The Phoenix Network:
 
 
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
 
Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  This Just In

Going the distance

With two major contests over and done, the nomination process is coming into clearer focus. Who’ll be the last person standing?
By STEVEN STARK  |  January 9, 2008

080111_tote_main

So far the media storyline on Campaign 2008 is how extraordinary this year’s race has been, with the process dominated by upsets and a renewed call for change.

But as we all know after Tuesday night in New Hampshire, the press was mostly spinning itself.

In fact, so far, 2008 looks like a somewhat conventional year. It’s not unusual, on the Democratic side, for an insurgent, outsider candidate to challenge the establishment front-runner — as Bradley did Gore, Hart did Mondale, and McGovern did Muskie. It’s only when there is no establishment front-runner that the process changes, as it did in 2004, 1992, and 1988.

For the record, the renegade usually does quite well in an early state or two. Sometimes he even goes on to win the nomination — but sometimes he doesn’t.

As for the GOP, the usual rule is that the person at the top of the public-opinion polls a year before the primary voting begins goes on to win the nomination. Well, guess who was leading those polls a year ago?

John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, in a virtual tie. It still doesn’t look like a terrible bet that the Republican race will come down to those two. And, even if Mike Huckabee makes a run, there are historical antecedents for that, too — going back to the Goldwater–Rockefeller contest in 1964.

None of this means, of course, that the race will be predictable from here on out. Here are the political questions likely to dominate the campaign over the next few weeks.

DEMOCRATS
1) IS HILLARY CLINTON IN DECENT SHAPE, EVEN IF SHE LOSES SOUTH CAROLINA ON THE 26TH?

Yes. Even with a stuttering start, guess who will be the delegate leader at the end of January?

Clinton.

That’s because only a handful of delegates are chosen this month — and Clinton is doing better than Obama among the super-delegate dignitaries that gain automatic admission to the convention and comprise almost 20 percent of the delegate total. February is when the selection of the convention nominee really begins.

As well as he’s doing so far — and despite his surprise loss in New Hampshire, he’s still off to a formidable start — Obama’s problem is that Democrats’ delegates are decided proportionally, by congressional district. That means that even if a candidate loses a state by 60–40 percent, he or she still gets 40 percent of the delegates in the primary. If the split is 55–45 percent, sometimes the rules end up splitting the delegate count 50–50.

So both front-runners can keep the delegate count close, even while finishing second in a number of states. But if the race stays tight, as analysts such as Jay Cost have noted, Clinton has a built-in advantage — due to those super-delegates who are far more likely to support the “establishment” candidate, which is, of course, her. In other words, to win, Obama has to defeat Clinton decisively. A protracted give-and-take primary campaign will likely hand the nomination to Clinton.

2) IS EDWARDS FINISHED?
Sadly, yes, unless he can somehow find a way to win the South Carolina primary. He won it in ’04 — but that was against a far less formidable field. Without a victory in January, his money will dry up and he won’t get enough votes on February 5 to continue credibly, no matter whether he formally stays in or not.

1  |  2  |   next >
Related: See spot run, The shape of things to come, The Final Five, More more >
  Topics: Stark Ravings , Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Elections and Voting,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article
Comments
Going the distance
Steven - I think, over time, you have been the most astute observer of the political scene. However, today, I think you are somewhat too wedded to "conventional wisdom" in describing the Democratic race. Yes, recent experience would indicate that the "outsider/insurgent" candidate would fade over time. But this time, the "outsider/insurgent" candidate (Obama) is funded as well or better than the "establishment" candidate (Clinton). Also, he has as good or better advisers and organization (as recently as Monday) the Clinton team was literally imploding). (And I'll take David Axelrod over Mark Penn any day.) How many times has an "insurgent" had the street smarts, toughness, and money power of the Chicago Democratic organization behind him - fully the equal of Clinton's New York/Washington folks. Plus, in a raw political sense, the "insurgent" is just a better candidate. I'm not at all suggesting Monday's "tears" were contrived, but however they happened, that's a one-time fluke that won't/can't happen again. Plus, I think Obama is going to morph - to some extent - into the "establishment" candidate himself. There are credible reports that a number of U.S. Senators are about to endorse him. John Kerry did today. Plus, when Edwards drops out, as he must, unlike your feeling, I think the overwhelming majority of his support will go to Obama. Edwards said it himself Saturday night...he and Barack are the candidates of "change", Hillary is the candidate of the "status quo". Finally - and this is a gut feel on my part - I think there's a huge shoe waiting to drop. I think - at some point before Feb. 5th - Al Gore will endorse Obama. Gore jumped in too early in 2004 with Howard Dean, but I think he'll jump in when the time is right in 2008, when it can really make a difference. And there's no love lost between him and the Clintons. Bottom line, I think it's still a horse race, but I think you're selling Obama's chances short. You're saying Hillary is 1-2, and Obama is 2-1. I'd take that bet. Enjoy your writings! Keep up the good work.
By Vic in Chicago on 01/10/2008 at 2:29:30
Going the distance
Vic, you hit it right on the head. He is like a robot of corporate media sellouts. He's terrible, he had RON PAUL at 1,000,000 to 1 odds. I wanted to book the bet and put real money down. Never heard from him. This whole column, typical phoney baloney talk about the boring horse race without having a clue what real people care about or any real talk of what makes the candidates worth voting for or not. As if we don't get enough of this crap on the corporate news tv. The Phoenix could do much better. It's to bad, I've stopped picking up their free paper. It's convenient but just not readable. Next to no coverage of Ron Paul. And he is one of the top candidates with the Phoenix demographic, which has to make one wonder. It's to bad, The Phoenix used to be readable and at least tried to pretend to cater to their audience. I still like some of the music stories but Stark makes me avoid it every thursday, I say no thanks. I guess they don't care about anybody but Obama and Hillary lovers. I'll never ignore corruption and vote for crooks. And I am not alone. Ron Paul did get 9% of the vote and spent less money than all but Huckabee. He still has the money in the bank. I'd love to see Steve talk about my demo, you know the ones that are pissed off progressives that know Hillary and Bill took bribes to give coke dealers Presidential Pardons. That we know that Bill takes money from foreign governments enemies of the USA. That Barack Obama with Rudy, McCain, Huckabee Hillary are all on the non partisan, corporate corruption list for being the most corrupt pols of the year. Funny how that info never becomes conventional wisdom when hacks like Tony Stark run the media. But that's not his thing, he just re-hashes corporate talking point horse race BS. Boring and tired. And he's not even good at that. Because my odds 6 months ago look much better now? I called that Ron Paul should be at 20 to 1. He had him at 1,000,000 to 1. Put down a hundred which I offered and the payout if he wins would have been 100,000,000? His odds have changed. Still out of whack for RON PAUL but who was right little old me or Tony Stark? I wonder is Tony on the payroll of another candidate? Anybody know his history?
By Mike C on 01/13/2008 at 4:04:59
Going the distance
What makes or breaks the leader of the free world is their ability to negotiate. This takes Obama's natural diplomatic gifts and flair for thinking critically about world affairs. It is to do it an injustice to equate it with the kind of craven, pusillanimous brand of compromise we can expect from Hillary Clinton.
By gordon on 01/16/2008 at 5:00:49
Going the distance
Hillary Clinton realizes that for her the time is now or never. For Obama it may be now, four years from now, or eight years. His time is destined to come. What Clinton won't admit is that the presidency is not an opportunity for personal fulfillment. You can't just do it because you want to. You must be good for the nation.
By gordon on 01/16/2008 at 6:15:00

ARTICLES BY STEVEN STARK
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   HAS OBAMA PEAKED? YES, HE HAS  |  November 12, 2009
    To listen to some pundits, Barack Obama's public image began taking a serious beating when the off-year election returns came in a week ago. Or maybe it was the undeserved Nobel Prize, his approach to the war in Afghanistan, or when he revved up his pursuit of national health-care reform.
  •   MEN PLUS MONEY EQUALS MESS  |  May 14, 2009
    Since Iceland is something of the epicenter of the global financial crisis — its government being the first to essentially go belly up — it's probably not surprising that the Icelanders have come up with the most novel and interesting theory as to what caused the meltdown. And they may be right.
  •   ARLEN THE FAMILY  |  May 11, 2009
    So, Arlen Specter is now a Democrat. That's old news.
  •   SPARE CHANGE?  |  April 28, 2009
    A tension lies at the heart of the Obama presidency. After 100 days in office, the public still seems uncertain how to interpret the historic nature of the election last November.
  •   COURTHOUSE MARRIAGE  |  April 21, 2009
    While political analysts understandably regard elections and politicians as the key forces of social change, nongovernmental forces are the ones that most often actually influence and transform our culture.

 See all articles by: STEVEN STARK

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2009 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group