today...just for fun. I realize that most of the attention has now shifted to the Obama/McCain race, but what the hey.

These were my predictions back on April 26, 2008:

Prediction for contests (supposing no resolution beforehand):

Guam: Obama 3; Clinton 1
NC: Obama 68; Clinton 47
IN: Obama 37; Clinton 35
WV: Obama 9; Clinton 19

Total: Obama 114; Clinton 102



Here's how it actually turned out:

Guam: Obama 2; Clinton 2
NC: Obama 67; Clinton 48
IN: Obama 34; Clinton 38
WV: Obama 8; Clinton 20

Obama: 108; Clinton 107 (Obama -6; Clinton +5; off by 11 delegates.)

So, while Clinton faired a little bit better than I predicted back in late April, she hasn't come forth with anywhere near the sort of game-changing victories she needed to. And given the steady flow of superdelegates to Obama, the road has become that much more difficult.

Obama Blowout Scenario

Another great electoral college website is www.270towin.com, where you can build your own map. This map is the best case scenario for Obama in November. It shows all states in which he has held a solid lead and those in which polls have showed him competitive (single digits) over the last couple months going to him. There are a lot of surprises. One surprise that doesn't quite make the list is Utah, where polls have shown Obama only around 10 points behind McCain.

What a difference a week makes!

Last week I was afraid that Hillary's momentum spelled ruin for the Democratic chances in the Fall. Barack's victory in NC and slight loss in Indiana was slightly below his performance as I predicted two weeks ago. But his substantial meeting of my (and other's) previous expectations of two weeks ago, after the most bruising couple of weeks of his campaign means that he was able to push back and be resilient against the Clinton machine. I have to agree that the gas tax may have done Hillary in. Tuesday extended Obama's delegate lead. What I didn't anticipate was that the media and much of the Democratic party leadership would declare the end of the Clinton campaign and call Barack the presumptive nominee. As much as I'm an Obama supporter, and as much as I loved hearing it, I'm not sure Tim Russert was exactly acting in his most professional journalistic capacity when he declared Obama the nominee on late Tuesday night. I've been supporting campaigns that are too often on the short end of the stick when the mainstream media declares an issue important or an election over. This means the superdelegate floodgates have begun to creek open and Obama could have the nomination in-hand in May or early June. This is something that needed to happen for the sake of party unity.

It is not mathematically impossible for Hillary to win (just extremely difficult). So, I can understand if she wants to stay in until it is mathematically impossible, as Huckabee did, but she should campaign like Huckabee did in the final days (no attacks on Obama).

I am somewhat concerned that the media is rumoring that the Obama campaign will declare victory on May 20 (when the Oregon and Kentucky primaries would put Obama over the majority of elected delegate threshhold. This is only because Oregon is a mail-in state, and if it works like Washington's mail-in balloting, ballots must only be postmarked by election day, meaning thousands of ballots will come in after election day and counting won't be done for at least a few days afterwards. On that Tuesday the only election sure to have been called will be Kentucky, which will be in Clinton's favor in all likelihood. That would be a prime time for Clinton to withdraw with grace. I am not convinced that Obama should pay Clinton's campaign debts, but I suppose that if that is the cost of party unity, then it would be a small price to pay.

All in all, it's been a good week for our family. Obama is being declared the presumptive nominee, Merinda landed a new job managing a Babystyle store, Maggie does not have a cold, flu, or ear infection (though she did get a diaper rash this week), and I won a case that was completely my baby on Friday.

Incidentally, this will be the first election in my lifetime where the nominee I supported will be the nominee of the party (other than 1996; when Bill Clinton didn't have a challenger for the nomination.) In 2000 I supported Bill Bradley, who lost to Gore, and I ended up voting Nader. (Before the stone throwing commences, I was in Utah, which wasn't exactly a swing-state.) In 2004, I was a Dean man.

a brief history of politics and economics

1620-1776: Colonial Era; Agrarian economy gives birth to industrialism and capitalism
1776-1812: Revolutionary Era; American political institutions are formed; capitalism in its infancy; industrialism rising to challenge agrarianism as a dominant economic institution
1812-1860: Agrarianism's last stand; expansionism and advances in technology; lead to a dominant industrial capitalist North.
1860-1870: Civil War/Reconstruction: Industrial capitalists consolidate political power
1870-1900: Gilded Age: industrial capitalist economy dominates; economic inequality grows
1900-1910: Progressive Era: limited efforts at government regulation of capiitalism are largely ineffective at changing the American socio-economic landscape
1870-1930: referred to by some (such as Paul Krugman) as the Long Gilded Age
1930-1935: Depression Era: loosely regulated industrial capitalist economy, unable to sustain itself, collapses.
1935-1945: New Deal: Government, led by Democrats and opposed by Republicans, through New Deal programs and World War II, rebuilds American economy from ground up and institutes strict economic controls that create large and prosperous middle class.
1945-1970: Era of Relative Economic Equality and Propsperity: government loosens war-time economic controls but maintains other social programs and very progressive income tax structure to maintain relative equalities and prosperity created during the New Deal Era. Republicans moderate and support New Deal policies.
1970-1985: Conservative Era: New element of Republican Party, eventually known as neo-conservatives, advocate programs that dismantle New Deal programs and controls. Neo-cons implement policy to divide Americans along racial and religous lines to obtain political success for their policies.
1985-present: Second Guilded Age: some New Deal social safety nets remain, but are crumbling as governnment is bankrupted through large defense and war spending (neo-con "starve the beast" policies succeeding.)
1992-2004: DLC wing of Democratic Party adopt a tempered anti-New Deal economic agenda, but maintain a liberal social policy agenda; exemplified by Clinton administration
2004-present: battle within Democratic Party between DLC wing and traditionalist/Internet Democrat coalition. Anti-DLC forces gain political support with unpopular war and increasingly failing economy and are led by groups such as moveon.org, exemplified by 2004 candidate Howard Dean.
2008: This is what the battle for the nomination is about. It is about the DLC-wing of the party versus the traditionalist (Kennedy-wing)-Internet democrat coalition. Barack Obama is not generally known as an "anti-DLC" candidate and has many relatively conservative economic advisors, but looking at his support base and his position on such issues as the capital gains tax it is clear what side of this battle he stands on. The anti-DLC wing seeks to succeed not through adopting neo-con economic policies, but by seeking to unite Americans again and seeking to break down the political barriers that have been established along racial and religous lines. Exemplified by Howard Dean's "50-state strategy" and Obama's campaign theme.

Clinton Momentum --> Deadlocked Convention --> Pres. McCain--> God help us all

Well cnn.com has a great delegate tracking tool here.

What the counter reveals are two things. 1. It is very unlikely for Hillary to overtake Obama in delegates and she will llikely have to convince a huge number of remaining supers to vote for her or take the fight to the convention; which leads to the second point. 2. It is very possible that even with all superdelegates deciding and all contests allocated (minus FL and MI) neither candidate may have sufficient totals. If Clinton's momentum continues, this result becomes more likely. And with Democrats largely deadlocked and some Republicans crossing over (some for strategic reasons), this appears to be the track we're heading down.

This is how difficult it is to unseat a powerhouse within the Democratic Party. Obama needs to do something to fight back in my view. If Clinton's momentum continues, and she wins all remaining contests (NC tie or slight win; same with OR; IN high single digit win and gains about sixty percent of remaining superdelegates, we're going to Denver with neither candidate able to cross the 2025 threshhold. Proof once and for all that Democratic voters are not strategic voters. If they were, Clinton would have lost Texas and Ohio and the race would have been over long ago.

A deadlocked convention is of course the mainstream media's dream come true in the otherwise slow ratings season in August and it appears they are about to have their self-fulfilling prophesy come true. 80% of media coverage on Obama has been negative since Pennsylvania, even if it has surrounded a single subject. CNN just this weekend showed us that it refuses to let the Rev. Wright issue die, making him once again the headline political story.

Yes, this may be the only way Republicans could conceivably win in November and it appears to be happening, however slim the odds were when the primary season started. Clintonites will blame it on the upstart Obama who dared run before his annointed time and dared overtake Queen Hillary in the delegate count. Obamanites (myself included) blame Clinton's dynastic vanity, who could care less if they send the Democrats and the future of our country into oblivion if it means they have a slim chance at continuing the dynasty.

Democratic voters need to wisen up to the delegate math and where this is taking us. It is time to vote strategically as a Republican would and it is too late to coalesce around Clinton without chaos. If not, we have no one but ourselves to blame for sixteen straight years of Republican rule that could do irreversible damage to our country. I personally don't want to raise my daughter in a third-world America.