GovernmentExecutive.com

If we've learned anything in political journalism this year, it should be that absolutes are absolutely to be avoided.

Hillary Rodham Clinton might well win more delegates than Barack Obama in the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. And it is plausible that she could close in on her rival by winning "mulligan," or rerun, primaries in Florida and Michigan as well as some of the other contests scheduled between now and early June. But can Clinton sufficiently narrow the gap that the superdelegates would be willing to break a virtual tie in her favor? It's certainly possible, although still a bit of a long shot.

Superdelegates are elected or party officials and top activists who, notwithstanding other preferences, have two motivations. First, they really don't want to side with a candidate who will lose the general election. And, second, they really, really don't want to back a candidate who won't win the nomination.

The superdelegates almost certainly would balk at overturning a clear lead in pledged delegates, but if the Obama-Clinton contest is a dead heat at the conclusion of the last primaries and caucuses -- say the candidates are within 60 or 70 delegates of each other -- the superdelegates certainly could flip the outcome. After all, had God and the Democratic National Committee not wanted superdelegates to play a real role, they wouldn't have given them votes.

Superdelegates desperately do not want to back the loser in the party's divisive, two-way race. To embrace one candidate is to directly spurn the other. Pols who are hardwired into their party's presidential selection process today don't want to be exiled to the wilderness tomorrow.

More than anything, superdelegates want to back the candidate who has the best shot of winning in November. And that, of course, is a very subjective judgment. Different people can reach different conclusions. Heck, there are probably a few people who thought Dennis Kucinich could win the Democratic nomination, as mind-boggling as that may seem. Plus, it is important to remember that the superdelegate holdouts will make that electability judgment a few weeks or months from now. Who knows what will be different by then?

Today, the answer to the Democrats' electability question isn't clear. In the Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll conducted March 6-9 among 802 registered voters, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain led Obama by 2 percentage points, 45 percent to 43 percent; McCain led Clinton by, yes, 2 points, 47 percent to 45 percent. In a head-to-head matchup with McCain, the poll showed Clinton winning 80 percent of the Democratic vote but losing independents by 7 points; Obama pulled 78 percent of the Democratic support and lost independents by 8 points. McCain won 91 percent of the Republican vote against Clinton and 86 percent against Obama.

In a McCain-Obama matchup, Obama won the Northeast big, by 19 points, while McCain carried the South by 12 points; the Midwest and the West were both very close. There were fewer regional differences in a McCain-Clinton race. Clinton, like Obama, carried the Northeast, but by a narrower, 8-point margin. McCain again prevailed in the South, but Clinton narrowed the gap (so much for Obama winning Southern states), losing by 10 points. The Midwest and the West remained very close.

This survey suggests, in other words, that it would not make much difference which Democrat is nominated. Both would run strongly, albeit a bit differently.

McCain seems to have gotten a bit of a boost from nailing down the GOP nomination. And he has consolidated his party nicely. He is now polling better among Republicans than either Democrat does among Democrats. In terms of the general election, conservative and GOP establishment disaffection with McCain has been grossly exaggerated. The general election will be a close race, regardless of which Democrat gets nominated.

At the moment, the odds are probably about 3-1 that Obama will win the nomination. But, hey, that's today, when his prospects are different from what they were two weeks ago and perhaps different from what they will be two weeks from now. What an absolutely amazing year.

COMMENTS

• “McCain carried the South by 12 points” …sic Obama. I do believe this will be proven incorrect; particularly after Obama’s recent speech. Skeeter, as always, the pacaderm-colored glasses prevent your seeing clearly. While I can not even contemplate the idiocy of why the Democratic Party won’t allow Florida and Michigan’s participation over a scheduling disagreement, I must object as to whom did not wish to count all the votes in Florida. It was the Republican Secretary of State of Florida Katherine Harris, the Floridian co-chair of Dubya’s campaign, who earned her pay that day. The Center for Individual Freedom, founded in 1998 and that tends to focus on neoconservative and Republican/libertarian values, opined “during the Florida recount after the 2000 Presidential election, many localities had trouble determining the date of postmark on military absentee ballots. The dates were frequently illegible for one reason or another, so local election officials simply discarded the ballots. Many military ballots were not signed or notarized. Again, hundreds and perhaps thousands of military votes were excluded. These problems only came to light in Florida as a result of the intense scrutiny prompted by various recounts, but the same sorts of difficulties permeate electoral systems across the country.” And from Wikipedia: “when it became clear that some counties would not complete their recounts before the deadline, both Volusia and Palm Beach Counties sued to have their deadlines extended. The Bush campaign, in response to state litigation in the case of Palm Beach Canvassing Board v. Katherine Harris, filed suit in federal court against extending the statutory deadlines for the manual recounts. “ The man was afraid with all the help of his brother and his team wouldn’t be able to deliver the 25 Floridian electoral votes. After all the shenanigans, 537 Floridians meant more than 543,816 other American voters. Do you think the military might just vote differently today? Do you think these problems have been corrected so that our armed forces can assert their right to cast their ballot and that it will be heard? As always, I support our country fully, but urge ever more true democracy. People, feel free to speak your minds, make your voices heard and desires known: Work to eliminate the Electoral College. Tip off Posted March 21, 2008 10:49 AM
• Its a replay of the 2000 election the Democrats didn't want to count all the votes in Florida and now they are upping the ante by throwing out Michigan as well, what a contemptable party dan ketter Posted March 18, 2008 11:05 AM
• In reality, the "fight to the finish" between Hillary and Obama is good for the American public as a whole. It shows that the political machine works and that more than one "qualified" candidate can make a concerted run for President without running roughshod over the wishes of the voting public by having early primaries where all the "losing" candidates drop out before they can be voted on by the majority of Americans. On the other hand it's bad for the Party because it represents Party disunity, which can be exploited by the other Party (or Parties as the case may be). Michelle Posted March 18, 2008 10:18 AM