Stating The Obvious: Clinton Must Win Texas And Ohio

By Big Tent Democrat

Via dmsilev, the NYTimes reports the obvious:

She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one Democratic superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

My reaction? Um, duh. Honestly, folks get paid to "report" this stuff? How about something interesting, like what happens if Clinton DOES win Ohio and Texas? What will that mean for Obama? What will he have to do in the face of more big state losses? Obviously Ohio and Texas will be do or die for Clinton. But if Obama loses them he gets put on the spot it seems to me. Does Obama then have to win Pennsylvania?

NOTE: Comments are closed in this thread. Everybody calm down.

< AP Poll: Hillary Leads Obama, 46% to 41% | Hillary and Obama Won't Be Sticking Around East Coast >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:13:14 PM EST
    Not to pick on Chris Bowers overly, but he has an absurd headline for this story: "Clinton Super Delegates Wavering, Looking To Future Contests."  How is it supposed to be newsworthy that if Obama wins TX and OH, gosh, the superdelegates might decide not to go 800-0 for Clinton?  Of course no one in the Clinton camp thinks they can lose those states and still get bailed out somehow by hundreds of currently unpledged superdelegates.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:14:26 PM EST
    Chris is having a bad day in your eyes I see.

    He's Had Several in Mine (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:18:17 PM EST
    He's all over the place these days.

    In any event, I think it would be just as fair to say "Obama Super Delegates Eye Future Races" or something like that.  Because all of the SDs can change their minds and all are watching to see if one of the candidates can pull away.

    It's interesting that they think she has to win Texas and Ohio.  I wonder if that stays the same if she wins Wisconsin (which I believe to be unlikely).  I don't necessarily disagree, but I would have thought they'd be pushing Ohio more since Texas, while big, is also very, very red.


    I think Wisconsin is pretty irrelevant now (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:21:05 PM EST
    as long as it is not a 25 point blowout.

    OF course a win for her would be huge but that is not going to happen.

    It is going to be OH, TX and PA that decide this.

    And Obama need only win one.


    I like Chris (none / 0) (#102)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:28:38 PM EST
    I was even on board with his theory that the superdelegates ought to respect a clear majority in pledged delegates by either candidate, as it represents the best available approximation of popular support.  But then somehow he went off the rails.

    Pennsylvania (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Janet on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:13:36 PM EST
    Having grown up in Pa I can tell you this state is a HRC win unless the momentum for  Obama is so high I can see her winning Texas, Ohio and then Pa.

    She has Rendell's endorsement (none / 0) (#117)
    by ding7777 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:38:29 PM EST
    but the Philly area will go to Obama (40% AA)
    and that's counts for much of the total Democratic vote.

    The most difficult for her will be Texas (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:36:41 PM EST
    then Pennsylvania, and then Ohio IMO.

    I think they are all pretty winnable for her (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:38:17 PM EST
    She has no excuses.

    She SHOULD win them all. IF she does not, then Obama should be the nominee.


    Would be, not should be, I think. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:01:51 PM EST
    If he wins just one of these three big states, that means he'll win this race because of caucuses primarily and the most favorably media ever. That would be just two big states and probably losing the popular vote.

    they are writing (none / 0) (#1)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:06:34 PM EST
    for the general population, not us political junkies.

    And it is a good point. A double Obama win in TX and OH will effectivly end the race. There will be no way she would then be able to be close enough in dels, and the momentum against her would be overwhelming.

    A double Clinton win will not end it - but yes, it does put a lot of pressure on Obama in PA. If he loses all three it might be over for him - but we'll have to see how the delegates stand then.

    It is an obvious point (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:13:06 PM EST
    Here is the more interesting point imo, if Clinton wins OH and TX, does Obama need to win PA?

    I say yes.


    If Clinton wins (none / 0) (#10)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:15:50 PM EST
    OH and TX, then there is no way he wins PA by enough to make a difference.  The calls will intensify for him to step down at that point, my own added to them.

    He needs to win a big state primary (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:19:47 PM EST
    that is not his home state.

    He has three cracks. Clinton has to run the table.

    That is how I see it.


    Fair enough, (none / 0) (#19)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:22:53 PM EST
    but despite all of the clamor over Obama's momentum, it only counts with regard to delegates at this point, not no. of state "wins" per se.  If she can widen the gap between them during these states (lots of ways she could do this without), then she wins.  If she can't, I think she loses.

    Not the way to look at it imo (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:31:24 PM EST
    There are 760 SDs. That is the big delegate fight.

    Clinton needs to be reasonably close, say within 50 w/out MI and FL,  and then have an argument for the SDS, popular vote winner PLUS big state PRIMARIES winner is that argument.

    If she wins TX, OH and PA, then she will be the nominee.

    Obama needs only to win one to prove his "electability" and that coupled with probably a 100 pledged delegate lead as a result leads to SDs rallying to him and giving him the nomination.


    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:37:24 PM EST
    We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I think she controls super-Ds by closing the pledged delegate gap to a sufficient margin, and my ballpark guess is he has to beat her by at least 100.  If I'm right, there are technically many scenarios that involve her both winning and losing in various proportions, just as long as she can win BIG somewhere at least once.

    The assumption seems to be... (none / 0) (#2)
    by jr on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:09:01 PM EST
    ...Clinton needs to win those to stay in the game until the Convention.  Obama will likely be able to take it to the Conventon even if he loses both, though I have to imagine the pressure on him to drop out will be pretty high if HRC wins both.  But while it's do-or-die for HRC, it doesn't seem to be for Obama, IMHO.

    IMHO it would indeed be do or die for him too... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:19:51 PM EST
    And this is based on the fact that the super-Ds would default back to Clinton via her controlling the vetting process of accreditation.  Rules are rules, and if she keeps it close enough delegate-wise (even if he has more, but by <100)then all of the super-Ds who want to vote for her but are afraid of the consequences, would no longer have the consequences to fear.  They go to Clinton in that case, and Obama supporters can rail against the fates, but rules are rules.

    Of course, the same is said for her if he walks into the convention with wins in those states.


    Zactly (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:24:48 PM EST
    She will be the popular vote winner and the winner of all big state primaries not a home state.

    Even if you exclude MI and FL delegates from officially voting, that will be a consideration.

    She will have the last big wins. She gets the lion's share of the SDs.

    She wins the nomination in that scenario.


    Yes, just so. (n/t) (none / 0) (#24)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:27:16 PM EST
    didn't obama indicate he would take this to (none / 0) (#124)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:43:17 PM EST
    the convention? that was my impression.

    Let him take it, or... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:51:28 PM EST
    let her take it, for that matter.  Which ever one of them can pull the sufficient delegates will control the vetting of super-Ds, no matter how hard the other shakes their fists at how "unfair" it all is.  Obama, if he pulls any stunts about Clinton controlling the sueper-Ds at the convention, will be shouted down, and Clinton will add his pelt to her collection.  

    If Obama loses (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:12:13 PM EST
    CA, MA, NY, NJ, FL, MI, TX, OH, and PA, he has some splaining to do.

    Winning becuase of caucuses in Idaho, North Dakota and alaska is not very convincing.

    I have said it and I stick to it - if Clinton wins OH, TX and PA, she is ther nominee.

    If she does not, she is not.


    Not what I'm hearing... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:13:41 PM EST
    which is that if Obama falters in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, then Clinton would win the nomination based on the observation (and correct IMHO)that she would then have the clearest influence over the vetting of super-Ds.

    Either way, the rules are actually pretty clear, and one will be left standing.


    Also the last big wins (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:18:39 PM EST
    The last impression.

    This is precisely my theory of why clinton is still my favorite to be the nominee.

    I think she is the clear favorite to win Texas, Ohio and Pennsyvania.

    She wins all 3, she is the nominee.


    What About 2 of 3 (none / 0) (#15)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:20:07 PM EST
    What if she loses Texas but it's extremely close, but whips him in Ohio?  

    The caucus aspect of Texas worries me, frankly.


    She loses (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:22:46 PM EST
    She needs a sweep.

    Obama needs one to "prove" he can win a big state primary.

    Any one of the 3 will suffice. She needs a sweep.

    And there is no reason she can not get it.

    She should be favored in all 3 states.

    Just do the Mass, NJ, Cali trifecta again.



    That's why (none / 0) (#21)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:25:26 PM EST
    the number of "wins" per state is less relevant than the degree by which they are won.  If she wins BIG in one, she can afford to lose by tiny margins in the others.  Momentum and psychology count, but delegates count more, and if she picks up more delegates by one single knock-out performance, Obama will have very little chance.

    Strong disagree (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:28:22 PM EST
    She needs to win them all.

    Remmeber the key argument willnoitbe delegates counts for Clinton, she may even be down 20 or 30, the key argument will be she won all the big state primaries and the popular vote and that will get her the SDs, which will seat MI and Fl and get her the nomination.

    Here's the way I would argue it if I were the Clinton campaign - "We are going to win them all, TX, OH and PA."

    Obama cannot win the big primaries. All he can do is win caucuses.

    And November is NOT a caucus.


    Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#104)
    by ding7777 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:29:10 PM EST
    Look at this 2004 voting map of Pennsylvania.

    Even if Hillary win the the PA primary, Obama could win PA in the GE...


    Take this to the heart of Texas (none / 0) (#29)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:32:33 PM EST
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-chang/why-latinos-and-asian-ame_b_85359.html?load=1&page=1#co mments

    Texas isn't one I'm worried about, or even PA, it's Ohio. That one gave trouble in 2004.


    Exactly, my sentiments for a while now... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:10:47 PM EST
    and this is why neither super-delegates nor FL and MI will muddy the water in the end.  Either Clinton will reverse this trend, or she will not.  If she does, Obama supporters must eat crow and stand with Clinton, lest they prove themselves to be the "cultists" they are accused of being.  If she does not, Clinton supporters will have to hold their noses and stand with Obama, lest they prove themselves more loyal to Hillary and Bill that to the country, not to mention the party.

    The Bleed (none / 0) (#33)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:36:07 PM EST
    That's the danger. If the Obama kids get disenchanted, and Clinton wins, McCain gets the disenfranchised.

    Stopping the bleed is going to be critical. As McCain can attract the same votes as Clinton.


    TPM (none / 0) (#17)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:21:25 PM EST
    is reporting former Ohio Senator John Glenn will probably be endorsing Clinton.  Not sure if it will make a great difference other than a short term positive blurb for Clinton in the news cycle.  


    She has Strickland the Governor (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:25:47 PM EST
    So she has no excuses in Ohio.

    She has to win.

    And win the primary in Texas.


    She is going to need (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:40:35 PM EST
    to really improve her ground game in Texas for their hybrid system.  I can't fathom what the benefit is in making voters show up twice to vote?  

    if she wins TX & OH (none / 0) (#23)
    by Miss Devore on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:26:13 PM EST
    Obama should work in public tears.

    I don't know the details offhand, but TX and OH seem to have great possibilities for corrupting the vote, too.

    my motto:

    "Wait, don't speculate"

    but then it wouldn't be like sports....

    I do not have to wait (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    to state Clinton has to win OH and TX and PA.

    I think that is obvious.

    I think the nomination comes down to those 3. Obama needs one of them.


    Leave it to me. I just saw the second page (none / 0) (#26)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:28:31 PM EST
    of that mailer and I am pretty angry. Can everyone quit saying that Obama doesn't go negative? That is pretty offensive.

    I agree that HC needs all three. If she only wins enough delegates to come close, but not win, it won't look too good to leave Florida out of this though.

    But fear not... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:31:31 PM EST
    because it wouldn't matter how good or bad it would look.  If she has enough delegates (one big win, two tiny losses, or other contingencies), then that's all that matters.  The rules are pretty clear about who would get to control the super-Ds from that point.  Of course, 3 wins is always preferable...  just sayin...  The whole Obama momentum meme is overrated IMHO.

    I'm saying that I think Obama will stay close (none / 0) (#39)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:40:25 PM EST
    enough, win or lose, in the big three to keep the delegate lead. But if Florida would put her over, they won't seat them and his win won't look as good. Neither would hers if they seat Florida. I think the crazy Texas primary/caucus will prevent her from winning enough delegates there to matter.

    If she's smart (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:41:49 PM EST
    she sent the people who organized for her in NV to Texas--yesterday.

    My disagreement is with the idea (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:35:45 PM EST
    She needs tohave a pledged delegate lead.

    If she is within 50 on pledged delegates, wins the popular vote and wins all the big state primaries, then the SDs will have a rationale for going to her and Obama will have many unanswered electability questions.

    A deleagte lead based on caucuses in Alsak, Idaho, South Dakota etc, contrasted to big losses in every big primary state simply knocks all the wind out of his sails.

    But this is simple now - Obama go win on of those 3. If you can't, you have no argument for being the nominee.

    If you can, Godspeed.


    If we end up with a difference (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:38:35 PM EST
    between delegate lead and popular vote lead, we're not going to have a nominee until the convention.

    I see a floor fight in the future, and it could get ugly. That's especially if Obama has enough delegates to block the seating of FL and MI, but Hillary has enough SDs to win at the end of the day.


    Then Obama (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:43:31 PM EST
    will be the spoiler.

    I imagine that is a possibility.


    BTD, does the popular vote have an actual (none / 0) (#55)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:02:21 PM EST
    impact on the nomination in the DNC rules? I've noticed a lot of people talking about the popular vote, but I thought the race was all about getting to 2025?

    SDs will get you to 2025 (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:09:03 PM EST
    Tell them the voters do not matter.

    Okay, so that's a technical no. (none / 0) (#72)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:15:02 PM EST
    The voters do matter. The voters determined the delegate count. That count reflects the will of the voters in the many states, and the rules say the winner is the one with the most delegates.

    Telling people that the rules don't matter would hurt the party more.


    Acxtually the voters did NOT (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:16:51 PM EST
    determine the delegate count.

    that is one of the big issues here.


    For all the protestations about (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:35 PM EST
    the sacred rules, it appears that the ones who really want to rewrite the rules are Obama supporters.

    What we really need to do is 1) abolish caucuses; 2) make the title of delegate an honorary one; and 3) abolish super delegates. Going to popular vote is just fine with me, and I think that's likely what the SDs will follow in august. But those Obama supporters who insist that the SDs have to vote with the majority of pledged delegates are just living in cotton candy fantasy land.


    Not fantasy land, reality. (none / 0) (#111)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:35:11 PM EST
    I am not saying the rules prevent the SDs from picking hillary. Obama could've won 2024 pledged delegates, and the SDs would still every right under the rules to give her 2026.

    What I'm saying is that all the Joe Schmoes out there like me who sit down and listen to CNN et. al. talk about the dash for delegates, the race to 2025, etc. think the rule is that (s)he with the most delegates wins.

    IF in August they sit down and see Obama with 1677 pledged delegates to Hillary's 1577 (just hypothetically), but they are then told that she will represent Democrats b/c party leaders determined that she won 50k more votes and therefore threw their support behind her, then they will find the system to be rigged and not believe the rules matter. More pledged delegates will mean that he won more states, so what you'll be saying is that voters in Cali and NY mean more than voters in Idaho, Georgia, Minnesota, Iowa, etc.

    Do that, and I think the Democratic party will suffer. The SD most certainly have every right to do so, but I THINK it would be a HUGE mistake.


    But most votes is most votes and sorry my friend, that is a POWERFUL argument.

    Then in 2012 I hope they decide to just hold (none / 0) (#120)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:40:57 PM EST
    a national primary and base it all on popular vote.

    If that's really what drives it, then why not codify it? As a voter, I wouldn't mind at all.

    Anyway...we'll see if Cali picks the nominee or if all 50 states really matter.


    Never before has a nominee NOT (none / 0) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:49:59 PM EST
    been the Popular vote winner. You make it sound as if it is some novel idea.

    That is the Obama supporter in you talking.


    That may be so (none / 0) (#143)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:52:46 PM EST
    But how relevant is that when most primaries end uncontested?

    We sure know that this doesn't hold true in Presidential elections.  


    It is the Al Gore 2000 argument (none / 0) (#128)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:45:00 PM EST
    and most Dems believe it. Jeez, talk about cognitive dissonance.

    SDs (none / 0) (#150)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:42:37 PM EST
    Don't you think there's something to be said for the sober second sight and insight of the insiders and party elders, particularly in a year when large numbers of not necessarily well informed voters are turning out, far beyond the usual base?

    I do agree on abolishing caucuses though.


    Huh?? (none / 0) (#93)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:25:28 PM EST
    Delegates are determined by the result of a vote. People go vote, people count, and the DNC allocates delegates based on the result of the vote. Hence, voters lead to delegates being awarded.

    Same reason you can get (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:28:31 PM EST
    an electoral college majority with a minority of the results. Same reason gerrymandering works.

    But the rules also have a mechanism in place to prevent a minority (seriously, no pun intended) nominee.


    Yes (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:27:26 PM EST
    and the rules dilute the votes of the voters. Ergo, the voters did not decide the precise delegate count.

    Stop beeing an a**.


    The rules will probably be changed before 2012 (none / 0) (#114)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:37:07 PM EST
    but it's too late for 2008.

    Now I'm a** for thinking the DNC should abide by the system they picked, put in place, and sanctioned. And the system under which HRC ran for president.



    And they will (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:39:10 PM EST
    Your constantly false insinuations that the rukes will be followed makes you a foolsih a** and on the verge of suspension for the rest of the night.

    I am not saying the rules mandate an Obama (none / 0) (#125)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:43:22 PM EST
    victory. I'm sorry.

    I won't say rules again. The rule is 2025. If HRC gets 2025 b/c of SDs, that'll be fair in the sense of what the rules say.

    My argument is if she is picked that way, McCain will win the general.


    Then you are saying (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:48:49 PM EST
    Obama supporters will not respect the rules for picking the nominee.

    Quite an indictment.

    The fact that clinton would have a popular vote win means nothing to Obama supporters is your argument.

    Despicable is what you are labelling Obama supporters.

    I think better of them than that.


    halstoon, you aren't listening. The rule (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:45:36 PM EST
    that says you win with delegates is the one where you get the 2025 or whatever it is. If neither one gets that, and they won't, there is no rule on how to settle it. The superdelegates have to decide whether to give it to the leader in delegates or to the popular vote winner if they aren't the same person. There is no rule that they have to vote for the leader in delegates only. You are the one wanting to change the system.

    Most of the time, yes (none / 0) (#119)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:39:57 PM EST
    but it's been brought to everyone's attention ad nauseum that it's possible to win popular vote in a given state, and still pick up more delegates.  Therefore, it is quite rational to keep the emphasis on winning delegates, and not popular vote per se.

    But we are talking about a situation where (none / 0) (#80)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:19:35 PM EST
    neither of them have enough delegates. You can't win the nomination with 1800 delegates to 1790 or so. That's where the other stuff comes in. There is no rule that a superdelegate votes for the delegate leader. This race (at this point) is too close to expect them to be bound by a rule that doesn't even exist.

    What about Edwards' delegates? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:54 PM EST
    Not that it matters.  It was just posted on the other thread that Obama said in the interview tonight that one of his toughest decisions in the senate was VOTING AGAINST THE WAR.

    Of course, what Obama meant was funding the war, which Hillary voted against as well, so does that mean she can now say that she voted against the war?

    This double standard strains incredulity.  we are officially past the suspension of disbelief.


    Teresa, (none / 0) (#123)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:42:23 PM EST
    if it ends up that close then Clinton would win via SDs.  Obama's camp can cry seven ways till Sunday and it still wouldn't matter.  Rules are rules, and fair or not, they are actually very clear on the freedom of SDs to choose as they personally see fit.

    I know. I was just trying to convince (none / 0) (#142)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:52:04 PM EST
    halstoon that there is no rule. I do think she needs a pretty decent size popular vote edge to sway them though. And I do think people will be really angry from one side if it turns out that way.

    Just stop it (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:26:28 PM EST
    The rules allow SDs to vote for whomever they like, for example, the popular vote winner.

    You are being an a** now.


    I said that as long as she keeps Obama's margin to <100 (just my ballpark number, but I'm sure her team has a real number to benchmark the margin.)

    You're assuming she'd have the edge in (none / 0) (#48)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:48:09 PM EST
    popular votes enough to override the delegate lead by Obama?

    Well, I agree (none / 0) (#51)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:57:58 PM EST
    with Chris Bowers that the popular vote is hopelessly disputed, so...   I am trying only to make assumptions about the total number of delegates that she can rack up between now and the end--and there are enough left for her to overtake his delegate lead.  There are a few ways that can play out.

    It is not hopelessly disputed (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:16:05 PM EST
    Frakly, I have looked at this and it is clear if Clinton wins Texas, Ohio and PA she will have a clear PV lead.

    I mean (none / 0) (#94)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:25:31 PM EST
    that unless her wins translate into picking up delegates, then it doesn't matter.  

    If you are arguing she has to lead in PDs (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:32:07 PM EST
    then she can not win imo.

    I reject that premise.


    Yes, (none / 0) (#98)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:27:28 PM EST
    I agree with that.  If she wins those three she will have a clear PV lead, and that's all that matters.  She will control then how the SDs get allocated through the vetting process.

    I can see that happening. If she wins Texas (none / 0) (#44)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:45:20 PM EST
    (and Ohio and Penn) she won't rack up the delegates there because of their primary rules so he stays ahead in delegates and she is ahead in votes. I'd give it to the popular vote winner too but it will be a mess. I think enough insiders dislike the Clintons to use Obama's preference for the superdelegate votes but they shouldn't because of the big state votes.

    Populated Staes... (none / 0) (#52)
    by solon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:58:12 PM EST
    Its an odd argument to state that Obama cannot win the populated states since he won Illinois, the fifth most populated state. He did much better there percentage wise than Clinton did in New York. He also won Georgia, which is the ninth most populated state. Pointing to delegates won in Alaska and South Dakota is more hyperbole than anything else unless you want to argue that votes in California ought to matter more because the Democrats in California are better in some way.

    Further, the primary rules, to which all of the candidates agreed, state that the nominee is earned through delegates, no matter the state. Clinton may win more of the populated states, but there is no reason to believe that those delegates should count for more than delegates in smaller states.

    To judge by "popular vote" will not help clarify this mess since states enact their own rules to choose how to dispense delegates-- primary or caucus, open or closed primary. Since there are so many standards, let alone the problems with Michigan and Florida, relying on the popular vote to obtain a sense of legitimacy, would not be fair in any sense (other than an instrumental, means to an end type of fairness that only benefits the winner).

    Even if Clinton wins Texas, Ohio, and Penn., she may not be in the lead of pledged delegates, especially since the February states (Post Super-Tuesday) contain more delegates than Texas and Ohio. Clinton and Obama will most likely split the March 4th states as well as Penn, which means Obama will hold a small lead or they will be in a virtual tie.

    The rules were clear; all parties agreed. The winner of the delegate count matters. If Clinton is in the lead of the pledged delegates after the primaries and caucuses, then the Super Delegates should support her; if Obama is in the lead, then they should support him. It does not matter who wins more states, if they are red states or blue states, or if they contain more people.


    Live by the rules, die by the Super Delegates (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:00:53 PM EST
    Who can vote for whomever they want.

    The big states aren't counting for more. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:04:22 PM EST
    They are counting for less. Someone calculated that in Washington, there was one delegate won per 2500 voters. In California, it was one in 10,000.

    Point out that Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:14:56 PM EST
    wrapping up the nomination with a healthy heaping of small red states, a la Bush '00 + 04, and you'll get a screenful of latte libel. Ironic given Obama's wine track base.

    Point out to HRC backers that Dems live in (none / 0) (#87)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:22:02 PM EST
    red states and they'll tell you that those people's voices don't count as much as Dems who live in Cali and NY.

    Surprising, since they're all about the democratic process when it comes to caucuses.


    Caucusues are CLEARLY less (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:24:08 PM EST
    democratic than primaries.

    Even Obama supporter Josh Marshall says so.

    When you deny the obvious, you only succeed in looking foolish.a


    Caucuses may be unfair (none / 0) (#137)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:50:51 PM EST
    but nobody forces those states to have them. The DNC does not outlaw them, though the call for them to do so may come after this year.

    I'm not denying that they are unfair. I'm only saying they seat delegates and those delegates should still count since the DNC sanctioned caucuses.

    Arguing that those delegates are less relevant is what is foolish...


    So now turnout matters? (none / 0) (#65)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:11:58 PM EST
    The party established the rules long ago. Why should they change just because they're not working out in HRC's favor?

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:14:53 PM EST
    We are discussing Sds dude.

    What part of that do you NOt understand?


    I know, dude. SDs are SD b/c they are members (none / 0) (#79)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:19:29 PM EST
    of the DNC, the same body that established the rules that say delegates determine the winner. Do those party officials now want to turn around and tell voters that the rules have changed, that delegates don't matter, turnout does?

    I don't think they'll do that, dude.

    To change the rules may appease their constituents, but it will kill turnout in November, b/c people will see that the rules don't matter.

    After all, if those in power pick a nominee regardless of the rules, then who's to say the electoral college or those counting the votes don't do the same?

    The DNC doesn't want that image.


    Let's try this again (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:23:39 PM EST
    If the Super Delegates vote for the candidate who does not have a pledged delegate lead, they will be operating within the rules.

    Having the pledged delegate lead is an insufficient condition for winning the nomination if you don't pass the threshold--and neither candidate is likely to.


    Are you really this dumb? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:25:04 PM EST
    SDs can vote for whomever they like.

    What effing part of that do you NOT understand?


    Now I'm dumb. (1.00 / 1) (#144)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:53:45 PM EST
    I never said it would be contrary to the rules. I said the general perception would be that winning the most delegates in the most states does not matter and that the DNC doesn't want that image.

    Are you so thickheaded that you can't get past the word rules?

    Read all my words, not just one.


    It is not weird at all (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:12:22 PM EST
    Homes state blowoutrs are meaningless to me.

    And to Sds I imagine.

    The rules are clear BTW, SDs get to vote for whomever they want.

    You do not get to make up the rules for them no more than I can say the popular vote winner should get their votes.

    I am not advocating for anything her, I am telling you WHAT I THINK will happen.



    I made that exact same argument, Solon. (none / 0) (#58)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:07:18 PM EST
    I hope you're more successful with it than I was.

    People here seem to think that popular vote matters in some determinitive way, though.

    I think if she wins 3 more pledged delegates, but Obama wins 100k more votes, she should still win.

    Of course, that should be the outcome if Obama has the 3 delegates and she has the 10k as well.

    #'s are just imaginary, used for no specific reason.


    well i see it just the opposite (none / 0) (#99)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:28:08 PM EST
    statistically speaking, hillary has the backing of a solid majority of democratic voters and always has.

    she has won every big state primary by more than fifty percent.

    big states are important because the results are statistically reliable.  you can project the percentage of support from a big state primary with a demographic matching the entire nation and determine with certainty +- the margin of error which has the most support.

    this analysis has always favored clinton because she has always had a majority in the big states.

    therefore i can say with certainty that clinton has the support of about 55% of all democratic voters +- 2 or 3%.  she is the majority favorite.  to me, that is unquestionable.    

    for purely statistical purposes, you have to disallow the caucus total (because caucus participation involves a statistical bias) and use the total number of primaries only.

    you also have to exclude il, because it is an outlier, probably also s.c.  so total the number for clinton from all primary states minus ill, and the same for obama, and you get the best number for overall support among actual voters.  

    and the primaries are the best sample because are actual voters, not likely voters from surveys although these have generally shown the same numbers as the primary states.  that's why that is an important number.

    if you give the nomination to obama, you will be doing so over someone who has had a solid statistical majority of democratic support.  think about that.  from a purely numbers point of view, clinton is the majority candidate.  why is obama trying to beat her on a technicality?  it would be a travesty, in my opinion.  


    So her (none / 0) (#59)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:08:49 PM EST
    50% lead over him in Arkansas and her comfortable margin in the top two most populous states means nothing to him winning IL?

    not win victory means 2025, no. (none / 0) (#63)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:10:25 PM EST
    if you predicate winning on delegates, then only delegates should determine the winner.

    Both will need SDs (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:13:18 PM EST
    What is so hard for you to understand about that?

    Yes, but a more apt (none / 0) (#73)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:15:18 PM EST
    way to put it would be the winner of the right number of delegates gets to determine who the winner will be.

    The operative word was comfortably. (none / 0) (#31)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:34:53 PM EST
    In other words, by more than just a couple of points. And that is the news, that she is admitting to needing to beat him comfortably.

    He only has to stay close. An upset victory would certainly end it.

    A close win for her and she can still pretend to believe, but secretly she'll know it's over. That is what the source is saying.

    that word is empty (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:37:30 PM EST
    But suppose you want to make something of it.

    She wins OH by 7 let's say. And Texas by 9.

    And then wins PA by 4.

    This is the mandate for the Obama nomination?

    Sorry, the SDs will reject him, even if he has a 50 pledged delegate lead not counting MI and FL.

    The task seems simple to me. Win one of 3 Obama.


    I didn't say it, a SD did, and I think they know (none / 0) (#47)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:47:49 PM EST
    more than either of us. What is a comfortable victory? 53-47 is not comfortable. 58-42 is. She needs to make up the delegate difference, which means she needs to approach that 60% threshhold to prevent him from a delegate split.

    That is what I think the story meant, or what the SD meant, more to the point.

    Obama definitely needs to win at least one of the three, I agree. He needs to get the "can't win a big one" monkey off his back. That's absolutely true.

    He got the Plain-Dealer on his side. If he can make Cleveland a strong win, and take the college crowd in Columbus, I think he's got a shot in Ohio: lots of colleges (young people), lots of educated folks, lots of money. It's also geographically close to Illinois, so it's an audience he should be able to connect to.

    He'll have lots of time to stump, and that's an advantage for him. He needs to be able to get in front the of people. Once he does that, they get behind him.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:22:34 PM EST
    If Hillary wins 53-47 in OH, TX and PA she is the next nominee.



    Do you think it's time for HC to fight back (none / 0) (#49)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:52:24 PM EST
    a little harder? She may lose if she does but I think she'll lose if she doesn't at least try. Especially on things like the Harry &  Louise ad and the mailer and anti-Clinton administration speeches?

    I think she's in a lose lose situation here.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#91)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:24:16 PM EST
    I want her to play hard against him in the debate.  This stuff is ridiculous.  How in the he*l can he be claiming that he VOTED against the war?  The point is no one made him vote.

    This is to me as Rezko is to Stellaaa.


    If the SDs reject him despite a 50 pledged lead (none / 0) (#61)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:09:03 PM EST
    I think McCain will be president on 1/20/09.

    Why? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:19:06 PM EST
    You think Obama supporters do not like playing by the rules?

    Baloney (none / 0) (#45)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:46:09 PM EST
    A close win is just that, a close win.  If she can rack 3 close wins together, they will add up to make the difference.  On the other hand, she could also have one GIANT win and minimally lose the other two.  

    The quote was (none / 0) (#50)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:53:25 PM EST
    "has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably or she's out."

    I did not say that. One of her SD supporters did.

    Furthermore, the SD did not even mention PA, know why? Because it comes a month after those two. What the person quoted said was that she had to win BOTH the March 4 biggies comfortably
    or it is over. PA won't matter.

    Let's say she wins both 54-46. That's not gonna get it done for her, b/c delegate-wise Obama will force a split, and by that point his delegate lead (pledged, not SD) will be significant enough that she won't be able to close the gap with what is left.

    She needs two clear victories, above 55%. If not, her own SD--not me--says it's over with.


    Am I the only one who thinks that (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:11:19 PM EST
    Clinton's standards for "winning" are much higher than Obama's standards for 'winning"?

    More goal post moving.


    So what? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:20:00 PM EST
    What is comfortably anyway?

    Did she win MA, CA and NJ comfortably? How aboout Nevada?

    I say yes to all of them.


    This won't be over before PA (none / 0) (#148)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:08:02 PM EST
    Demographics count (none / 0) (#46)
    by ctrenta on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:46:41 PM EST

    Open question. The demographics of TX,OH, and PA will count for who wins who. Out of the three states, which state's demographics favor Obama the most?

    My view? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:30:14 PM EST
    None of them.

    Ohio, Texas, and Penn are Not on Super Tuesday (none / 0) (#57)
    by jor on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:06:33 PM EST
    You seem to be ignoring one gigantic problem for hillary. As voters get to know Obama, they basically switch their vote away from Hillary. Hillary's campaign is mostly name recognition. This is just anecdotal, but my mother is an OB/GYN in NJ -- i.e. she sees many women (50-70) that are Hillary's core demographic. Occasionally, she'd ask who people were going to vote for and why  -- almost all people who supported hillary were solely based on her name. Most of her supporters barely knew Obama. This isn't going to be the case in Ohio or Texas.

    Cali, NJ, and Mass were all one day and Obama had roughly a week to campaign in 22 states. Just for Ohio and Texas -- he has two weeks alone. He has an infinite amount of time to win Pennsylvania over. One-on-One for 6 weeks against Hillary is going to be a cake walk for him. Obama is the more human candidate.

    Obama isn't going to win all three, but I'd say, pulling an upset in 1 out of 3, is pretty likely.

    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:12:02 PM EST
    Right, because all those people in California never ever heard of Obama before he traveled there in person.  And Massachusetts, you know, I don't think they even have cable up there so how could they be expected to know anything about Sen. Obama?  I mean, I don't think they've ever heard of that Kennedy dude either.

    15 minutes vs. 15 years in the national spot light (none / 0) (#76)
    by jor on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:18:32 PM EST
    15+ years in the national spot light vs. 15 minutes in the national spot light. Yea --- thats the same thing.

    Like I said, I only have anecdotal evidence. But most people -- i.e. not the inhabitants of lefty blogosphere -- don't follow politics that closely at all. Maybe everyone you talk to does. But in my day-to-day job, it almost never comes up.

    Anyway, if vehement clinton supporters who go to an obama rally come away impressed (c.f. mydd) -- what do you think happens to the marginally inclined clinton voter?


    Huh (none / 0) (#112)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:36:07 PM EST
    Seems to me that all those Sen. Obama supporters keep telling me her long years of experience doesn't count for anything.

    I have anecdotal evidence too, but I wouldn't use it to gerrymander an excuse for why my candidate lost a particular primary or caucus.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:17 PM EST
    He has 100% naqme recognition and the most favorable press I have ever seen a candidate get. No excuses please.

    100% name recognition as... (none / 0) (#95)
    by jor on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:25:56 PM EST
    ... "the black guy running for president". Lets just say, several people told that to my mom in NJ before Super Tuesday.  I don't think that's the same as 8 years as first lady and 7 years as senator.

    100% name recognition (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:29:07 PM EST
    as the new JFK/RFK all rolled into one.

    You  Obama supporters a freaking hilarious.


    yea, for those of us who have waste too much time. (none / 0) (#115)
    by jor on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:37:19 PM EST
    ... online. But not for everyone else. I'm not making excuses for CA, MA, or NJ. I'm saying Texas, Ohio, and PA are different races, because their is just a lot more time to campaign there. I think that's non-controversial. And since Hillary supporters seem to think Obama has a cult following -- don't you think the cult leader might be able to win some more converts with more time on the ground in each state?

    Well (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:41:03 PM EST
    then he has no excuses and iof he is denied the nomination if he fails to win any of them you really should have no gripes.

    I have to say the (none / 0) (#69)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:13:42 PM EST
    "to know him is to love him" argument is really getting tired.

    There was no candidate who had more favorable press, more money and more of the news cycle than Obama did heading into Super Tuesday.  In national polls (which are crap, to be sure) he has the same name recognition a she does now (within the margin of error)

    The argument that he wins voters when they get to know him is not supported by the huge crowds who come to see him vs the number who show up in the voting booth.


    yup, just like he won california? huh! (none / 0) (#145)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:54:05 PM EST
    any early numbers (none / 0) (#62)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:09:05 PM EST
    for tx or oh that anybody can share?

    i expect the usual 53% for clinton but would appreciate some real data as to if that may be higher.

    also, is it not the fact that caucus delegates are not necessarily committed?

    could dean influence the hard delegate outcomes from the caucus states to more proportionately match the primary states?  i doubt it, but it's just a thought.    

    Yes, you will find good honest data on TX (none / 0) (#77)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:18:52 PM EST

    Let me try again... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:20:46 PM EST
    The analysis of TX is presented via Al Giordano at rural votes here.

    Where? (none / 0) (#85)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:37 PM EST
    Did the second attempt (none / 0) (#109)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:33:26 PM EST
    at a link not work?  I don't understand, they work in my previews.

    It's Al Giordano's election blog at ruralvotes.com, which is called 'The Field.'

    I will try to link once more here.


    What if... (none / 0) (#106)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:30:29 PM EST
    ...those were the only remaining states Clinton were to win?
    If Obama had something like 33-34 states won to Clinton's 16 or 17, and had more pledged delegates(even with MI and FL factored in), and more   popular votes won as well, I think there's a decent counter-argument there against the "big state" argument.  
    I think he's only really in trouble if she wins by more than 5 in all three states, because then he can at least argue that not only did he win comfortably in nearly 2 out of 3 of the 50+ contests, he was highly competitive in several big states.

    But I want to see some actual polls, because I don't think "blue collar workers", latinos and women think exactly the same in each state.  The only poll I've seen of TX showed only a 10 point lead for Clinton, and that was prior to his recent   win streak and ad campaign there.  
    Obama's a mid-westerner and could pretty easily adjust his pitch to an Ohio audience.

    Six weeks to run a campaign in Pennsylvania is an eternity.  

    I really want Obama to win OH and TX to just flat out end this thing.  Perhaps we'll get a bit of a breather from the "nuclear jai alai" in the left blogosphere.

    "and more Popular votes" (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:34:07 PM EST
    then he will be the nominee.

    I do not see how that would be possible myself.


    well, her lead in pop vote... (none / 0) (#122)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:42:06 PM EST
    ...currently isn't all that large, and is only there if you throw in FL and MI(and assume he doesn't get the "uncommitted" vote).  He will get tens of thousands more votes in the Potomac primaries, and if her margins in TX, OH and PA aren't that large, he can make that up by winning nearly everywhere else remaining.

    There are potentially hundreds of thousands of primary votes in the other 7 states after PA.

    I would hope she would make more of an organized effort to contest the other remaining states besides the "big 3".  


    Many more voters in (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:45:38 PM EST
    TX, OH and PA than in MD, WS, DC and MD.

    The Philly area is 40% AA (none / 0) (#136)
    by ding7777 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:50:01 PM EST
    the Pittsburgh area is older women, the rest is RED

    I think it is fairly obvious (none / 0) (#126)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:43:51 PM EST
    that Hillary needs to win all 3 states, assuming that the Feb results go as planned.

    What I think is a more interesting discussion is whether Hillary is making the right move by banking on the Big 3 to save her bacon.  

    If the polls are to be believed then Obama is poised to win big in the Feb polls.  20+ leads in in the Atlantic state primaries.

    What sort of impact will those results have on Texas and Ohio?  Will a tide of inevitability start to swell?

    Or will Hillary stop the surge by holding strong in TX and Ohio.  

    I think she is taking a big risk but she may feel it is her only choice.  

    Probability (none / 0) (#127)
    by dmk47 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:44:43 PM EST
    is sort of relevant to determining who's the favorite. BTD says Clinton is the favorite to win the nomination because she is the favorite in TX, OH, and PA.

    Suppose Clinton has a 75% chance of winning each race. That sounds inordinately high, but just suppose. Then her chances of winning all three are .75x.75x.75 = ~42%. I.e., she's not the favorite. Of course, her chances of winning PA are conditional on the outcome in OH and TX, which makes the math more complicated, but the basic point is that for Clinton to be the favorite to win the nomination, she can't just be favored in all three states, but has to be favored by overwhelming margins in all three states, on the order of 80%. (80% gets her to barely better than a coinflip.) Which is just unrealistic.

    QED, no?

    Also, as halstoon points out, with the way these post Feb. 5 contests are going, Obama will have a large lead in pledged delegates on Mar. 4. Hillary can't win a marginally better than 50% share of delegates, she needs some kind of landslide.

    Texas is particularly problematic for her because the party allocates delegates to districts based on their level of support for Kerry in 04. And the only parts of Texas that went for Kerry at all, let alone heavily, have high concentrations of African-Americans. So the delegates in TX are packed into favorable districts for Obama. Even if he loses the primary, he'll overperform his vote percentage in the delegate split. Plus, between a quarter and a third of TX delegates are allocated in a caucus, and we know how those go. (See Ambinder's post on this for more.)

    @ctrenta, on the demographics question, the conventional wisdom would be that OH, then PA, then TX are best for Obama. OH's demos are virtually identical to MO, which Obama won, and if anything slightly more favorable. PA is very similar to OH in terms of race, education, and income, but has more Catholics and immigrants, who may be propitious for Clinton. In any case, unless the race is deadlocked after Mar. 4, which I doubt, PA won't turn out to be that important.

    Lastly, TX has many Latinos, who will go big for Clinton if the CA pattern holds up. I don't see why it necessarily will hold up though. The assumption that CA Latinos vote along similar lines to TX Latinos is just wrong. For one thing, many more TX Latinos than CA Latinos are Republican. In other words, they're not going to be 29% of the Texas Democratic electorate. Moreover, Obama did much better among Latinos in AZ than in CA, and it stands to reason that TX Latinos are closer to AZ Latinos in their voting preferences.

    Bear in mind that Obama doesn't have to win Latinos, he just has to improve on his abysmal performance in CA.

    Latin@s (none / 0) (#138)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:50:59 PM EST
    Had never been 29% of the California demographic before either.  They had previously voted at 12-16% of the electorate.

    Clinton, however, will not have as much time to organize in Texas as she had in California.  On the other hand, her organizers do appear to be better at working big states than Obama has been.  

    The wildcard for me in Texas is whether Clinton still has contacts with local organizers there from when she and Bill worked the state for McGovern.   I know she registered hispanic voters, but does she still know the movers and shakers in the Texas latin@ community? What she needs are the Texas equivalents of Anthony Villaraigosa and Dolores Huerta, if they exist.


    Latinos in Texas (none / 0) (#147)
    by dmk47 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:58:07 PM EST
    Latinos are about 35% of the populations of California and Texas. But Texas Latinos are far more Republican than California Latinos. They won't make up the same proportion of the Democratic electorate in Texas.

    As for the McGovern machine --- well, come on. The Texas Democratic party has been in a kind of receivership since the LBJ days.


    Ohio Polls (none / 0) (#132)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:46:37 PM EST
    You can find a list here.  The most recent was at the end of January.  Clinton had a big lead, but Edwards was still included and 20% was undecided.  I'd say it's bound to be much closer than that now.

    I couldn't find any recent Texas polls.  The most recent one was a month old.

    I just cleaned this thread (none / 0) (#149)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:20:23 PM EST
    BTD was right, it got way out of hand. No name-calling and personal attacks please. Have a conversation, agree, disagree, make your case, refute someone else's -- but do it without rancor and venom.

    Comments here remain closed.