BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, BuzzFlash.com

February 12, 2008

Maybe it has escaped your notice, but there are really two Democratic primaries going on in each state.

First, there is the sports like battle for who wins the popular vote. This is what gives the media the basis for awarding a state to Clinton or Obama. It was what made the headlines scream on Monday morning that Obama swept the weekend voting by taking first place in four states (and the Virgin Islands).

But the second primary is for popularly-elected delegates. The reality is that -- despite the Clinton campaign spin -- Clinton was competing energetically with Obama for delegates even in states that Obama won. That is also true of Obama in states that Clinton won, like California and New York. It is the "second" primary strategy that is the more important one, in terms of reaching the threshold of the number of delegates needed for nomination.

But the two "primaries" come to interact when the media announcement of a "declared winner" in a state plays into the media narrative of "essential states" and "the expectations game." For instance, when Clinton won California, it was the key prize on Super Tuesday and gave her a slight momentum edge, even though she and Obama ended up not far from a tie in pledged delegates after the day was over.

Now, there is an "expectations game" going on regarding the "state winner designation" over the next few weeks. The Clinton campaign is playing what is standard in political campaigns for someone who expects to lose significant upcoming contests. It is called the "lower the expectations" game. That is to say, if Clinton pulls out a first place win in Virginia today or in Wisconsin on February 19th, it will then become a big media story because it "defied expectations," even though they were "expectations" set up by one of the presidential campaigns as a media strategy.

We received an e-mail after the weekend's primaries from a Clinton supporter arguing the Clinton campaign message points that they are waiting for the primaries in Ohio and Texas to deal a mortal vote blow to Obama, and that Clinton is "sitting still" until then. This was patently ridiculous to anyone who watched Clinton campaign frenetically -- and vigorously -- in every state that Obama won over the weekend (with the exception of Nebraska, where only Obama made a visit). The past few days Clinton has been enthusiastically campaigning in the Potomac Beltway Primary states.

Why? Because she is campaigning for delegates. She is engaging in the "second primary," which is really the only one that counts in the race for the nomination. She is also hoping to "defy expectations" and be the "winner" in Virginia, but, remember, even if that were the case, Obama would pick up delegates in that state.

So the first primary is in large part a mind game tied to our love of sports. It's who has the most points -- or votes -- at the end of the game. That person is the "winner." But unlike sports, losers in Democratic primaries also win delegates. So, Clinton is campaigning vigorously even if she may not receive the "winner's" designation in a state.

What is of deep concern to the Clinton campaign right now is the recent "spreads" that Obama has been receiving. He won by landslide proportions in Washington and Nebraska, and double digit leads in Maine and Louisiana. That means that he not only won the first primary in both states, but he deeply undermined Clinton in delegate pick-up. That is what is on the mind of Clinton strategists, because it is the delegate count that they are watching, and after today, even if Clinton should pull an "upset" in Virginia, Obama is going to pull further ahead in pledged delegates.

We happened to turn on CNN last night and were watching the "blah, blah, blah" pundits micro-analyzing the Dem and GOP presidential campaigns. At one point, they played a clip of Senator Clinton campaigning in one of the Potomic Primary states, when she held a press availability (it looked like she was in a car plant). She was asked about her reaction to the Obama "sweep" over the weekend. Clinton dismissed the victories this way. She tactfully reminded the questioner that Louisiana has a large African-American population and she understands their pride in voting for her opponent. (I am paraphrasing here because I haven't been able to find the transcript.) Then she dismissed the caucuses (which again drew gargantuan record turnouts, particularly in Washington State) because everybody knows that it's mostly "activists" (that is the word Clinton used) who go to caucuses. She then said that she doesn't do well in caucuses (we guess that she forgot Nevada), and that neither did her husband, Bill. And then she turned away.

Dear me, if the person running for the Democratic nomination disparages caucuses as being a hotbed of Democratic "activists," we have a problem here, Houston. Those "activists," many who have never voted before, are the potential lifeblood of a victory for the Dems in November.

We bring this up because Clinton came into this race as the candidate with a rose garden strategy, a double digit lead nationally, and a double digit lead in almost every state. Who are the "activists" undermining her candidacy? They are called voters.

And at least a third of the voters in each of the weekend primary states that Obama "won" voted for Clinton, giving her delegates that will be added to her column in the all important "second primary."

So when you watch television coverage or read articles, remember that there are two primaries in every state: the battle for bragging rights to being declared "winner," and the battle to up the delegate count even if you are a loser.

There is no way that the Clinton campaign is "giving up" on any upcoming state, because they need to up their delegate count even in states that they "lose." The problem that they face is a shortage of money and a threat of momentum making any potential victory in Ohio and Texas relatively meaningless because Obama might, through weeks of large spread victories, come out of both of those states -- even if he doesn't "win" them -- with enough delegates to beat Clinton in the number of pledged delegates. (The primary season is still not completely over even then, by the way -- and there's the issue of whether or not Michigan and Florida will hold "re-vote" caucuses.)

So, this is a little simplistic (because caucus states are allocated differently), but think of the Democratic presidential nomination as really a race for 435 separate congressional districts. "Winning" a state gives you some bonus delegates, but mostly it gives you bragging rights and a leg up in the "perception" game. All that matters, in the end, is the delegate count. That is why, despite her campaign's spin, Clinton is indefatigably campaigning wherever she has a chance of picking up delegates, as is Obama.

What worries the Clinton campaign is that if they don't win Virginia or Wisconsin -- or if they just win one of them -- the perception game of what we call the first primary (the beauty contest) will overtake the second primary (the battle for actual delegates) in Obama's favor by the time Texas and Ohio come up on the calendar, making his nomination appear inevitable.

Right now, either candidate could win the nomination (particularly when you toss in the third "behind the scenes" primary": the superdelegates), but watch out for the interplay between primary one and two. That is what is going on right now in a Democratic primary that has defied all expectations and prognostications.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Technorati Tags: EditorBlog [6] Dem Primaries [7] Clinton [8] Obama [9] BuzzFlash [10] Delegates [11]