Deficit Campaigning

As of tonight, Hillary Clinton is deficit campaigning. The pendulum has now officially swung; the numbers are now officially on Barack Obama's side.

• The Popular Vote: Obama is in the lead. Even Hillary Clinton's 400,000 vote lead from Michigan and Florida (itself unfair because those state elections donn't really count) was wiped out by today's DC-VA-MD primaries.


• The Total Delegates (elected by voters and 'superdelegates'): Obama has 1,306, Clinton has 1,270 (MSNBC Projections). This sudden 36 delegate difference is significant.
  
• The States: Hillary has won 10 states, Obama has won 21 states plus a certain district (of Columbia, that is)
  
• The Margin: Barack got a huge one over Hillary in DC, MD and VA. And Obama won on every issue and in every demographic vote.
  
• The 'Mo': With eight wins in a row over the last four days, Obama clearly has the momentum, and is now moving toward front-runner status.

According to New York Times frontpage reporting today, Clinton campaign insiders are saying that they would have to win by 60% or more in Texas and Ohio to get back on top of the delegate counts.

Election Watching Geek Tip: For those trying to figure out the delegate count and get a clear overview of the election and its nuances, Chuck Todd is God (MSNBC). John King of CNN just can't compare.

P.S. Jeranimo, you better be reading this. I dedicate this one to you!

P.P.S. Many thanks to Melissa for the updates throughout the day from the DC primary.

Delegating Authority?

Watching the Sunday talkshows this morning, I eagerly freeze the screen (thank goodness for the DVR function that my girlfriend pays for), to jot down some key election data that is hard to come by:

Democratic Party Delegates as of today:

_____________Elected____Super_____Total
H. Clinton........944........263........1,207
B. Obama........1,009.....174........1,183


Then, 30 minutes later with the McLaughlin Group, I got different facts: Big John tells me something different:

_____________Total
H. Clinton......1,158
B. Obama......1,072


What's going on here? Is it just me, or is it impossible to get good numbers on these delegates? And super difficult to get numbers (and names?) on the Super Delegates?

As I move from flatscreen to print, I find that Clark Hoyt, the Public Editor of The New York Times, agrees with me:

When it comes to counting delegates, where Clinton and Obama are almost evenly matched, the numbers are everything, and they have been difficult to pin down because of the party’s complex rules for apportioning the delegates who will actually select the nominee at the national convention in Denver this summer. The Times took a look at the confusion in a news article on Saturday.

Late last week, The Times, the Associated Press, MSNBC and CNN all had different delegate totals. MSNBC had Obama ahead. The others had Clinton ahead by varying spreads.

Sheldon Gawiser, the director of elections for NBC News, said the differences are largely explained by three things: how news organizations count the 796 so-called superdelegates, who are officeholders and members of the Democratic National Committee with automatic votes in Denver; how they account for states that have held caucuses but have not yet chosen their delegates; and how they project the apportionment of delegates within Congressional districts where the vote was close.

The Times and others are polling the superdelegates, but even if those party leaders support one candidate now, nothing says they cannot change their minds....

[Sheldon] Gawiser [the director of elections for NBC News] said the Democrats’ nominating rules are so byzantine that NBC is using a 225-page manual to figure out delegate allocation from last Tuesday’s vote. “This is no way to elect a dog catcher, let alone nominate a president,” he said.

Perhaps one has to be campaign staff or a party insider to really follow the numbers? While that encourages civic participation, it does not bode well for democratic accountability.

The Chattering Classes and the Voting Classes

The political talking heads on television have repeated this assumption:

(A) Working class Democrats are voting for Hillary Clinton, while educated, upper-middle class Democrats are going with Barack Obama. The Starbucks vs. Dunkin Donuts analogy has become popular.

The talking heads keep restating this claim without sharing data to back it up (are they asking for income, asset, and educational attainment info in exit polls?), and with no further explanation of why this supposed stratification has developed. It seems to me that the more elite the liberal, the more Hillary would feel like a comfortable fit.

(B) Looking at the spread of states where Obama won a majority of votes yesterday on Super Tuesday, he won the Heartland progressives of the "red states" (I know, he famously said that there are no red or blue states...), while Clinton took the Northeast and West Coast - where all the elite, latte-sipping liberals obsess over NPR. Here I am intentionally invoking another set of sound bite stereotypes the pundits have used to segment and define the Democratic base.

So my question is: how does the "working class/elite divide" assumption stated above in (A) jive with (B) the geo-demographic reality of Super Tuesday?

Does this mean that liberal elites actually live in the Heartland too? After all, Starbucks is as prevelant as McDonalds across the country these days! (Have the liberal elite left their political bubbles? Worse yet, might they colonizing the sacred Midwest and South? Is this a vast relocation electoral map conspiracy? If so, that would be a super smart move.)

Or does it mean that the assumption is wrong, and that Democrats of all classes are voting for Obama and Clinton, and are challenged in their decisions across the board?

Welcome to the Rustbeltpolitics blog!

The Rustbeltpolitics blog offers occasional commentary on the culture of politics, media, and American society.

Hopefully we will point out interesting ideas and questions that you won't hear elsewhere.

Unfortunately, much modern progressive discourse is either a vapid litany of policy proposals, or an effort to analyze and deconstruct institutions without offering realistic alternatives or constructive solutions. Here we seek reconstruction.

We will travel from the Rust Belt to the Bible Belt, from the Beltway to the Liberal Bubbles. We ride the rails on the Northeast Corridor, peering out at the shells of factories where dedicated people spent lifetimes to bring home the bacon. We ride through the disappearing country side cum suburbs, and admire the sad beauty of crumbling barns and farm buildings.