With the odds increasingly in favor of Barack Obama winning the Democratic Party nomination, talk is turning to potential Vice-President candidates.

There is a lot of talk of an Obama-Clinton ticket. On the one hand, it makes good sense, as a gesture of unity given Clinton strong support. But on the other hand, Clinton on the ticket will help mobilize conservatives. But more importantly, given that Hillary actually believes she should be President (and she comes with former President Bill Clinton), I would worry that they would have a hard time working together, especially since she thinks he’s too inexperienced and he thinks she’s hard of the “old ways of Washington”. And, while I don’t agree, there will be some who won’t vote for a ticket with a black man and white woman (some have mentioned it represents to many conservatives something of an “affirmative action” ticket). I’m with Nancy Pelosi; I just don’t think it’s the best ticket.

For my money, I like Jim Webb as Obama’s VP. A former Republican, he holds a Law degree from Georgetown and he’s currently the junior Democratic Senator from Virginia (although was elected only in 2006), a key southern state where Obama performed well and which some observers think could be competitive in November. Typically, the VP doesn’t swing many states, but there is some evidence to suggest a VP could help deliver his/her home state. It’s entirely possible, if not likely, that an Obama-Webb ticket could win Virginia. Clinton might help in Arkansas (where she was formerly First Lady), but given that she represents New York, many Southerners will see a ticket of two big city northerners (Chicago and NYC) as problematic. Moreover, Webb, while representing Virginia, was born in Missouri, which also figures to be highly competitive in November. Webb could help there as well.

Most importantly, Webb strengthens the ticket, by shoring up Obama’s perceived weaknesses. While Obama represents a strong domestic agenda, Webb represents a strong foreign policy component. Webb is a “blue-dog” Democrat with moderate positions, who can appeal precisely to the white, rural, blue-collar voters that Hillary Clinton has been talking about. Moreover, Webb brings military credentials, which will be important against John McCain, who is widely regarded as a war hero. Webb was the Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan (although resigned because he refused to reduce its size). He’s a graduate of the Naval Academy and is a decorated Vietnam veteran. His father is also a war hero, buried in Arlington National Cemetery. And his son is in the Army and recently returned from Iraq, so he can speak very personally about the toll Iraq has taken. He’s been on the Foreign Relations, Veterans Affairs and Armed Services Committees in the Senate, and has introduced several important pieces of legislation, including expanded Veterans benefits and mandating a vote in Congress on any potential conflict with Iran. Webb would certainly be a loss for the Democrats in the Senate, but with former Virginia Democratic Governor Mark Warner running for Senate (in John Warner’s old seat), his shoes could be filled; plus, Democratic Governor Tim Kaine would appoint a Democrat to replace Webb. And Webb is also a no-nonsense guy. If there are any doubts about Obama’s toughness, Webb will certainly be the guy to settle the score outside. He’s already been introduced, of sorts, to the national stage as he was asked to give the Democratic Party response to the 2007 State of the Union address, and received rave reviews as being one of the strongest in recent history. He’s also written very forcefully about the economic disparities in America, themes that Clinton has used in small-town America.

Of course, any VP candidate will also be scrutinized for his negatives. Webb has a few — and here I’m simply laying out how conservatives might attack him. First, he’s been married 3 times, which conservatives might paint as not presenting the squeaky-clean “family values” type. Second, in 1979, he penned an article entitled “Women Can’t Fight”, which rightfully caused him some trouble. Thirdly, as a fiction writer, he wrote some very sexually explicit texts, which was used against him in his Senate run. These will no doubt be raised again, but I think Webb is strong enough to dispel any doubts.

Obama/Webb ‘08. Sounds like a good ticket to me. What do you think?

As it stands now (May 9), Barack Obama holds a 158-delegate lead over Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic Party nomination. Obama is quickly closing the gap in superdelegates (currently only 7 behind) and there is good reason to believe that he will overtake her soon. With no big states left, the math — both in delegates and the popular vote — is daunting for Clinton. She will easily win West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico — possibly by 2-to-1 margins since the Obama camp is not investing heavily here — but Obama may have the inside track in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana. All told, our latest estimates show that Clinton could close the gap by about 25 delegates over the remaining six contests, leaving Obama 130-135 elected delegates ahead. Even a 60/40 split for Obama in the remaining superdelegates (he has been winning at a higher rate of late) would mean Obama gains an additional 50-55 superdelegates, leaving Obama with an overall lead of 180-190 delegates.

Clinton is holding out hope that she will be able to seat Michigan and Florida proportional to the uncontested Feb 5 results. However, few agree that this reflects the will of the people (Obama, after all, received zero votes in Michigan). Having a re-vote at this stage is unfair to those states who followed the rules because it gives Florida and Michigan the benefit of hindsight (and possible gives them the deciding vote after the fact). Democrats in Michigan have proposed a 69-59 split of delegates, which only makes up 10 delegates for her. There has also been talk of seating Florida at 1/2 it regular delegation strength (106 delegates instead of 211), and using the uncontested results. It’s not clear that Obama’s camp would agree to this, but even still, that only gives her a 63-43 edge, another 20 delegates). So, even in the best case, Clinton can only make up another 30 delegates by seating Florida and Michigan, well less than the 180-190 delegate lead we might expect Obama to have.

DemocraticSPACE believes that Clinton should remain in the race until June 3, when all the primaries and caucuses are complete. But how Clinton conducts herself over the next three weeks will determine how quickly (or whether) Obama will be able to unify the party. Given the near-impossible odds of Clinton winning the nomination at this point, she would be wise to stick to promoting herself as a candidate, and continuing to raise the concerns of white, largely rural, working-class voters (although, as I’ve noted elsewhere, these aren’t the only voters that matter), rather than “going nuclear” to tarnish Obama’s image. This effort will keep pressure on Obama to broaden his appeal. Indeed, Clinton taking up the cause of rural working-class whites has forced Obama to make adjustments, and he has make been making some progress from Ohio to Pennsylvania to Indiana. If she can convince these voters that the Democratic Party will look after their interests, and she ultimately backs Obama 100%, many of these voters will follow her (although Democrats would be naive to believe that rural voters are going to abandon the Republicans en masse).

If she stays positive, there is some benefit for Democrats in both the short- and long-term. It will mean that ground operations will become more fully developed in the remaining five states (Puerto Rico doesn’t vote in the Presidential election) since Clinton and Obama will compete there, which has some added benefit for the fall general election, particularly in a battleground state like Oregon. Having competed across the country (unlike the Republicans who wrapped their nomination up early), the Democrats can more plausibly implement the 50-state approach that DNC Chairman Howard Dean has promoted. This might help in the short term in key states, but it really benefits the Democrats in the long term. Equally importantly, the 50-state approach feeds into Obama’s message of unity.

However, if Clinton goes highly negative — a scorched earth approach — she only damages her own reputation (reducing her chances of a VP spot, reducing her chances in 2012, and potentially damaging her credibility in the Senate) and opens up unnecessary divisions in the Democratic Party, jeopardizing the Party’s chances in November. So, much depends on Hillary’s approach over the coming weeks. If she takes the high road, Democrats will come together. If she takes the low road, then she will bear a lot of responsibility should the Democrats lose in November.

Updated: May 8 @ 12:55 PT

As it stands now, according to Real Clear Politics, Barack Obama has 1589 elected delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 1424 — a lead of 165. Among superdelegates, Clinton leads 272 to 265 — a lead of 7. So overall Obama has a 158-delegate lead (1854 to 1696). Here are some best guesses for the upcoming races…

As you can see, at present, it looks like Obama will end up 144 elected delegates ahead, but Clinton is ahead among superdelegates by 11, so overall Obama is ahead by 133. I’ll continue to update this as new polls are released.

Our final projections for North Carolina and Indiana show that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will each be able to claim victory by the end of the night. We project the following:

North Carolina
Barack Obama — 54.7% — 63 delegates [range: 53.2% to 56.2% — 61 to 64 delegates]
Hillary Clinton — 45.3% — 52 delegates [range: 43.8% to 46.8% — 51 to 54 delegates]
Obama margin-of-victory — 9.4% [range: 6.4% to 12.4%]

Indiana
Hillary Clinton — 52.5% — 38 delegates [range: 51.0% to 54.0% — 37 to 39 delegates]
Barack Obama — 47.5% — 34 delegates [range: 46.0% to 49.0% — 33 to 35 delegates]
Clinton margin-of-victory — 5.0% [range: 2.0% to 8.0%]

As you can see, Obama is projected to win by anywhere from 6.4 to 12.4 points in North Carolina, but the most probable outcome is a 9.4 point margin of victory. Translating into delegates, Obama could pick up between 61 and 64 delegates, 7 to 13 more delegates than Clinton. Clinton is projected to win by anywhere from 2.0 to 8.0 points in Indiana, but the most probable outcome is a 5.0 point margin of victory. Clinton could pick up between 37 and 39 delegates, 2 to 6 more delegates than Clinton. So, overall, Obama is likely to come out of the night with anywhere from 1 to 15 more delegates.

Here are the latest DemocraticSPACE aggregated polling numbers and corresponding seat projections (in parentheses). Note that in most cases current projections do not adjust for individual candidates, as not all candidates have been nominated yet. Projections are a snap-shot in time, based on current polling. Note also that the reliability of projections increases as the frequency of polls increases, so current projections are not as reliable as they are during the campaign period (when there are many polls).

National (9 Apr - 1 May, +/- 1.2%)
Conservative — 34.5% (120)
Liberal — 31.1% (115)
NDP — 15.7% (26)
Green — 9.1% (0)
Bloc — 8.5% (45)
Other — 1.0% (2)

Ontario (9 Apr - 1 May, +/- 2.1%)
Liberal — 40.9% (61)
Conservative — 32.5% (36)
NDP — 14.5% (9)
Green — 11.2% (0)
Other — 0.9% (0)

Québec (9 Apr - 1 May, +/- 2.4%)
Bloc — 34.2% (45)
Conservative — 23.4% (11)
Liberal — 22.7% (17)
NDP — 12.6% (1)
Green — 6.1% (0)
Other — 1.0% (1)

British Columbia (7 Apr - 1 May, +/- 3.3%)
Conservative — 34.5% (18)
Liberal — 27.8% (10)
NDP — 21.4% (8)
Green — 15.0% (0)
Other — 1.2% (0)

Alberta (7 Apr - 1 May, +/- 3.9%)
Conservative — 58.6% (28)
Liberal — 17.5% (0)
Green — 11.3% (0)
NDP — 11.0% (0)
Other — 1.6% (0)

Prairies (7 Apr - 1 May, +/- 4.2%)
Conservative — 40.8% (19)
NDP — 25.2% (4)
Liberal — 21.7% (5)
Green — 10.6% (0)
Other — 1.7% (0)

Atlantic Canada (7 Apr - 1 May, +/- 3.7%)
Liberal — 40.0% (20)
Conservative — 32.0% (8)
NDP — 20.9% (3)
Green — 6.6% (0)
Other — 0.6% (1)

Someone created a DemocraticSPACE page on Facebook, for all you die-hard DS fans. Click HERE to join the DemocraticSPACE blog network. I think you need to add the Blog Networks application, if you haven’t done so already.

Most people know that New York Times columnist (and Princeton economist) Paul Krugman has deep ties to the Clintons, all the way back to 1992 when Bill recruited him to counter Bush I’s economic policies. So it’s no surprise he’s been writing pro-Hillary, anti-Obama pieces throughout the campaign. His latest piece “Self-Inflicted Confusion” is more of the same. The central argument here is that “[Obama] still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class. As a result, he keeps losing big states.”

Perhaps Krugman simply chose his words poorly but the above statement implies that the white working class constitutes a large bloc of Democratic voters. By “white working class” I presume Krugman means precisely the white, heavily religious, rural, gun-owning, blue-collar voters that Hillary has won. But do these really constitute a “large bloc of Democratic voters”, as Krugman suggests? Not really. The majority of this voting bloc votes Republican, as 2004 Pennsylvania exit polls clearly show.

In 2004, of those who said religion was their top issue, Bush won 92% to 8%. Bush won rural voters 73% to 27%. And Bush won gun-owners over John Kerry 62% to 38%. The point is, while the Clinton campaign has used this voting bloc to point to Obama’s weaknesses, it isn’t a voting bloc that Democrats typically win, regardless of the candidate. They are solidly Republican.

Looking at the big picture, the fact is, both candidates have their stronger and weaker demographics. Hillary does well with older, rural, Latinos, and card-carrying Democrats. But we could just as easily question why Hillary can’t win youth, urban, African-Americans and independents, which are Obama’s strong demographics.

We should not be too surprised that Hillary won Pennsylvania since it was a closed primary (independents — Obama’s stronger demographic — could not vote) and where Hillary had the backing of the Democratic machine (governor, mayors, etc). That Obama cut a 25-point deficit a few weeks ahead of the vote down to 9.3% shows he’s making in-roads with her demographic. Recall that Obama won independents by 37 points in Missouri, 30 points in California, and even 15 points in Clinton’s home state of New York. Had 15% of the electorate been independent (as it’s typically been in open Democratic primaries) and Obama won them by 65-35, the result would have been very close — 51.7-48.3 — just a 3.4% margin. And that’s despite the fact that a whopping 32% of the voters were over 60 (Hillary’s strong demographic).

That Obama is making in-roads is clear when you compare the 2008 exit polls for Ohio and Pennsylvania. For example, Obama won 26% of the senior (65+) vote in Ohio, but improved to 37% in PA. He also won 26% of the rural vote in Ohio, and again improved to 37% in PA. Of course, there were more seniors (22% in PA vs. 14% in OH) and rural folks (20% in PA vs 10% in OH), so Hillary could put up big raw numbers in those demographics to offset her lower margins. Obama even improved among lower income voters — he actually won <$15k households (which he lost in OH) and improved from 36% to 45% among $15-30k households. He also improved his share of the white vote by a few points. And so on. So he’s making progress with his weaker groups. By contrast, Clinton isn’t making in-roads with her weaker groups. For example, she won 35% of the youth vote (18-29) in Ohio and 35% again in Pennsylvania. And she won 13% of the African-American vote in Ohio and just 10% in PA.

But the central question here is why does the media define “electability” based on winning the poor, white, rural, gun-owning worker, as opposed to the urban- or suburban voter? (Krugman’s entire argument rests on Obama not winning as many white working-class voters as Clinton) I would suggest it’s because we cling to the myth — propagated largely by Republicans, ironically — that less-educated, rural, salt-of-the-earth blue-collar Americans present the “real” America while educated, urban, more liberal white-collar workers do not. It goes back to John Locke — the idea that the guy who “works the land” has a higher claim on it than others. To me, if Democrats are going to improve the disparities between the haves and the have nots, fix the messes in education and health care, and adopt a more sensible foreign policy, they need to make their case on its own merits, not simply accept how Republicans have framed the debate (and then proceed to demonstrate how they, too, can pander to the Republican base).

The reality is, America today is largely an urban, service-based economy, not a rural, resource-based one. Americans are primarily suburban (50%) and urban (30%) — 80% in urban areas — and only 20% rural. The battleground in November is the suburbs (also where the highest % of independents live), not the sparsely-populated rural areas, which are solidly Republican, nor the cites, which are solidly Democrat (even in red states). The key to Democratic victory is winning over suburban independents and mobilizing huge turnout in solidly Democratic cities, not trying to convert gun-toting rural Republicans to suddenly vote Democrat (it ain’t gonna happen!).

Now it’s pretty clear that Hillary cannot catch Obama in delegates. Hillary picked up only 10 extra in PA, so Obama dropped from 166 to 156. He’s on pace to win 55-60% to 40-45% in North Carolina, which would net him between 15-25 extra delegates, so even if Hillary narrowly wins Indiana (he currently leads by a point or two), she’ll be worse off on May 7 than she was before PA. That’s why Axelrod says the basic dynamics of the race haven’t changed. It’s hardly accurate for Krugman to say that because his campaign manager said this that his campaign isn’t still transformational (indeed, Obama’s largest rally yet drew 35,000 in Philadelphia last week). So whether you argue it on the “math” or whether you look at the progress he’s making with her demographic groups, it’s clear to any objective observer that Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Unless…

But let’s say she makes an argument to the 300 or so undecided superdelegates so they overturn the results from 30+ million voters. Given that the Democrats need to win over independents — a demographic in which Hillary doesn’t do well, especially against McCain, who is popular among independents — and a large turnout in the (heavily African-American) cities, it should be clear that if Hillary wins by swaying the party establishment, she’s going to have a hard time winning the election. She won’t get the independents and she’ll have a hard time mobilizing the (heavily African-American) cities, who will feel dis-enfrachised that Obama isn’t the nominee, despite winning the primaries and caucuses.

Mark my words. If Hillary is the nominee, the Democrats lose. There’s no guarantee that Obama will win, but he sure gives the Democrats the best chance.

In a follow-up to my earlier post, TTC workers have rejected the deal their union leadership had accepted from TTC management. Going against its previous claims to provide a 48-hour strike notice, the TTC union shut down the system Friday at midnight without any notice, stranding thousands. Despite improved health benefits, a 3% per year pay raise, and a clause that ensures TTC drivers are the best-paid throughout the GTA (meaning if Mississauga workers get a raise, TTC drivers will get another raise), 65% of TTC workers voted against the deal.

Shutting down the TTC without any warning is simply irresponsible. Moreover, it is dangerous to strand people at midnight with few other options to get home at that hour. The TTC unions just squandered any goodwill Torontonians had left. There’s little doubt that they will be ordered back to work. If the legislature sits tomorrow, the TTC could be back up for Monday. And from Adam Giambrone’s (TTC chair) comments, TTC workers shouldn’t expect to see any more money on the table.

On occasion of it being Earth Day, I thought a post on urban planning was in order, specifically regarding policies in Los Angeles (one of the least sustainable cities I know). I’ve never understood why L.A. can’t accommodate both the car and build mass transit. It isn’t either/or, as most Angelinos like to believe. Some people want to drive, others prefer to take transit (providing it is reliable, safe, and clean). Why limit choice by forcing people to drive?

But here’s what most people in L.A. don’t understand: current L.A. parking regulations don’t reflect reality, even in L.A. New market condos require 2.25 parking spaces per unit (or, in some cases, 2.5 spaces or even 2.75 spaces in special districts), regardless of the size of the unit. That literally means that they expect every single household to have 2 cars and every other household to have someone over for dinner every other night (0.25 guest spaces). Since this doesn’t reflect reality, what we get are fewer housing units and a lot of expensive empty parking spaces in new buildings.

In most cases, parking requirements in L.A. — not density — is what limits how many units of housing can be built. You simply cannot park the required number of cars on the site, so you build fewer units than is allowed. In many cases, you can only build about 75% of the number of units allowed by zoning. We are literally choosing to house cars over people, because the more cars you house, the less housing units you get. What’s worse: because it costs so much money and space to build the required parking (and because they can’t get the number of units allowed on the site), developers are forced to build bigger units, which means there are few small (and thus more affordable) market-rate units available. That L.A. hasn’t met its housing demand in over a decade is one symptom of the problem (even now, with prices falling due to the mortgage meltdown, there still is more demand than supply).

But here’s the rub: if you look at the number of cars vs. the number of housing units in L.A., you find that on average, there are about 1.4 cars per unit (which is to say that about half of households have 1 car and half have 2 cars, and a few even have none!). Adding 0.25 guest spaces per unit and the actual number of spaces required per unit in L.A. is 1.65. Now, let’s be clear: 1.65 spaces per unit is a very high number. In New York City, by comparison, there are 1.7 million registered vehicles for 3.4 million housing units — a ratio of 0.50 per unit — 3.3 times fewer than the 1.65 required in L.A. So, indeed, L.A. is a driving city. But we need only 1.65, not 2.25.

Think about it, we could reduce the parking standard by over 25% — from 2.25 to 1.65 parking spaces per unit and still accommodate all the cars required in L.A.; this would allow us to build over 25% more housing units without even changing the density (since in many cases, as I said above, you can only build about 75% of the allowable units).

Now imagine if we required all projects throughout the city (over a certain size, let’s say 10+ units) to set aside 10% of the units as affordable. It’s a win-win for everyone. We accommodate cars at the ratio required for L.A. (1.65 spaces per unit), developers get over 15% more market units and we institute a mechanism to generate 10% affordable units for every new project in the city. All it takes is leadership.

If an election was held today in Canada, the Conservatives would win a weak minority, according to the latest DemocraticSPACE seat projections (which are based on a weighted average of recent polling data; note these projections are at this point rough since many candidates have not been nominated, so adjustments for candidates have, in most cases, not been made). Below are the regional breakdowns (number in parenthesis represents projected seats).

National (7 Apr - 13 Apr, +/- 1.2%)
Conservative — 34.6% (122)
Liberal — 30.6% (112)
NDP — 15.5% (26)
Green — 10.0% (0)
Bloc — 8.3% (46)
Other — 1.0% (2)

Ontario (7 Apr - 13 Apr, +/- 2.0%)
Liberal — 39.0% (57)
Conservative — 33.7% (39)
NDP — 14.9% (10)
Green — 11.5% (0)
Other — 0.9% (0)

Québec (7 Apr - 13 Apr, +/- 2.3%)
Bloc — 34.3% (46)
Conservative — 23.3% (10)
Liberal — 22.0% (18)
NDP — 11.2% (0)
Green — 8.2% (0)
Other — 1.0% (1)

British Columbia (20 Mar - 13 Apr, +/- 3.1%)
Conservative — 35.3% (18)
Liberal — 27.2% (10)
NDP — 21.4% (8)
Green — 14.9% (0)
Other — 1.2% (0)

Alberta (2 Mar - 10 Apr, +/- 3.4%)
Conservative — 61.9% (28)
Liberal — 17.7% (0)
Green — 10.4% (0)
NDP — 8.4% (0)
Other — 1.6% (0)

Prairies (2 Mar - 10 Apr, +/- 3.8%)
Conservative — 42.3% (19)
Liberal — 22.9% (5)
NDP — 22.5% (4)
Green — 10.6% (0)
Other — 1.7% (0)

Atlantic Canada (16 Mar - 13 Apr, +/- 3.4%)
Liberal — 40.3% (20)
Conservative — 31.4% (8)
NDP — 20.7% (3)
Green — 7.0% (0)
Other — 0.6% (1)