I can think of a lot of situations in which the old saying which I have taken for the title of this essay would be wildly incorrect. Even in the subject area I'm going to pursue today there would be plenty of examples where "never" was way better than "late." Anyone care for a warmed-over analysis of how we got into a war in Iraq? I didn't think so.
On Tuesday, March 4, Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primaries in Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont, while Barack Obama won only the contest in Vermont. There was immense coverage of this election on Tuesday night, and it continued to be the topic of conversation for the chattering classes through Washington Week in Review Friday night. Unless something really wild happens, Senator Clinton's trifecta will continue to be the hot topic until the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.
So I'm probably not late with this comment on the matter. I'm just coming to the table with my opinion after having given it due thought and deliberate consideration.
The Washington Post characterized Senator Clinton's big wins as "critical." I don't think that's a reasonable adjective here, because a) there was no crisis to resolve, b) Tuesday's results didn't resolve any major question about the Democratic nomination, and c) none of the other outcomes Tuesday were likely to have resolved those questions, either.
First, where's the crisis? There has been, since the doors opened to Iowa caucusgoers, a steady pattern of victories for Obama in caucuses in small states. He has also won some primaries, again largely in small states. Clinton, on the other hand, has done better in big states, and she did so again in Texas and Ohio. As a result of this pattern, each candidate has a respectable number of pledged delegates, but neither has anywhere near the 2,025 or so needed to gain the nomination. So March 4 was an example of a continuing trend, not a sudden reversal, and not a decisive acceleration of one candidate's progress toward Denver. Nor, as I understand it, could either senator have gained enough delegates to close the deal.
Second, even though Clinton won on Tuesday, Obama picked up almost as many delegates as she did. She closed up with him a little bit, but she didn't pass him. Neither Clinton nor Obama was eliminated from contention, and neither was sufficiently discouraged to withdraw. There were no great revelations of character or qualifications that caused a halo suddenly to appear over the head of one candidate or the other. No one made any great breakthrough on any major policy question. No constituency group turned from one candidate to the other. In fact, in Ohio and Texas, both candidates were largely dependent upon their core constituencies. It looks as if both will continue to dance with the one who brought them.
Third, even on extreme assumptions, Tuesday could not have settled the nomination. Even if Clinton or Obama had won every single delegate, that would have been insufficient to nail down the required number of delegates or to checkmate the opposing player.
In fact, the situation after March 4 is pretty much identical to the situation before March 4. Each candidate has a lot of delegates. Neither candidate has enough to win. Neither candidate is discouraged, and donors continue to rain money onto both candidates. There has been no crisis yet, and the fevers are likely to continue to rise until the opposing sides meet in the Denver Convention Center. This summer we may see the first seriously contested nominating convention since 1924.
Glenn A Knight
In my study
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi Glenn ... Better later and later is my opinion, in terms of strategy. The media press to "resolve" the Clinton/Obama decision was due to the story becoming "old" (attention span is max 3 weeks), and wanting to move personnel/resources to other features. Best advice for Democrats is, I think, to continue indecision and tabloid material as long as possible, thereby occupying shelf space, ie not available to McCain (stale goods now, no big interest). If possible to extend indecision beyond the convention, that is even better - eg if run Clinton/Obama ticket, eitherwhichway, can continue to get majority share of coverage pipe, speculations on who thinks what about whom, relations between the two, etc etc. Ken R.
I agree that there's no crisis; for the Democrats, it's just a mess, in that they won't be able to put on a scripted campaign kickoff show during their convention. Rather, they'll actually have to select their candidate. It's very likely to be quite a spectacle, with much arm-flapping, running in circles, and shouting at the sky.
Maybe literally. Given today's scorched-earth, no prisoners style of public discourse, whichever side loses out will claim to have been robbed by some sinister cabal bent on thwarting the true will of the people. That will not bode well for the Democrats as they campaign against McCain. They could well snatch defeat from the very jaws of victory once again by tearing themselves to bits during and after the convention.
One interesting thing to me is the difference between the respective candidates' victories. Obama has won the majority of the caucus states, while Clinton has won the majority of the primary states. There is one state that uniquely had both: Washington.
A state initiative a number of years ago mandated a presidential primary. However, subsequent court decisions allow the parties to ignore it. This year, the Republicans decided to allocate half of their delegates in the caucuses and half in the primary, while the Democrats decided to ignore the primary and allocate all of their delegates in the caucuses.
In the caucuses, Obama's forces crushed Clinton about 65% to 35%, winning every county in the process. However, in the primary election, Obama won by only a percentage point or two.
Why? There are two distinct kinds of voters: The activists (and newly activated, so to speak) flocked to the caucuses and mastered their somewhat arcane processes. The "regular" people filled out their ballots at their leisure and mailed them in.
This could mean something important for the general election. Those activists-- particularly the newly activated-- are more volatile than the "regular" voters. Will they remain committed and turn out to vote in November? It's is something to consider.
It's also worth considering that there seem to be two kinds of Republican voters, too. In Washington's caucuses, McCain beat Huckabee by only a percentage point or two. However, in the primary, McCain smashed Huckabee about 60% to 30%. Again, the activists and the "regular" voters saw things very differently.
Lloyd's comments are very sharp, as usual. I do need to pick one nit: Washington is not unique in having both primaries and caucuses. Texas has a system in which a percentage of the delegates are chosen in primaries, and the remainder are selected in caucuses. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton claimed victory in Texas on the basis of her win in the Democratic primary. I am not sure of the final outcome, but I have seen some assertions that Obama won Texas, in that he took enough delegates in the caucuses to wipe out Clinton's lead from the primary.
One difference between primaries and caucuses is the sheer number of participants. As all the commentators have noted, turnout is much higher this year than in past primary seasons. Obama has been able to mobilize enough supporters to raise the relatively small numbers needed to carry caucuses. Primaries tend to draw many more people - as Lloyd notes, the threshold of effort is lower - so Clinton's access to the organizational help of party machines and labor unions has given her an advantage.
Post a Comment