 |
The Momentum Question |
 |
I have long argued that the primary seems to be more about delegate counts than momentum:
With both campaigns digging in for the long haul and the media switching its focus to delegate counts, wins in South Carolina and Florida will mean less. Super Tuesday may easily even out the counts, keeping the primary alive well into the spring.
So far, it seems this has come to pass. According to MyDD’s delegate counter, Obama is leading Clinton by 3 delegates (or Clinton is leading Obama by about 70 delegates if you count MI and FL). The margins are extremely tight, the polls remain close, and because of the way delegates are given out, it is unlikely we’ll see anyone reach that 2000-odd delegate threshold needed to tie up the nomination before the convention.
This, to me, means momentum doesn’t exist in this race. In private discussions, Alex Thurston disagrees.
To paraphrase a discussion we’ve been having for about two weeks now, he feels you can’t count out the power of media narratives and individual emotions just yet. To reduce the primary down to a discussion of numbers, polls, and proportionally apportioned delegates unnecessarily takes the human equation out of the picture. Even though Barack Obama may not tie up the nomination definitively, if he keeps racking up wins in the primaries - no matter how slim those wins are - they could affect later races and eventually power him to the nomination. Additionally, the combination of high-profile endorsements for Obama and a string of primary victories could create strong pressure for Clinton to drop out before the convention.
I disagree. To me, the term momentum has a very specific definition. A candidate can only be considered to have momentum if they either a) rack up a series of wins that puts them over the 2000-odd delegate threshold or b) win so conclusively without getting 2000-odd delegates that the other candidates in the race drop out. Because neither seems likely to happen - as discussed above, a mathematical win seems highly unlikely given the polling and Clinton doesn’t seem like the type to drop out given these margins - I argue that momentum simply doesn’t exist in this race. At this point, I only see two ways the primary ends before the convention: a) One candidate offers the other a deal, or b) someone runs out of money.
In discussions with Alex, I have conceded that perhaps I’m being too harsh. If Barack wins a state by 1%, that still is a victory, and it still does contribute to a national feeling of momentum. So, I’ll to say that while momentum may exist, it doesn’t matter that it exists. (How’s that for semantics?)
I’m prepared to eat my words, however. If Obama keeps winning states, and if he wins them by decent margins, you just might see the momentum needed to force the issue before we all get to Denver. With his tight lead in Wisconsin and close race in Texas, anything can happen. And if super delegates keep moving from Clinton to Obama, well…
Still, nationally, it’s clear Democrats are a party divided. Clinton would have to be a fool of a politician to drop out when she still had half of of Democrats lined up behind her, no matter if she’s winning primaries or not. As long as those numbers hold, I’ll stand by my “no momentum” theory.
Feel free to take sides in this little debate. Does momentum exist? If it does, does it even matter?
(cross posted at MyDD)
Jason: I disagree with your definition of political momentum. You seem to be defining momentum as final victory, or near final victory. Momentum is about whether your victories build on each other so that piling up these wins gives you better odds in future contests. By this account, Barack Obama definitely has momentum. Obama’s margins since Super Tuesday have been more than impressive: Louisiana — Obama 57%, Clinton 36%; Nebraska — Obama 68%, Clinton 32%; Washington — Obama 68%, Clinton 31%; Maine — Obama 59%, Clinton 40%; Maryland — Obama 60%, Clinton 37%; Virginia — Obama 64%, Clinton 35%; and DC — Obama 75%, Clinton 24%. These are not mere victories, but a show of support that was not imagined before Super Duper Tuesday, nor expected to be quite that wide afterwards. It seems clear that the more Obama has been winning, the more impressive successive wins have become, in part due to the previous wins. THAT is momentum.
Now there is a separate question raised by your post. Considering the way delegate counts work, does this momentum matter? And the answer is, of course. Because of the momentum that Obama has had he has pulled ahead of Clinton in the overall delegate count even counting Superdelegate endorsements (I must admit I am suspect as to how MyDD counts delegates as it is out of line with every other count I’ve seen). If he was not winning by these margins, he would have fewer delegates, and two things would not have happened; 1) He wouldn’t get the aura of frontrunner which makes him look like a winner, making voters believe that not only can he win the nomination, but that he can win in November, leading to 2) Because of this momentum, there has basically been a stall on Superdelegate endorsements. While Obama has gotten a few Superdelegate pledges since Feb. 5th, we could easily imagine a few Clinton victories since then would have encouraged many Superdelegates, many of whom probably have sympathies to the Clintons, to announce their support of Hillary. But because of the number and margins of Oabama’s victories, the powers that be (Pelosi, Reid) are encouraging the Supers to lay off endorsements until after most of the primary process has taken place. This has given Obama the benefit of not only attaining, but holding his delegate lead — something that very well may not have happened without his momentum.
So yes, Jason, there is momentum, Obama has it, and it matters.
I admit my definition is a bit odd, basically because you can’t decide if a candidate has momentum until he or she has sewn up the nomination, because in my mind, momentum only matters if it causes the win.
So while Obama has been racking up wins, he hasn’t really been racking up delegates. Even the most generous counts put him ahead by one about 100 delegates, which is about 5% of the total given out so far. A lead, yes, but in my mind, not enough to cause Clinton to drop out.
Now, even though Clinton isn’t dropping out, does this momentum matter? Alex and you would say yes. Personally, I’m not so sure. I don’t see the media narrative as being as powerful this year, and though Obama is running strong, I still see about half of Democrats behind Clinton. Again, given my odd definition, we won’t really be able to decide this until after it’s all over. And as I said, I’m willing to eat my words. But my speculation says momentum isn’t there yet.
Perhaps because ‘momentum’ does look to capture the ‘human’ aspects of the equation, we need to measure it in terms other than margins of victory, etc. Momentum can lead toward an ultimate goal that is bigger than Obama the man and more important than party politics. By creating the enthusiasm he has thus far, Obama has already brought a number of issues to the table that would not have been challenged or questioned otherwise. Whether raising these questions now will ultimately lead to his victory in November is debatable, but in the long run, I will argue that even if Obama does not have the momentum needed to carry him to the White House, he has created momentum that will have a lasting impact on the way politics are conducted in America.
Unfortunately, now that there is a front-runner for the Republican nomination, elephantine tactics aimed at winning the general election (i.e., by letting a politically predictable and therefore easy to beat Democratic candidate win the primary) may make it hard to judge that momentum…
Or… Or, you could all save some breath and just come put a bullet in my head straight away. Am I alone in being completely disgusted by these conversations, in and of themselves? When someone manages to squeeze this crap through my filters, and I have to temporarily live in a version of reality where fully formed adult human beings vote, not for whom they actually support, but first and foremost, for who they believe can win… Well, I die a little bit inside each time.
I know it’s true; that (most) people will vote for a ‘winner’ before they will an honest, thoughtful, forward thinking, straight-talking, representative. I know you’re right. But I simply cannot face this truth as it exists. It’s too much for me to bear.
So, if it’s not too much trouble, save me the agony of this slow, bitter, hateful descent into that inevitable end of death-by-realism, and just shoot me in the head. I think it’s the only moral thing to do.
SUNSHINE, LOLLIPOPS, and SMILES everyone!
Blame it on the electoral system. Single member plurality virtually guarantees we all vote for the best of the worst every 4 years.
I’m getting negative again. Forgive me. I might need to pluck out my eyes. Looking makes me bitter, but I can’t stop these retinas from their draw.