Blue Crab Boulevard

Obama’s 20 Percent Solution

Let us step into the way back machine for a moment, shall we? Imagine you are back in the halcyon days of November 2007. Pretty scary, isn't it? Remember how you had more hair back then? And, those clothes we used to wear? What were we thinking, right?

Ah, the memories.

Do you also remember the picture being painted in the press about the political situation going into the 2008 Presidential primary season? Well, it was pretty dire for the Republican's I can tell you. There was no clear idea about who the nominee would be, which underscored just how weak and divided the GOP was. In fact, there was open speculation that this weakness could result in no candidate securing the nomination until very late in the process. Maybe even resulting in a brokered convention! Yep, all of those things pointed to the unquestioned weakness of the Republican party, especially when compared to the Democratic party of the day who were all set behind a well funded front runner. All of this, the press somberly assured us, bodes ill for the GOP in November 2008. Some proclaimed it a prelude to electoral disaster.

Let us say someone from November 2007 were to jump into a way forward machine and set the dial to May 2008. What a different world they would find! Still no flying cars, but , look! Just as predicted, one party has settled upon a nominee early, while the other is still slogging it out going into mid-May. However, it isn't the Republicans who are still up in the air, its the Democrats. And, look, the Democrats are so divided it is now impossible for either of their remaining candidates to secure their nomination via electoral means (Obama can do no better than 1805 pledged delegates of the 2025 needed). The nomination will have to be decided by party insiders. The Dems may not wait until the convention to do the back room deals, but there is little doubt that we are witnessing a brokered nomination.

And lo! the media has looked upon this mess and declared it a disaster…for Republicans.

You see, the way forward machine you jumped into was also a portal to a bizarre land where having your party become so divided that you need to have your candidate selected by non-democratic means is a good thing. Indeed, the inability of a candidate, any candidate, to inspire the party to get behind them is also seen as desirable. Democrats are not divided, we are told, they are energized! It turns out the most important thing for a political party to do is make sure you do NOT settle upon a candidate early. What were the Republicans thinking?

Conventional political wisdom would look at the current state of play in the Democratic party and call it a fiasco. Conventional political wisdom would be right. It has become a fiasco because of the polarizing racial politics employed by the Barack Obama campaign. Obama's campaign has, from quite early on I believe, been working under an electoral strategy I call the "20 Percent Solution". The premise is simple mathematics. For example, lets take a hypothetical state whose demographics would result in 20% of the Democratic primary vote being black, and thus 80% non-black. Were Obama to win the black vote 95%-5%, and lose everyone else to Clinton by 20 points (Clinton 60% to Obama 40%), it is Obama who would win the state 51%-49%. Were Obama only able to carry 90% of the black vote it would result in a 50-50 toss up. Obviously, in states where the black vote makes up an even larger percentage of he Democratic electorate Obama would have even more wiggle room. However, in general, the rule is simple: More than 20% of the vote being black should equal an Obama win, less than 20% should result in a loss.

A key to this strategy therefore is to make Obama the racial candidate, while at the same time positioning yourself solidly to the left of Clinton to secure the "activist" base. This explains the ease with which the Obama campaign (or their media surrogates) could charge the Clinton campaign as being racists. (Think of Bill's supposed post South Carolina "outrage", or the character assassination of Geraldine Ferraro.) This also helps explain why Obama felt little need to separate himself from the views of Rev. Wright when they first became generally known last year or when they first began making waves online 6-8 weeks ago. It was only when there became an open question as to whether he could keep within 20% of Clinton among non-blacks that Obama, in the least convincing performance since Ishtar, finally "found" them outrageous.

Let's look at the post Super Tuesday primaries (except for Missouri which I put in because it's supposed to be a "bell wether") and see how this has played out. (I got all the results from Real Clear Politics, and the exit poll crosstabs from CNN.) The "20% Solution" predicts an Obama vote via the equation: Obama Vote = (BV * 0.9) + ((1-BV) * 0.4), where BV stands for the percentage of the black vote in a given Democratic primary. The following graph summarizes the data, including some predicted values for the contests in West Virginia and Kentucky using data from the 2004 general election numbers.

The first thing I noticed was the predicted value for Indiana. Despite the protests from the press that we should have expected Clinton to win by at least double digits, it seems clear that we should have expected a very close contest. (This is confirmed by looking at the data from the 2004 general election, where the black vote made up 7% of the vote in the general election. It makes sense that the black vote would make up a larger proportion of the Democratic primary vote there, and with Obama being a near "favorite son" you could more than double that original 7% starting point.) Therefore, the implication that the Indiana result can be used to pressure Clinton to withdraw because of a supposed "poor performance" seems misplaced, at best.

It also seems that Clinton has advantages in West Virginia and Kentucky, although I'm predicting that Kentucky should be relatively close. Thus, Obama's repeated claim that Clinton should destroy him in Kentucky seems like an attempt to saddle her with unreasonably high expectations.

I am not claiming that race is the only factor that could possibly help explain the election results this season. Obviously, places like Wisconsin and Vermont which voted for Obama without having large blocks of African-American voters, point to the importance of factors like ideology in certain locales. However, the other results seem to support my basic contention of the "20% Solution".

The most important long term consequence will only become apparent during the general election cycle. The "20% Solution" is a perfectly good strategy for securing the Democratic nomination, particularly as it takes advantage of the manner in which the Democratic nomination scheme is in no way related to the political reality of the Electoral College. That being said, it is clear that the "20% Solution" will not work as a general election strategy, as the states where black voters will make up 20% or more of voters are few and far between. It is also unclear if after going down the road of racial polarization during the nomination process one can go back again. I mean it is one thing to call Clinton and her supporters racists when they are on the downside, but why should those Clinton supporters vote for you after such comments are made? And what claim does one make to moderates after such tactics are employed? And how can this result in anything other than a more motivated Republican base? It seems unlikely that Obama can backtrack down the road he has for so long traveled.

The Obama campaign is now the most divisive factor we have seen in American politics since the days of the candidacy of George Wallace. The sad fact is the irony of this will be lost to the vast majority of Obama supporters.

Oh well, I'll update this as things progress.

Politics | Rich Horton Monday, 12 May , 2008

By Gaius, Monday, 12 May , 2008 @ 5:52 pm

That is a scary graph, Rich. I think you hit something here. Nice job.
By Marybel, Monday, 12 May , 2008 @ 8:18 pm

Math is my worst nightmare, but after reading this twice I finally got it. Holy smokes, I think you really nailed it, Rich. Are you related to Karl Rove? Impressive post indeed. Viewed at this angle, so many things make so much more sense. Many thanks.
By Mwalimu Daudi, Monday, 12 May , 2008 @ 8:37 pm

The real trouble for Democrats will begin if they win in November. The MSM-floated notion that once the Messiah is nominated all will be sweetness and harmony for Democrats is pure snakeoil.

Up until this year Democrats have used scorched-earth identity politics solely against Republicans. Bot millions of Democrats have for the first time been the targets of what the GOP has experienced for decades.

I have resigned myself to the fact that Democrats will probably win this year. The limp campaign (so far) of McCain and the RNC have made it easy for Democrats. But the Democrat-controlled Congress already has the worst approval ratings in history, and by the time next year the Messiah could be in similar shape.
By Sam L., Monday, 12 May , 2008 @ 11:13 pm

That’s "bell wether" (no "a" in it), "a gelded male sheep" (per my American Heritage Dictionary) with a bell to lead the flock.
By C Stanley, Tuesday, 13 May , 2008 @ 9:19 am

As far as how this will fly with moderates, I think one needs to consider the bizarro world MSM spin on the racial tactics. As long as it’s Hillary’s fault that the primary campaign became focused on race, then moderates can still comfortably support Obama in the general. I hope I’m wrong but so far that’s the way it looks to me.
By Rich Horton, Tuesday, 13 May , 2008 @ 10:38 am

Christine: If you track the responses to the exit poll question "Did Obama attack unfairly?" You can see it rise from the Super Tuesday or easy Obama win states (30-35% said yes in those) to 45-50% in PA and IN. Even in an easy win like NC a full 40% thought Obama’s campaign was unfair. The people saying "yes" to that are not coming from the liberal voters, but from the more centrist. The folks responding "yes" to the question "Is Clinton attacking unfairly?" are most likely from the liberal wing. Its early days yet, but I think there is something to watch because it isn’t as if the media hasn’t been touting Obama all this time.
Mwalimu: I think its too early to characterize what the McCain campaign will look like in the fall, and I certainly dont think it would be worthwhile to spend any money when the Democratic race is so dominant in the headlines. I have to give McCain and his campaign a pass to this point. (Although I too wish they didnt come off so wishy-washy.)
Marybel: lol! No I dont think Rove and I share any relatives. (HE’s never at any of the reunions.) Thx!
Sam: thanks for the editing.
By C Stanley, Tuesday, 13 May , 2008 @ 11:51 am

That’s encouraging, Rich- I haven’t been paying attention to those exit poll questions, and was just basing my speculation mainly on impressions from reading moderate blogs- but I should definitely know better than to do that. ;-)
By martian, Wednesday, 14 May , 2008 @ 9:50 am

Rich, that is an excellent summary. Gaius, I don’t think it’s as scary as you think simply because it reflects only the way things work inside the Democratic Party. Once you get into a general election, Rich is right, the black vote isn’t enough to carry him to victory. In a general election the Obamessiah has to win over a lot of moderate non-black voters on both sides of the aisle in order to win.

Rich, I don’t agree with you that McCain deserves a pass up to this point. The mess in the Democratic Party has given him the perfect opportunity to step out front and really define himself. He has failed to do that. If McCain continues to run his campaign as he has up to this point, the Dems could run a frog against him and the frog would win.
By Rich Horton, Wednesday, 14 May , 2008 @ 11:07 am

<i>Rich, I don’t agree with you that McCain deserves a pass up to this point. The mess in the Democratic Party has given him the perfect opportunity to step out front and really define himself. He has failed to do that.</i>

This is true, but with Republican fund raising lagging behind I think the decision was made to low-key it. They were certainly correct that they would find it difficult to score much "free media" exposure with the Democratic circus in town. Remember back to 2004 when Dean had that early advantage? He ended up wasting his time and money making ad buys in places that were immaterial to the political reality of the moment. If McCain’s people thought something of the same about this moment I’m not gonna say they are wrong.

This is particularly true if they stick to campaign finance restrictions.