×
Dan Balz has an interesting article about the effect of Obama's focus on caucuses:
Like Obama, Clinton threw everything possible into the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, spending $20 million to $25 million on what turned out to be a losing effort. The experience seemed to sour the Clinton campaign on caucuses -- she has repeatedly disparaged the caucus process in public remarks -- and ever since, her team has largely ignored them in favor of states with primaries. If the Democratic race is all about delegates, as the Clinton campaign declared shortly after the Jan. 8 New Hampshire contest, the decision has given Obama an unexpected gift.Here is a simple way to understand the consequences of that choice. Take two states that held Super Tuesday contests on Feb. 5: big New Jersey, with 107 pledged delegates at stake, and tiny Idaho, with 18 delegates up for grabs. Clinton won New Jersey's primary and made headlines for doing so early on that night, while Obama won Idaho's caucuses long after many of those watching had gone to bed. But because of the rules of proportionality, Clinton netted just 11 more delegates than Obama from her New Jersey victory, while he gained 12 more than her by winning Idaho.I agree with Dana's recent post about the merits of caucuses in general and that the factors she identifies hurt Clinton's chances in caucuses. However, while the poorer and more Hispanic skew of her support is a disadvantage, the older skew of her support should be an advantage; even if one stipulates that the balance of factors is in Obama's favor (which seems fair) I don't think it can explain the margin and consistency of Obama's victories. Part of it seems to be that Obama's campaign seems to have a better strategic understanding of the effects of the proportional allocation of delegates. In addition, I'm guessing that this is also partly a product of Clinton's lagging fundraising and the apparent financial mismanagement of Patti Solis Doyle. Obama's broader focus is more easily available to someone with his resources.Having said this, I also agree with Ezra that it's important not to exaggerate the problem with Clinton's campaign. Given that she ended up on the wrong side of the most important issue of the Bush era and is up against a once-in-a-generation political talent, her campaign's performance can't be considered bad on balance. (Her fundraising, for example, would be impressive by any standard... except Obama's.) And the books aren't closed; if she wins (which remains possible) her campaign will deserve considerable credit for that. Still, in a close campaign one mistake can have huge consequences, and at this point it's more likely than not that leaving caucus delegates on the table will be a decisive error.--Scott Lemieux
