Could John Edwards Be the King (or Queen) Maker?

The Democrats, plainly, have a bit of a mess on their hands. By any reasonable measure, Barack Obama is leading Hillary Clinton. He's won more primaries and caucuses (29 - 15), he's won more votes (13,280,770 - 12,577,044), and he's won more pledged delegates (1403 - 1239).

So it's clear, right? Obama's obviously the frontrunner, and he has the nomination all but locked up, doesn't he? Well, no, not quite. So why, with such a numeric edge, is he unable to put Hillary Clinton away? There are a handful of reasons:

1) The Democratic Party's Nominating Process, Part A:
In the Democratic Party, the nomination is won differently than in the Republican Party. Pledged delegates are awarded proportionally, reflecting the popular vote tally. So, for example, while Obama did win the Alabama Primary on February 5th by a 55.8% to 41.7% popular vote margin, because of the proportional allocation of delegates, he only received 27 of the state's 52 delegates, while Hillary, despite losing rather convincingly, took 25 delegates. Such a system makes it very difficult for either candidate to put significant distance between him/herself and his/her opponent. (In the GOP, by contrast, regardless of how narrow or wide the victory, all delegates go to the winner). So even though Obama has won nearly twice as many state contests as Hillary, the manner in which delegates are awarded has prevented him from amassing the 2025 delegates needed to secure the party's nomination.

2) The Democratic Party's Nominating Process, Part B:
The other fundamental difference for the Democrats is the existence of the so-called superdelegates. As you've probably heard by now, superdelegates are a group of individuals (primarily various current and former elected officials) who are free to support any candidate they wish for the Democratic Nomination. There is nothing in the rules of the party specifying that a superdelegate must choose according to the popular vote in general, or in the case of current officeholders, the popular vote in their city, district, state, etc. There are nearly 800 superdelegates, and over 3200 pledged delegates (those delegates who are bound by popular vote to support one candidate over another). As 20% of the approximately 4000 delegates in total, the superdelegates can, and in this extremely close election will, play a very important role in selecting their party's nominee. In fact, at this point, neither Obama nor Clinton can secure the 2025 delegates needed to win the nomination solely through the pledged delegates that remain in the states who have yet to hold their primary or caucus. Currently Hillary actually has more superdelegates who have pledged to support her than does Obama, with 248 to his 212. There are, however, 344 more superdelegates who have yet to declare their support for either candidate, and it is these 344 individuals who will likely end up deciding the party's nominee.

3) The States Obama Has Not Won:
Among the states in which Hillary has bested Obama are several of the most populous states in the country (California, New York and Texas), several of the most important "swing states" for the General Election in November (Ohio particularly, but also Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Tennessee), and four states that are considered "must-wins" for a Democratic victory in November (California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York). This, in fact, has been one of the arguments the Clinton Campaign has most frequently and vociferously made over the last month. If, they argue, Obama cannot win these crucial states now, there is a very good chance that he will not carry them in November which, if true, would mean a sure victory for John McCain. This is not as valid or clear-cut as the Clintons would like us to believe, however it's been repeated so often that it has become a source of concern for the Democratic Party, and another reason that Obama has been unable to put Hillary away.

4) Michigan and Florida:
Because both Michigan and Florida moved their primaries ahead on the electoral calendar in clear violation of the rules specified by the Democratic National Committee, the DNC decided last fall -- with the support of all the candidates and their campaigns -- that those states' delegates would not be seated (not counted, in other words) at the Democratic National Convention in August. As a result, the candidates and campaigns made a mutual pact not to campaign in those states since they would effectively be non-binding popularity/beauty contests with no delegates at stake. In Michigan, several candidates including Obama went so far as to have their names removed from the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot in deference to the DNC. Hillary did not. Not surprisingly, Clinton "won" the state, though with Obama's name not even on the ballot, her claims of victory were dubious at best. In Florida, Senator Clinton also "won", and much to the consternation of the other Democratic candidates, flew to the state on the night of the primary to again declare "victory" in a contest that was not considered legitimate. This is potentially the biggest mess of the 2008 Election for the Democrats, particularly given the importance of both states to a Democratic win in November, as well as the significant number of delegates at stake: 128 in Michigan and 185 in Florida -- 8th and 4th most in the country, respectively. (In fact, the numbers I listed at the beginning of this post for state contests, votes and delegates won did not include Michigan or Florida. If they are included with their original -- if not flawed -- results, the mathematical picture becomes far brighter for Hillary). Predictably then, once the Clintons found themselves in political peril after Obama's momentum (and numbers) grew, they argued that the delegates from both states should, in fact, be seated and counted. Obama and others have argued that this tactic is nothing more than an attempt by the Clintons to change the rules in the middle of the game -- a game in which they find themselves trailing. This argument is particularly absurd in Michigan given that Obama was not on the ballot, but not much more valid in Florida given that Obama did not even campaign or advertise there. With that said, because of how very close this race is, both the Clinton and Obama Campaigns have now agreed that some solution must be found in order for these two delegate-rich states to have their say in the party's nomination process. As I write, the precise solutions for Michigan and Florida have not yet been decided upon, and there are several ideas being considered. It seems almost certain, however, that in some form or fashion, both states will have a "re-vote" -- perhaps a vote-by-mail arrangement, or maybe even entirely new primaries. This bears watching closely, because the eventual course that the DNC and the two states take could have a significant impact on the ultimate outcome. The current state of limbo in which these states exist, however, is yet another obstacle to Obama's ability to clinch the nomination.

5) Hillary Clinton:
No, not Hillary's success as a candidate or her out-campaigning of Obama since, quite frankly, he's proven himself to be a better candidate and campaigner than she. What I am referring to, rather, is Hillary Clinton's uncommonly intense ambition, arguable stubbornness, and her vintage Clintonian trait of being willing to do anything and everything to win. Some candidates would acknowledge that winning the nomination in a traditional and uncontroversial fashion is nearly impossible at this point, and accordingly might withdraw from the race. But not Hillary. Some candidates would be unwilling to win in the manner in which she would now have to win -- namely by having the majority of the superdelegates select her over Obama such that she attains the 2025 delegates needed to win, debatably subverting the choice of the majority of voters. But not Hillary. Some candidates would refuse to resort to the "kitchen sink" strategy of throwing every negative the campaign could find at their opponent prior to the Texas and Ohio Primaries -- attacking a fellow Democrat and doing so at the risk of damaging that opponent's (and therefore the party's) potential electability in November. But not Hillary. No, in Hillary, Obama faces an opponent who will "not go gently into that good night". To be fair, this is a quality of hers that is likely admired by just as many who disdain it. Regardless of what one thinks of this aspect of Hillary's candidacy and personality, though, it's a very real hurdle for Obama to clear before he can be assured of the nomination.

So what happens now? Well, the next stop is Pennsylvania, which holds its primary on April 22nd. The media have set expectations such that the state is a likely win for Clinton. It is also generally acknowledged that it is a must-win for Clinton, and all signs do currently point to her beating Obama there, with the latest polls giving her a lead of between 13 and 19 points. The Obama Campaign almost seems resigned to this fate, recently lowering expectations for an upset win for him in the Keystone State. Should Obama upset Clinton in Pennsylvania, however, the race would be effectively over, and he would win enough support from a combination of undecided superdelegates and superdelegates switching from Clinton that he would secure the nomination . In the more likely event however that she does win in Pennsylvania, she and her campaign will argue that she has again won another large, populous state, and another state that is essential for victory in November. Pennsylvania offers a total of 158 delegates (only California, New York, Texas and Florida have more), and should she win by a margin consistent with the current polling data, she would stand to gain a significant number of delegates, more momentum, and the campaign would continue.

Next up would be the North Carolina and Indiana Primaries on May 6th. North Carolina, with 115 delegates, is something of a sleeper in my opinion, and a state whose importance I believe the media are currently overlooking. Conventional wisdom currently argues for North Carolina being favorable territory for Obama, an assertion backed up by recent polls that show him leading Clinton by 4 to 8 points. But it is here that I believe John Edwards -- somewhat forgotten by the press and potentially by the voters -- could be a difference-maker -- and potentially a king maker or a queen maker.

The expectations have already been established: Clinton should win Pennsylvania, and Obama should win North Carolina. As the race grinds on and remains tight, the only way I can see Hillary regaining sufficient momentum to realistically recapture frontrunner status is if she is able to defy expectations in such a way as to trigger the superdelegates to begin lining up behind her en masse. The best chance for such a moment would be for her to "upset" Obama in North Carolina, and this is the way I could see that scenario potentially playing out...

Should Hillary win Pennsylvania, she'll have some wind in her sails. Obama will still lead her in every measurable category, but the media, nevertheless, will still present her victory as momentous. If we assume she receives even a slight "bump" from a win in Pennsylvania, it's conceivable that Hillary and Obama would enter North Carolina in a dead heat, he in need of a win to reestablish his momentum, and she in need of a win to potentially regain the overall edge. In such a close contest, there would not be much needed to tip the scales in either candidate's favor. Enter John Edwards. A resident of North Carolina and one of the state's two senators from 1998 - 2004, Edwards could likely provide just enough of a boost for Clinton or Obama to put one of them over the top there.

While Edwards was not successful in his own run for the White House in 2004 or 2008, and while he was unable to put North Carolina into his party's winning column as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2004, there likely remains enough affection for him in the state from the people who count -- the faithful Democratic voters who will go to the polls -- to allow him to potentially play king maker, were he to endorse Obama, or queen maker should he side with Hillary. Getting the nod from Edwards could also have national implications for whichever candidate receives it. Even though Edwards did consistently place third behind Obama and Clinton when he was in the race, his support could not be called insignificant, and again, when things are this close, not much is required to alter the dynamics of the race substantially. Both Obama and Clinton seemed aware of this in the wake of Edwards' withdrawal from the race, as both went out of their way to praise him and his candidacy, and to pledge to assume the role of championing the poor, Edwards' signature issue and cause. Indeed, both candidates even took valuable time away from campaigning to surreptitiously fly to Edwards' Chapel Hill, NC home, presumably in search of his endorsement, Clinton on February 7th, followed by Obama on February 17th. Despite the two meetings, no endorsement has followed.

I suspect an Edwards endorsement of Obama to be more likely, but I would argue that an Edwards endorsement of Clinton would be more significant. The reason that Edwards' support would be more important for Hillary is because the contest immediately after North Carolina and Indiana is the West Virginia Primary on May 13th, and West Virginia is a state whose demographics would seem very favorable to Clinton. A Clinton win in Pennsylvania, followed by a Clinton "upset" victory in North Carolina (presumably with help from Edwards), capped off with a third consecutive win by Clinton in West Virginia, just might provide her the momentum (and the media the narrative) to convince the superdelegates to decide that she is the candidate now on a roll, and that she is the Democrat with the best chance of defeating John McCain in November. She knows this, Edwards knows this, and I would watch carefully to see what Edwards does as the North Carolina Primary draws closer, and likely becomes more and more important in determining whether Obama or Clinton emerges as the Democratic Nominee.