Indiana Race Part III…IV?

Professor Taylor at PoliBlog links to this story from the Congressional Quarterly which quite scientifically projects what I said last week and earlier this week: Indiana doesn’t matter.

Indiana offers 72 delegates that will be apportioned by the results of the voting. Forty-seven of those 72 are directly related to results in Indiana’s 9 congressional districts. Of those 47, CQ predicts Obama and Clinton will split them right down the freaking middle with Clinton earning 24 and Obama 23. I figure if CQ is wrong by a few thousand votes in every district the result may come back a surprising 24 for Obama and 23 Clinton–a major (MAJOR) upset for the “Comeback Kid” but still close enough for her to drag on her continued presence in this race.

Of the rest CQ says this:

The other 25 pledged delegates at stake — 16 “at-large” delegates and nine party leader and elected officials (PLEOs) — will be distributed in proportion to the statewide vote. The 16 at-large delegates will split 8-8 if the winner takes less than 53.1 percent of the vote. The statewide winner is guaranteed a 5-4 victory among the nine PLEOs; it would require 61.1 percent of the statewide vote for a 6-3 edge.

So the remaining delegates will be apportioned based on statewide totals, and of course, we know that race is close. Two local pollsters have it a deadheat (48/47) and (46/46). Survey USA has Clinton by 9 with Obama closing the gap. (I don’t know if any of those polls were done after Rev. Wright’s most recent ridiculousness and none of them are post-Obama’s speech from yesterday). At any rate I suspect that the statewide delegates will be split basically down the middle with a tiny edge to Clinton.

If she’s lucky she will tighten her 159 delegate deficit by two or three. She will widen her superdelegate lead here by another handful–which still leaves her behind in the popular vote, behind in the delegate vote, and behind in votes overall.

¿Puede Ganar en Indiana el Sr. Obama? [No lo sé.]

This question is so blindingly obvious I can’t believe I hadn’t thought of it on my own yet…nor have our local NPR affiliates. “The Latino vote” has been one of those bizarro story arcs for the whole campaign season and, like most northern states the recent wave of Latino immigration is a story on the tips of every tongue. The combination is the result of a natural fit. Get on it WFYI!

I have been saying that Obama’s populist jibber-jabber should appeal to Latin Americans who are not only accustomed to but seem to like politicians that cater to populist policies. But Clinton, probably because of something her husband did 15 years ago, seems to pull their vote anyway.

But Indiana, as I mentioned a few days ago, is a battleground state, sitting between Clinton-dominated Ohio and Obama-lovin’ Illinois. The demographics of the area show that its about 25% Latino, which should favor Obama getting the Latino vote there since East Chicago, Gary, Whiting, etc in the Lake County region (for those of you who are map-skillz deficient) is the part of the state that borders Chicago…Illinois….Obama’s home state. Their major news outlets are all Chicago-based. The name recognition for Obama in that region is particularly strong.

But if Clinton is able to rally the Latino vote here the same way she’s been able to elsewhere it could significantly undercut Obama’s lead in the delegate-heavy, urban northwest–an area that, without Latinos, would clearly favor him.

This is a particularly relevant threat for him since that region is steel mill-heavy too–if Pennsylvania taught us anything.

Obama should start putting soccer in his “I can play sports” repertoire.

Rev. Wright: Shut Up; Sen. McCain: Keep Talkin’

In-and-out blogging today so I can get back to my for-pay work–both topics meant to annihilate any lingering doubt that I might not be totally in the tank for Democrats in 2008 (It’s sometimes hard for me to forget that I once said good things about Senator Lugar.)

Reverend Wright
Reverent Wright knows better than I do which path will best serve his flock but here’s my opinion: If he really wants to promote social justice, if he really wants to help black people in American society, then helping Obama get elected is certainly as viable a plan–if not more viable–than him finding more ways to publicize his obviously antagonizing views.

Yes, I understand, he wants to antagonize; he wants to speak The Truth to The People–such is his obligation under the doctrine of his church. But part of being a good leader is understanding that there is a good time and a bad time for all things, a season, if you will…I read that somewhere. I’m not asking that he not say “God damn America,” I’m asking that he not say it right now. Is the second week of November just too far away? Honestly, one gets the feeling (and I am that one) that this is less about spreading the doctrine of black liberation theology and a lot more about collecting speaker’s fees–striking while the iron is hot and whatnot. If the love of God on Earth is made visible through the promotion of social justice then Wright will surely burn one day for flexing his vanity and working against the efforts of the larger movement.

The New DNC Anti-McCain ad:
Some thoughtful people have chimed in on McCain’s repeated admission that he doesn’t care if we stay in Iraq “for a 100 years” or “10,000.” To some, it seems that to continue to rag on McCain for his statements is purely and illegitimately to take them out of context. To others, like TPM’s Josh Marshall, these attackers are fully in the right because they are “using the senator’s own words.” The release of the new DNC ad has reignited this debate.

I had hoped to chime in on this myself before someone else made the proper defense but Marshall did it today. Basically it might be true that most of the attacks, to a very minor degree, take McCain’s statements out of context. He did say that he didn’t care if we were in Iraq for a 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 years. But he did not mean that we would be continuing the Iraq War for that long. What McCain meant was that we would occupy Iraq indefinitely under a similar arrangement as we have with Germany or Japan and boatloads of other nations, which, given the nature and success of those arrangements, is hardly a controversial policy.

The problem, as Marshall correctly points out is that:

…there’s little reason to believe our occupation of Iraq will ever be like that. We tried this in Lebanon; the French tried this in Algeria; the British even tried it in Iraq. Western countries have a very poor history garrisoning Muslim countries in the Middle East. Iraq isn’t like Germany or Japan, not simply because of the history of the country but because both countries accepted decades-long US deployments as a counterweight to threatening neighbors. The relevant point is that McCain believes American troops should stay in Iraq permanently. His pipe dream about Iraq turning into Germany doesn’t change that.

That’s the crux here, Iraq will continue to be a deadly experiment in imperialist overreach for years into the future and will likely never transform into anything else. So the fact that McCain really hopes that our 10,000-year occupation is a peaceful one is completely irrelevant. Marshall and I both love this elegant restatement of the point from the New Yorkers‘ Rick Hertzberg:

McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed achieving that goal–that is, the goal of not getting any more Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we’ll stay.

So regardless of whether or not you believe that McCain meant that we would have a 100-year-long war in Iraq or not, his policy will result in one, and thus this ad and all others that accuse McCain of endorsing a 100-year war in Iraq are 100% justifiably and correct. The fact that he has deluded himself into believing that that is not the case makes him more deadly, not less. This is a case where the context hurts McCain rather than helping him. Out of context he is merely calling for 100 years of war with Iraq presumably in an effort to secure the safety of Americans. In context he’s strategically incompetent and dangerously naive about national security matters; and his incompetence and naivete will result in a 100 year long war. Vote for him at the peril of your sons and grandsons (and their kids, and their kids’ kids…at least.)

John McCain: Yesterday’s President of Tomorrow!

OK! One more, real real quick. This John McCain ad is great. Yglesias likes it because it has a headless rockstar and lauds snitchery. I like it for two other reasons:

1. McCain in his Navy button up slightly unbuttoned paints a dashing figure. And
2. those pictures of John McCain in his Pop Warner football duds casts a positively historical light on the candidate. Seriously, was John McCain playing football before they outlawed the Flying V?–because he was clearly playing before they invented things like helmets that protected your head, pads, machine-embroidery.

America: Will your next president be black, white, or sepia-toned?

The Imminent Robot Menace

Okay, another quick “tangentially political” post for today because I just can’t pass this up. For those who don’t seem to know, comics and sci-fi have finally begun taking up prominent positions in the supposedly higher culture. Of course Art Spiegelman’s Maus won the Pulitzer way back in the 90’s and then a few years ago Michael Chabon’s The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay won it too. This year, sci-fi and comic book laden The Brief and Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz won the esteemed prize which in previous years had been reserved in advance solely for John Updike. Umberto Eco’s latest book too is filled with old 4-color newsprint strips (real or fictive, I’m not sure since I only flipped through). This geekward trend is most startling and refreshing in the realm of wonky political discourse. A few years ago James Mann’s book The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet was on everybody’s lips, including on the floor of congress.

Most recently or…soon to be recently…Matthew Yglesias (of The Atlantic) has written and published his first book Heads in the Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats. In that book he uses a few pop cultural comparisons to explain political points, not the least awesome of which is calling the Republican strategic plan in Iraq the “Green Lantern Theory.”

I’ll explain more about that and more when I’m finished with the book and my review of it. But for those who might be reluctant to pick up a book on US foreign policy, here are a few robot-themed blogposts from Ygelsias from the last few days (quoted in full) to prove that he’s a keen insight not just on our present but on our future as well. You would be wise to listen to him and heed his Cassandra-like warnings in most areas–but most importantly his wise-beyond-his-years fear of robot dominance:

From April 10, 2008:

George Borjas, every immigration-restrictionist’s favorite economist, has a post up suggesting we look to Japan where they’re planning to massively scale-up the use of robots as an alternative to the immigration of unskilled labor. That sounds like a great alternative if you don’t care about the interests of immigrants themselves at all and are also willing to overlook the fact that once we become dependent on robot labor they’re going to rebel and enslave us. One really needs to wonder whose side Borjas is on.

From April 9, 2008:

Andrew traces another step in the machines’ inevitable rise to world domination: A computer capable of telling which women are the attractive ones. In conjunction with their three-dimensional printers, the machines will be able to use this technology to create the sexy spies who ultimately lead to our downfall.

And from April 8, 2008:

The robot threat grows more serious, as a New Zealand-based team creates a self-replicating printer. The good news is that it’s only a printer — little capacity to rebel and enslave humanity. Meanwhile, the currently existing military robots daren’t rebel and enslave humanity because they can’t build new robots. But if the battlebots start talking to the self-replicating printers, we’re going to be in a world of pain.

I would be remiss if I didn’t note that partially in honor of Yglesias’ book, Ezra Klein at the The American Prospect blogged the other day on Superman vs. Jack Bauer foreign policy positions and the structural legitimacy Superman and Captain America gained by working within domestic legal institutional frameworks (and how both went on to form United Nations-like superhero organizations that were respected rather than feared despite their collective might).

To think, if I had been more popular in high school I would be almost incapable of understanding contemporary literature or political commentary. Thank goodness for my later-than-normal growth spurt and persistent fascination with multi-faceted dice.

Boycott the Olympics? But What About My Dreams?

It is important to note right off the bat that Clinton did not call for a boycott of the Olympics. Much of the boohooing and jeering from the headline-only-reading blogizens is that Clinton is demanding that Bush take the drastic-yet-worthless move of pulling our athletes from the competition ruining their lives for nothing more than a stern fingerpointing at Hu Jintao. Unless I failed to read the story properly (check for yourself here, but when you check please read more than the misleading headline and read [for godssake] the opening sentence) she has merely stated that she thinks the president should boycott the opening ceremonies.

Many would claim that that this is just a symbolic gesture that doesn’t mean anything and will lead nowhere but to offending our growing trade partner, China..and of course ruining the Olympics (woe upon woe!). Sure, a handshake, a cold shoulder, raising your voice when angry, being late to a meeting discussing irrelevant topics are all symbolic gestures but they do indicate a certain amount of satisfaction or dissatisfaction both to the recipient of that symbol and to those who witness it. That is the stuff of diplomacy. Much of diplomacy has always been about showing up to the right parties, having your name next to the right people at the right time, shunning those that attempt to act outside the system. Diplomacy…as a distinct way of convincing people to do what you want them to do without forcing them to through brute force…is an art that pulls its power from psychology and sociology, as well as rational and intellectual appeals. Furthermore this sort of symbolic communication can be timed for the utmost efficacy.

There’s a lot of money in the Olympics. Perhaps more importantly there is a lot of prestige that comes with being granted the Olympics–prestige that is, in part, related to the Olympics mission: promoting transnational brotherhood through the power of sport. And roll your eyes if you must, but the Olympics have repeatedly proven themselves to be an important venue for stating things of importance. And country’s will go extremely far to protect the glittering image that got them awarded the Olympics to start with.

China, for example has spent billions (billions) preparing for the coming tide of visitors from all all over the world. They have tightened several laws and loosened some others.

For another example, look to Mexico in 1968. Not the black-fisted salute, although that image is important not because it happened, or because it happened at a sporting event, but because it happened at the Olympics. I’m talking about the student protests a few months before the summer Olympics games that were thought to be so embarrassing for the Mexican government that the government arranged to have the protesters massacred. A move that, while horrible and dramatic, did significantly quiet the amount of domestic protest in Mexico during the games. I’m not condoning the massacre of dissidents (what a grandly self-destructive move that would be). I’m citing it as an example of the extremes that governments will go through in an attempt to not sully their reputations at Olympic time. Turns out that student massacres are bad way to not have your reputation sullied but that is neither here nor there at the moment.

After admitting that I’m a reader of Daniel Drezner’s blog, it would probably be wrong of me to not credit him for saying first what I’m about to say. Basically Clinton’s proposal is limited in scope, designed to draw attention to China’s extreme violations of human rights (and its clear vision that there are no such things as human rights) without entering into an all-or-nothing pact that would hurt American businesses, American athletes, or our burgeoning relationship with a major world power that over the last 20 years or so has made significant improvements in the human rights area, to say nothing of their increasing importance in American foreign policy interests like the six-party talks with North Korea.

It is possible, even, as Drezner points out, to make this statement even more important by acting in conjunction with the leader’s of Germany, France, and ideally some developing nations as well. Furthermore, it is possible that Bush could use the threat of a boycott to illicit some immediate concessions from China, specifically on the Darfur front, if Bush can convince France and Germany not to go through with their possible and planned boycotts respectively.

The alternative is to do nothing and that seems to be the consensus of many. That, since we won’t change China overnight with a symbolic boycott of the opening ceremonies we might as well do nothing at all, after all, why risk offending a country that holds so much of our debt and has such strategic value as an ally and trading partner? Well, that recommendation denies how much has diplomacy goes on with China every day. China did not wake up one morning and decide to be America’s trading partner. Nor did America simply wake up one morning and decide to be China’s. That series of agreements was the result of a series of diplomatic tits for tats–China agreeing to certain policy constraints to gain access to America’s markets and America promising to, among other things, cool the hot rhetoric we have historically aimed at China. Basically, the threat of an Olympic boycott is exactly the kind of thing we have done with every reluctant ally-in-waiting. Only the effect of such a move today is amplified because of our trade relations and because of the Olympics.

To do nothing with Hu Jintao still listed as one of the top 20 human rights violators is really to condone that activity. There is no two ways about it. That is not to say that a boycott of the opening ceremonies is the only way to make a statement, there are plenty of things that can be done, and likely will be, but an opening ceremony boycott would not be the knife in China’s the back as many would like to paint it…nor would it destroy the dreams of our hard-working athletes or ruin the Olympics. As a matter of fact, I would think that a lot of the athletes participating in this year’s games are just as distraught as some of those recommending a boycott–although conflicting personal and professional interests will keep them from saying so for the moment. An acknowledgment from the president that America will participate in the games in a spirit of brotherhood through sportsmanship but does not condone the ruthlessness of the PRC might help alleviate some of the guilt that they are feeling for participating in such a grand money-making event for the Chinese dictatorship.

Greenwald v Drezner

I was going to write about this story from yesterday’s NY Times which describes the sad fate of the Sabal Palm Audubon Center which, thanks to a completely backward, short-sighted, and ultimately futile public policy will find its way to the other side of the new fence being erected along the US’s southern border. Mostly what I want to point out is that this such a pure case of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face that I almost can’t put it into words. What is the fence supposed to do? Stop illegal immigrants. Why? Because illegal immigrants are a drain on our resources and dilute the labor pool thereby lowering wages–the combined effect of which lowers our quality of life. So, to defend against this lowering of living standards it seems reasonable, somehow, to wall Americans away from a gorgeous nature preserve that exists, at least in part, to raise the quality of life of those that live near enough to enjoy it.

Furthermore, America’s inability to halt illegal immigration is falsely believed to be an infringement on its sovereignty. Well, what better way to get a handle on your sovereignty that to essentially cede your country to another country? I mean, after all, if there’s no America to immigrate to, we win! Right?

But instead I want to jump in on a little cross-blogging warfare that cropped up yesterday between two bloggers I respect immensely, Glenn Greenwald at Salon (dot com) and Tufts University professor, Daniel Drezner at his personal blog. I want to jump in not because either Greenwald or Drezner need me to defend them but because I tried to comment on Drezner’s blog yesterday and I got a weird 404 Error and if I don’t tell it to someone I might just combust.

Basically yesterday Greenwald published this where he lists various NEXIS search results that, to him, indicate that the mainstream press is more interested in covering Obama’s bowling record than the fact that John Yoo’s legal “opinion” that the president is king of America and that torture is fine and dandy became effectively US law.

In response, Daniel Drezner wrote this where he critiques Greenwald’s methodology on a variety of points and concludes that

“Greenwald might be a good blogger/columnist, but he’s not that great at social science.”

Ouch.

Apparently Megan McArdle at The Atlantic (dot com) also chimed in but I don’t care because I didn’t read her article and Greenwald (among others) is pretty good at successfully ripping her arguments to tiny little pieces. Those two spawned this response from Greenwald today.

Basically Drezner and Greenwald are talking past one another here. Drezner (rightfully) critiques Greenwald’s methodology while not addressing the more salient point of whether or not the press is overly concerned with Lewinksy rumors and under concerned with vital policy considerations at the national level. Meanwhile Greenwald chalks up Drezner’s critique of methodology as defense for an indefensible press corps.

I’m not a social scientist but I can generally see bad social science when it occurs. And Greenwald’s is clearly flawed, not just for the reasons that Drezner, which are three:

1. the news cycle hasn’t played out for all the stories yet,
2. the press runs more stories when the participants make comments on them and
3. the press (and the country) are more concerned with America’s future not it’s past.

To flush out point 1, Greenwald begins his post with the fact that “in the past two weeks” several very important stories have broken and among them are Mukasey’s slip up that the Bush team failed to listen to a phone call that might have prevented 9/11¹ and the John Yoo memo. He then does a NEXIS search going back thirty days and because “Clinton and Lewinsky” gets 1,079 hits and “Yoo and torture” only gets 102 he determines that the MSM is horrible.

Let’s just start here, the MSM is horrible, but why (why oh why) if these exciting and important stories only date back 14 days, would you search back 30? Should the press have been reporting on the Mukasey/ 9-11 slip up before he made it? So “Obama and Wright” gets thirty days of hits while “Yoo and Fourth Amendment” only gets 14? Of course the numbers aren’t going match up, but they also aren’t going to give you an accurate picture of what’s going on.

And “Clinton and Lewinsky,” is a particularly misleading search² because there are at least three different stories there

1. The famous one starring the ex-president and his intern
2. the new rumors about the ex-president’s wife and the intern and
3. the shenanigans starring the ex-president’s daughter being asked about the intern.

I think that Greenwald does a pretty good job reducing Drezner’s other arguments: 2) That the press reports more on stories that those involved comment on: e.g., Obama did not give a bowling press conference and it still got 1,043 hits³while John Yoo has talked about his role in the White House and the two Yoo searches combined only yielded 118 hits; and 3) that the press is more concerned with the nation’s future and not its past.⁴

A better comparison would chart the daily hits for each story as it played out across their news cycles. The Wright story for example played out over several weeks with peaks when the story broke and again when Obama gave his widely covered speech in response. “Obama and Wright” is turning up at least two stories over the entire 30 days. Furthermore, “Obama and patriotism” (1,607 hits) is likely turning up many of the same stories since the crucial moment of Wright’s sermon was his “God damn, America” line. So the question is, when the press is covering a story to at their fullest, how much did they cover it–not how much did they cover it since some arbitrary date in the past.

In any case, even with better methodology I think Greenwald would still be able to prove his point. The numbers are so far apart that it is fairly clear that if one were to measure them in the way I suggest the petty stories are still going to come out the clear coverage winners. And there is no reason that “Obama and bowling” should be getting over 1,000 hits. It simply doesn’t matter at all. Or, if “Obama and bowling” is going to get over 1000 hits then “Yoo and torture” should be as well. It’s a more important story. And so, while Drezner may be accurate in his charge that Greenwald could have done a better analysis, it does not follow necessarily follow that Greenwald’s conclusion is false.

Greenwald, for his part, is here a victim of the same poor thinking he so often (rightfully) points out in others. He is forever defending his comments from attacks. I honestly couldn’t begin counting the number of times he has felt compelled to add an update or a new post that says something to the effect of “Just because I defended X in this instance doesn’t mean I support X for president or think that X’s party is handling this situation appropriately. I just meant what I said, that X is being reasonable and taking the right approach.”

Drezner is right, at least on point 1, that Greenwald’s methodology was poor. Drezner could have, as I did, point out more ways that Greenwald’s methodology was poor. Even if Drezner’s analysis itself was incorrect on points 2 and 3, a critique of Greewald’s social science does not amount to a defense of the press. It is simply what Drezner said it was, a critique of Greenwald’s approach. And Greenwald should know that.

1. They didn’t; Mukasey is just a liar and a fear-monger

2. And I know Greenwald knows it because he’s mentioned all three of them on his blog

3. “Obama and Wright” to prove Drezner’s point got over 3,000…although I repeat, the counting was unfair. The Wright story is getting two more weeks of NEXIS hits than the bowling story and is arguably more important.

4. Even though the president who wanted that Yoo memo is still in office and the country is poised to elect a guy who is unlikely to roll back the “president is king” part of the opinion even if he rebukes the “torture is good” part.

The Head-to-Head: Dems 1 and 2 vs. Citizen McCain

Survey USA has done the head-to-head match-ups for November: Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain. As can be seen by their handy graphic to the left there, either Obama or Clinton will beat McCain and by roughly the same amount of electoral votes.

A few things should be pointed out however. First of all, the sample size is incredibly small. Just 600 people per state. Also, a lot can happen between now and November. Some things will happen that will be good for Republicans…like a war in Iran, or Democrats’ continued failure to pass anything meaningful in Congress (or, more likely, they might actually stand up to Bush from time-to-time but as a consequence get knocked down for making the country vulnerable to terrorists). Some things will be good for Democrats like…constantly reminding everyone that McCain thinks it’s a good idea to commit to being in Iraq for the next 100 years. I mean, I know what it is he (probably) means, but I don’t think it makes a good sound byte.

Also, I think in both instances above there are some pretty big Ifs. For example, Clinton wins Florida, presumably on her strengths with Hispanics; and, Obama wins Michigan, presumably on his tough anti-Nafta talk and appeal amongst African-Americans…or something; but both lose the other. However, unless something happens between now and then regarding the seating of delegates from those states, there’s a good chance that Democrats disenfranchised now will be uninspired to go to the polls. If Democratic numbers are tenuous enough in those regions that merely switching from one Dem to the other causes a loss or gain, then I don’t think that either candidate has a strong chance in either state.

There’s a similar weakness in fundamental sentiment in each of the other states that one, but not the other Dem wins: West Virginia, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Arkansas, etc. By Survey USA’s accounting nearly 20% of states are swing states this time around. I am no stranger to the “Purple America” theory, but it seems that if we’re as purple as people say we are; and if there’s enough Republican backlash right now, then wherever Clinton wins, Obama wins and vice versa. I can see a handful of states where that wouldn’t be true. Clinton wins Arkansas, for example, and Obama loses. Obama wins Washington where Clinton loses–but that’s just based on Clinton’s homefield advantage in AR and Obama’s appeal to the Washington demographic.

The closeness of the primaries alone should lead one to suspect that the race won’t have as much discrepancy between the two options as presented here. But what do I know?

Oh Yeah!

And McCain locked it up Tuesday night. But you saw that coming.

TX, OH, RI, VT: A Sloppy Autopsy

The largest margin of the night was Vermont where (with 90% reporting) Obama walked away with 60% and 38% went to Clinton. It’s hard to think of Vermont as mattering most but in a race to collect delegates it’s not “winning” the state that matters, it’s “winning by a lot.” The larger the margin the more net delegates each candidate wins from that state. Vermont (so far) places delegates 9 to 6 for Obama (a net of +3)*.

But it’s OK, I’m not here to buck all your conventional wisdom. Most said Ohio would be an important state and it is…way more important than Vermont. The difference there (with 99% reporting) is a sizable 10% (54% to 44%-Clinton). Assigned delegates are 62 for Clinton and 46 to Obama. (A net loss for Obama, -16)

I feel compelled to note here too that this is startling in some ways. Most polls two weeks ago predicted this Clinton win by this margin. As of yesterday most polls showed Obama having tightened the race considerably. And many very educated commentators noted that Obama tends to outperform the polls, especially in states where he experienced last minute surges. Here, Obama underperformed his last minutes surge by a significant margin and with that underperformance lost his best way to pressure Clinton out of the race.

The second largest margin in last night’s races was Rhode Island (a staggering 18 point difference in Clinton’s favor). Delegates went 12 to 8 for Clinton (A net loss for Obama, again, -4) (er…with 98% reporting).

If you care, follow that link to Talking Points Memo which breaks down the delegates better than I do here. But he basically reports that VT and RI cancel each other out…which you can also see in the CNN numbers here. But the video linked above has a more favorable-to-Obama take on OH and TX than I offer here and Josh Marshall’s accompanying post mentions why something as cut-and-dry as “winners win” is more complicated win it comes to delegates…something I’ve mentioned here too.

Lovely Texas has, I think, the most convoluted process of all. Some states have primaries, some states have caucuses. Texas (and a few others, like Washington) have both. Some states, to make up for slimmer voting options, add a messy delegate apportionment system…like California. Texas, despite already being complicated..also has a complicated delegate apportionment system. Neat!

Nevertheless, with 99% of primaries voting, Clinton is on top with a narrow 3-point lead (51/48). Only 36% of caucuses are reporting and Obama is (so far) scraping out a narrow 4-point win. Of course, that could change with the remaining 64% of uncounted votes. There are less caucus voters than primary voters so it looks like Clinton will “take Texas” too. Texas delegates (again, so far) are going 16/10 to Clinton, a net Obama loss of -6.

So far Obama is 23 votes less ahead than he was yesterday. That number won’t change much between now and 100% of all votes counted everywhere. Even if Obama maintain his narrow lead in the Texas caucus, he’ll only clip Clinton’s gains by a couple of delegates.

Overall this was a big win for Clinton. Obama walks away with tiny Vermont and Clinton takes the rest, including her “firewall” states, Ohio and Texas. Which means…Rush Limbaugh wins! The race will continue with neither Obama (still ahead) nor Clinton (the new, new Comeback Kid) dropping out.

The most important thing to come out of last night was not these delegate numbers. Clinton is clearly unwilling to drop out of this race and she has been looking for any opportunity to lay claim to something like viability. She bet hard on wins in Ohio and Texas and she pulled them out. Even if she lost the delegates in those states, she would have used popular vote totals to encourage a new round of donations and stay in.

So while CNN may be overestimating the size of Clinton’s win last night (+23) I don’t think it much matters. What was important for her is that she could prove that she could overcome the odds against Obama’s momentum and prove that she could still get voters to vote for her.

In the two weeks leading up to last night’s contests she benefited from SNL and Daily Show appearances while Obama has been hit by a series of smear campaigns 1) that he’s a secret Muslim, supported by a Clinton-released picture of Obama in Somali elder gear (complete with turban) 2) that he secretly contacted the Canadian prime minister to alert him that he would be lying about his Nafta policy to get elected and that 3) his wife hates America. The Rezko and Weather Underground “connections” are just starting to get legs and will probably gain dominance as the other stories drop out.

I’m not commenting on whether or not this is “fair” or “nice” because that doesn’t matter. I’m just saying that Clinton had a good couple of weeks and Obama had a bad couple. The numbers in the polls essentially reversed what we saw in the Piedmont primaries with Clinton last night earning the better part of the 60/40 split.

If it proves anything, it proves that Obama isn’t invulnerable and it proves that the voters haven’t moved to him on matters of policy but on superficial matters of appearance and personality–which is the largest part of what this election, and all the most recent elections, have been about.

This is no doubt an encouragement to the Clinton campaign which seemed more-or-less directionless in the four weeks since Tsunami Tuesday.

*All numbers courtesy of CNN.