home

Texas May Be Hillary's Last Chance

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:36:16 PM EST
Tags: Texas '08, Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

ABC News has a pretty thorough analysis of the status of things in Texas, and which way different demographics are breaking.

There's three problems for Hillary in Texas, and they don't sound small.

  • 1/3 of the delegates will be awarded based on a caucus held at the conclusion of the primary.
  • Delegates are apportioned partially by Democratic voter turnout in prior elections
  • The primary is open to Independents

The significance: Obama does better in caucuses and primaries where Independents can vote.

The places with the greater amount of liberal and African American voters (Dallas, Houston, Austin) had greater voter turnout than the Latino communities in prior years, so even if Hillary gets a great Latino turnout, she won't score as many delegates. [More...]

For instance, voters in three urban state senate districts — overwhelmingly black districts in Dallas and Houston, and a white liberal enclave of Austin — will choose 21 convention delegates between them.

But because of low Latino turnout for Democrats in the 2004 and 2006 elections, some state senate districts choose as few as two delegates each.

Latinos are expected to account for 1/3 of primary voters. Hillary may get the number up to 40%. It's expected she will win 2/3 of those votes. African American voters make up 1/4 of the primary vote, and Obama can be expected to get 85 to 90% of it.

Bottom line: Hillary could win the popular vote in Texas but lose the delegate race. Texas has 193 delegates. She may need a blow-out in the state to make up for these Texas-size peculiarities.

< Bill Clinton: Hillary Has To Win Texas And Ohio | My View: The NYTimes Becomes The National Enquirer >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Texas May Be Hillary's Last Chance | 106 comments (106 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Sorry for the O/T (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:25:21 PM EST
    but how furious does this make you...Poor Lewis is being punished already for supporting Hillary and not Obama...This is totally disgusting to me

    This is so appalling (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:28:43 PM EST
    but expected.  Now if Obama can only fight as hard against Republicans in Congress as he is against members of his own Congressional Black Caucus. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Blame Obama (none / 0) (#83)
    by dmfox on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:26:28 PM EST
    Even where there is no mention of he, or his campaign, encouraging a primary challenge to Lewis, it MUST be his fault.  That's what he's worrying about at this stage, screwing over a progressive hero and influential super delegate.

    To be fair, I say the same thing when Clinton is blamed for similar absurdities.

    [ Parent ]

    I am in Lewis's district (none / 0) (#91)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:54:47 PM EST
    and called, absolutely outraged, about the vote switch--but this makes me even more furious.  I have been a supporter and contributor (progressively more as I, ahem, age) to Lewis's campaign for years and I am outraged that this scion is being attacked.  Y'all don't know about his challenger, but the case that is mentioned in the article is a horrible one, and he is basically an ambulance chaser and very divisive as far as black vs. white.  The sort of thing Atlanta has not seen for years.

    This is just horrible. Absolutely horrible.

    I was even more freaked out by this new clip I saw at NoQuarter.  I think this is on topic inasmuch as we are talking about Clinton's chances, because whoever produced this knew what they were doing and created an incredibly chilling anti-Obama video.  Very professionally done:

    LINK

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah chilling indeed (none / 0) (#94)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:01:19 PM EST
    He linked Barack Obama to Malcolm X. Clearly their message is indistinguishable.  

    You have clearly lost the plot, Kathy.  Don't engage in hatred.

    [ Parent ]

    I would hardly call it hatred (none / 0) (#103)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:41:16 AM EST
    to post a video that is making the rounds on the front pages of a lot of blogs.  It's the very nature of the plot.  


    [ Parent ]
    Sure shows the pathetic phony (none / 0) (#98)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:23:22 PM EST
    for what he is, doesn't it?


    [ Parent ]
    Eh (none / 0) (#84)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:26:46 PM EST
    this guy does not sound like good competiton AT ALL.  Now THAT is a slim resume.

    [ Parent ]
    Change In Dynamics of Race (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:03:51 PM EST
    For Clinton to win the popular votes in Texas and Ohio there will have to be a change in the dynamics of the race, IMO.  Now, that could very well happen.  It could happen in kind of a slow, natural way over the next two weeks if, for example, the press steps up scrutiny of Obama and Clinton has good debates.  It could happen in an instant with an Obama gaffe or some world event that makes "experience" a good thing again.

    But she needs the dynamics to change.  And if they do, then delegates aren't going to matter in Texas because the race will break open in her favor.  Just as if she loses Texas and Ohio, the race will probably irrevocably break open in his favor (absent some disastrous mistake on his part).

    It seems to me the only way the delegates matter is if somehow Clinton squeaks out wins in Texas and Ohio even without a change in dynamic.  I think that is unlikely.  Possible, especially in Ohio, but unlikely.  

    View from an Independent (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by IndyCatherine on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:28:21 PM EST
    As an Independent who voted for Hillary in the Feb. 5 CA primary, I am very discouraged by the prospect that she may not make it. She is the one Democrat left that I thought might be able to turn things around. I really want to like Obama and I've tried, but I just can't do it and I will not vote for him. I feel that he is arrogant, has a sense of entitlement, and I wouldn't trust him to protect or further women's rights (my opinion). Nor do I want a Republican back in the White House again under any circumstances. I also really suspect that Rove's hand has been at work behind the scenes getting Republicans to vote for Obama in the primaries, and it's going to be Kerry 2004 all over again, except worse this time, so White House: here comes McCain. At this point, I'm hoping for a 3rd party candidate to vote for.

    I became an Independent after being a "Reagan Democrat". I've been leaning Democratic for the most part since then, but from what I've seen after Democrats took over Congress in 2006, they seem quite spineless. And now this convoluted primary and caucus process and superdelegates and proportional delegates and denying two states the vote--jeez Louise, the party needs some major revamping! What are the options for Independents like me? I want to understand why (or if) I should consider voting for Democrats any more.

    I can't give you a reason (none / 0) (#99)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:24:48 PM EST
    I'm an Independent and don't any either.


    [ Parent ]
    Same here (none / 0) (#106)
    by Salt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:00:27 AM EST
    and its hard to be gracious, observing this cluster goat rodeo.

    [ Parent ]
    BTW, resorting to a 527... (1.33 / 3) (#39)
    by jor on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:33:49 PM EST
    ... to save you is a sign of desperation. Obama is approaching 1 million donors -- and Hillary needs her rich friends to save her campaign.

    She should leave with grace instead of embarrassing herself.

    I am not embarrassed to be a supporter (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:36:35 PM EST
    of Clinton, and she would make me proud by staying in as long as she can.  And she will continue to do so with grace.  So don't you worry yourself.

    As for 527's, are you not aware of Obama's?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, the unions, but the thing is... (none / 0) (#46)
    by jor on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:38:53 PM EST
    ... Obama has raised enough to survive without them. The unions are already existing groups. Hillary is gathering all her rich friends together, to make $100,000 donations, to continue supporting her. I just hope this group doesn't start making ads for McCain (i.e. that McCain will copy for the general). Their first ad is fine, but who knows what they'll do as this things get closer to the finish.

    [ Parent ]
    This seems to be on another topic (nt) (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:20:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:45:14 PM EST
    has tons of 527s. There was a big write-up about that in San Francisco before Super Tuesday. It's amazing to me how Obama people have no clue about all the stuff he's doing because they don't want to know the facts, just like Dubya's people.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama has a 527.... (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jor on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:50:03 PM EST
    ... whose sole purpose is to get him elected?

    Unions have many other purposes, national elections is only 1 of their functions.

    Hillary's rich friends are getting together, to try and buy their way back into the whitehouse.

    [ Parent ]

    Yah (none / 0) (#53)
    by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:46:09 PM EST
    well, Obama would love that.

    [ Parent ]
    Vote Hope was a 527 for Obmama (none / 0) (#58)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:55:22 PM EST
    Are you ashamed?


    [ Parent ]
    their website... (none / 0) (#60)
    by jor on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    ... looks like amatuer hour. They actually look independant from Obama, and probably didn't have 10 million dollars.

    Hillary's large campaign contributors are forming this 527.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, it was around $50k in California (none / 0) (#87)
    by dmfox on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:29:13 PM EST
    Compared to the nearly $10 million for Clinton's 527.

    The issue is on dKos' front page right now.

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/111237/880/303/460416


    [ Parent ]

    Not only was Vote Hope independent (none / 0) (#65)
    by s5 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:18:06 PM EST
    but Obama spoke out against them, twice, both times were reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. I actually know the people involved in Vote Hope (I live in SF, which is where Vote Hope is based), and it was a fairly small project aimed at getting out the youth vote in California, not to attack Hillary Clinton or anything "swift boaty".

    That said, Obama made it clear that he knew nothing about what Vote Hope was doing, and that he believed that anyone who wanted to help get him elected should go work for his campaign instead.

    Aside from bursting in Vote Hope's office and muzzling everyone at their desks, I'm not sure what else he could have done. Nor was there really anything bad or questionable about what they were doing. 527s are legally allowed to exist, and their aims were pretty benign.

    It's just another tempest in a teapot.

    [ Parent ]

    Well he didn't actually speak out against them (none / 0) (#73)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:37:47 PM EST
    as far as I know, he was more like, well, obviously we would prefer that the money go to our campaign.  It was more of a tacit endorsement than a condemnation which, again, only matters because of the misleadingly noble standards he's set for himself and everyone else.  I'm not sure what a candidate can really do to shut down a 527...sue?

    Also, the 527 supporting Hillary wants to have $10 mil...it doesn't yet.

    And I have my fingers crossed they don't do something really stupid...but we'll see.

    [ Parent ]

    Some quotes (none / 0) (#77)
    by s5 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:55:28 PM EST
    "We do not think people should be donating to 527s," [Obama spokeswoman Debbie Mesloh] said. "We would rather have them involved in our campaign. Obama thinks that candidates should be accountable for the campaigns they run, the donations they receive and the money they spend. It is our hope that anyone who supports Obama does so directly through his campaign and not through these outside groups."

    "It would be hypocrisy if I had anything to do with them," [Obama] said. "This is not something that I authorized or had any part of. ... My recommendation to people who are interested in supporting me is to support me through our campaign - the way over 250,000 donors have supported us, the way hundreds of thousands of volunteers have supported us."

    Take this however you want. "Don't donate to these groups" seems like a pretty clear statement to me. Should he have been more aggressive at tearing them down? Maybe, but why? Vote Hope was a small player, not doing anything particularly controversial (other than existing) or spending very much money. Sure his campaign has more pressing things to deal with.


    [ Parent ]

    So you're not ashamed, you're a hypocrite instead (none / 0) (#79)
    by RalphB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:59:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#80)
    by s5 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:03:30 PM EST
    I have no idea what you mean or who you're directing that at!

    If you're calling me a hypocrite, that would be bizarre, because I don't care either way about the existence of 527s in the world. It's not my cause. I'm just setting the record straight.

    Of course, for some people, it's never good enough. :)

    [ Parent ]

    Sure. (none / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:23:03 PM EST
    I mean these things are true, and if Obama really attacked them it would be self-destructive.  But his statements to me really aren't that negative.  It is our hope...we would rather...it would be hypocrisy to be part of:  it would be more than hypocrisy, it wouldn't be within the rules.  Same goes for Hillary.  She can't coordinate with her 527.  These statements aren't as exceptional as Obama's more general rhetoric against lobbyists and 527s have been.

    And as far as it goes, I think this 527 is a pretty innocuous one.  It actually sounds kind of stupid.  They're not even going to mention Obama's name and it's going to be a detailed plans v. rhetoric thing.  I doubt it'll be that effective.  Whatever...it's their money!!

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has the media (none / 0) (#64)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:16:15 PM EST
    Hillary doesn't. The media is priceless.  

    Go for the 527 Hillary!

    [ Parent ]

    Did you read that Obama is open (1.00 / 3) (#3)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:47:58 PM EST
    to privatization in the schools? Vouchers, charter schools.
    Can there be any doubt left that he will privatize SS if elected?
    There is none in my mind. His economic advisers are all pro-privatization. In addition, Obama's plan to use federal funds to subsidize corporate pension funds is very much in the spirit of privatization.

    link? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:53:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    here (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:56:23 PM EST
    Vouchers?

    [ Parent ]
    He said he was skeptical but (none / 0) (#6)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:58:46 PM EST
    open-minded if research showed they work.

    Seems like a pretty responsible way to look at it.

    [ Parent ]

    Two problems with his answer: (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:00:06 PM EST
    First, there IS research now, and it is almost uniformly bad.
    Second, charters and vouchers are backdoor methods of getting the govt to subsidize religious education.


    [ Parent ]
    another example (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:01:50 PM EST
    of him playing to republicans.  They would love to privatize the school systems.  This is an obvious ploy.  The teacher's unions will go nuts--and rightfully so.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly; AAs in Milwaukee pushed this (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:24:46 PM EST
    as did the Archdiocese to save its schools, and there ARE studies of results now -- and he should know about them, so close to Milwaukee (plus this has gotten much national coverage).  Vouchers, charter schools, etc., have devastated the Milwaukee Public Schools and cost city taxpayers a fortune, with the state mandating that, essentially, we support two school systems -- with no state help.

    The private-school option is costing us more than $1000 per student (more than 20,000 of them now in private schools on the public dollar) more than each public-school student. The results show no measurable improvement in retention, learning, comprehension, grades, etc.  And for the city, the result is soaring property taxes for far fewer other services needed, often by those same families of students in the program.

    Fight this.  

    [ Parent ]

    If that is true, and he is research-driven (none / 0) (#41)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:35:37 PM EST
    then there is no conflict. He will reject vouchers based on research. That is basically what he said.

    Now as to whether he should have been aware of the research already, I agree that he should have been.

    [ Parent ]

    Your Point is Taken (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:32:39 PM EST
    So there's two options here.

    The research exists, but he hasn't looked at it yet, in which case, I don't think he's very prepared.  But OK then, at least he'll reject it when he researches it.

    He knows the research, knows it's a bad idea, but tells folks what he tells them cause it's all about having the right "work together" attitude with Republicans.  In which case, it just confirms BTD's (and others) thesis that Obama is very reticent to create conflict with Republicans even when he knows what's right.

    Our point is that the research exists, and the folks relevant to the matter (teachers, etc.) consider the matter closed.

    [ Parent ]

    Well then when he looks at it (none / 0) (#11)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:03:07 PM EST
    he will reject it.

    Case closed.

    [ Parent ]

    So.. he wants more choice in health care (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MarkL on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:06:08 PM EST
    but not in schools?
    Sorry, your answer doesn't fly.
    The GOOD research shows charter schools and vouchers are crap, but that doesn't mean you can't sell it with bad research.. just like Obama's adviser Liebman's plan for SS which is based on fraudulent computations.


    [ Parent ]
    If you had bothered to read the original (none / 0) (#27)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:20:27 PM EST
    article, you would have seen that he was speaking of a specific on-going longitudinal study in a specific school system.

    Your globalizing this response is what doesn't fly.

    [ Parent ]

    I really don't think that helps matters (none / 0) (#107)
    by MarkL on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 07:51:52 AM EST
    Why would he mention one small study that MIGHT give good news when there are so many studies which show the opposite already?

    [ Parent ]
    Given the amount (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by americanincanada on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:06:13 PM EST
    of research available right now he should have already made that decision.

    [ Parent ]
    shrug. (none / 0) (#17)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:07:40 PM EST
    you are probably right on that one

    [ Parent ]
    But why (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:10:07 PM EST
    did he change his mind on this when his position was this:

    When Mr. Obama filled out questionnaires for both national teachers unions last year, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, he told the unions that he did not support vouchers. But on Wednesday Mr. Obama opened his remarks to the Journal-Sentinel's question on vouchers by saying he had to admit that he has been a "skeptic" of vouchers.

    He has to stop going back on his positions.  The right will have a hay day painting him as a flip flopper.

    [ Parent ]

    According the the ORIGINALa (none / 0) (#28)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:21:38 PM EST
    article, he was speaking of a specific longitudinal study that was ongoing.

    [ Parent ]
    That ignores studies already done (none / 0) (#34)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:25:52 PM EST
    and the ongoing one is with conservative funding.

    See post below on what this has meant in Milwaukee, and fight this.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it is brilliant on his part (none / 0) (#19)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:09:06 PM EST
    If the research shows it is bad, then he will oppose it and do so on a rational, empirical basis.

    This counters the arguments that opposition to vouchers is purely ideological, it advances the notion that policy positions should be adopted on a pragamatic basis, and most importantly of all, it makes it clear that his approach to education is, at core, focused on results for the children involved, not strict adherence to a party platform.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#29)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:21:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    not particularly (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Nasarius on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:02:39 PM EST
    It's absurd to suggest that private schools might be the solution when many other countries have succeeded in creating superb public education systems. Why shouldn't the US be able to do the same? Does the "yes we can" slogan actually apply to anything?

    [ Parent ]
    he said he was skeptical (none / 0) (#15)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:06:48 PM EST
    How , exactly, is that "suggesting that private schools might be the solution"???

    [ Parent ]
    right here (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Nasarius on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:11:09 PM EST
    "I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn," Mr. Obama, who has previously said he opposes vouchers, said in a meeting with the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "We're losing several generations of kids, and something has to be done."
    For anyone who believes in public education, vouchers are *not* something that should be given serious thought, certainly not on a national level. When he talks this way, he's conceding vouchers as a possible solution. It's ridiculously easy to instead pivot from a question about vouchers to "I believe in improving our schools, etc etc."

    [ Parent ]
    more (none / 0) (#23)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:13:48 PM EST
    But on Wednesday Mr. Obama opened his remarks to the Journal-Sentinel's question on vouchers by saying he had to admit that he has been a "skeptic" of vouchers.

    He said he was astonished to learn that a voucher program in Milwaukee had never been tested in a longitudinal study to find out whether it had helped children or not. "If there was any argument for vouchers it was, all right, let's see if this experiment works, and then if it does, whatever my preconceptions, my attitude is you do what works for the kids," Mr. Obama said. [snip]

    Told a current longitudinal study is ongoing, Mr. Obama said he would respond to its findings with an open mind.



    [ Parent ]
    you should read the whole story (none / 0) (#25)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:14:44 PM EST
    not just an exerpt...and read the original, not the myDD.

    [ Parent ]
    Gee whiz (none / 0) (#63)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:13:10 PM EST
    MyDD seems to be misleading.

    Why would anyone here want to be misleading about a candidate?

    [ Parent ]

    Reasonable (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:39:06 PM EST
    to continue programs that are unconstitutional? Handing our tax dollars out to Christians is just plain unconstitutional.

    [ Parent ]
    did you read the actual (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:08:34 PM EST
    article it came from?

    He said he is against it but if the showed him evidence they worked it would be a different story.  Why is that bad?

    [ Parent ]

    Bad because (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:38:22 PM EST
    vouchers are a program used by Republicans to undermine the public school system and progress made by the civil rights movement.

    This is an article that might explain some of the problems for you.  

    [ Parent ]

    Additionally (none / 0) (#8)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:00:54 PM EST
    When Mr. Obama filled out questionnaires for both national teachers unions last year, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, he told the unions that he did not support vouchers. But on Wednesday Mr. Obama opened his remarks to the Journal-Sentinel's question on vouchers by saying he had to admit that he has been a "skeptic" of vouchers.

    The "what I meant" .....

    "I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn," Mr. Obama, who has previously said he opposes vouchers, said in a meeting with the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "We're losing several generations of kids, and something has to be done."

    Link

    [ Parent ]

    Well, he is correct. (none / 0) (#12)
    by coigue on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:04:43 PM EST
    Vouchers will make things worse, but he is right that things are really bad right now and something must be done.

    [ Parent ]
    I've (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:37:34 PM EST
    been writing on different blogs for months that Obama said last summer he thinks The Faith Based Initiative is a good thing that should be expanded. Why do you think he's getting "Independents" and Republican votes? He's promising to keep giving these people everything they've had under Bush. He's made so many statements testifying that he believes the private sector should be in charge of all the things Democrats want the federal government to handle. I just couldn't believe when I started reading that PROGRESSIVES were backing Obama big time.

    Go Figure. this guy is a Republican, that's why he loves Republicans.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm Baffled (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:14:24 PM EST
    by what this has to do with the post?  

    [ Parent ]
    It keeps the forum here (none / 0) (#71)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:35:11 PM EST
    from discussing what's next for Clinton.

    She's now lost ten (10) straight (consecutive) contests. Texas, one of her firewalls, is suddenly looking very shaky. Ohio is closing. Many of these post-ST primaries were supposed to be Clinton's a few weeks or a month ago. From what happened in Virginia and now Wisconsin it looks like Obama is making inroads into her constituencies. That's not a good trend for her.

    So what does she do now? Well, she either has to appeal to why people should vote for her OR why people shouldn't vote for Obama. From what's going on today I get the feeling she's going to take the low road.

    High Road Example: Imagine if Clinton spent a lot of time talking about why McCain is a worthless POS. That's better than saying you can withstand a Republican smear campaign. It's showing you can actually fight the real enemy.

    Low Road Example: Clinton's warmup act last night was attacking Obama because he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Christ, H. Clinton went to Wellesley! There's a pro-Clinton 527 opening up in Ohio. I don't think the negative is going to work, not between now and March 4. Everything's going in the other direction.

    I actually don't think it matters. She's not going to win. The only way she's going to any delegates from Michigan and Florida is to agree to caucuses and chances are she couldn't even win if there were primaries in either state at this point.

    My guess is that the campaign is on panic mode and she will fight by whatever means necessary until the money dries up, however much it damages the Dems. When the money stops someone will tell her it's over, and then it will be over.


    [ Parent ]

    yes, there is plenty of doubt (none / 0) (#48)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:39:19 PM EST
    that he will privatize Soc Sec.

    Why are you even suggesting that?

    [ Parent ]

    well i don't think obama will survive the ge. (none / 0) (#72)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:35:36 PM EST
    a friend who is not a citizen today wondered aloud about obama. i told him that the media was already turning on obama just as a number on here had predicted.

    why is it that the dim leadership always forgets who is out there waiting and just what they'll do?

    [ Parent ]

    The nice thing . . . (none / 0) (#85)
    by clapclappointpoint on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:26:51 PM EST
    . . . about hanging all electoral results on the whims of the media is that it removes all responsibility and agency from the candidates.  

    It's one thing to have a little gaffe turn into something bigger, but in the modern age, it's important for candidates to be able to control their images and the media narratives.  All candidates do it, some are just better than others.

    [ Parent ]

    it is certainly true that the (none / 0) (#90)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:47:38 PM EST
    candidates have a responsibility to control their image. one of the points i made is that the dems let the repubs control the narrative.

    when you have a piling on like has been done to hillary in recent weeks, it is darn difficult especially when the other candidate obama and the insiders in dc remain silent. the repubs all organize and stand behind. dems don't.

    [ Parent ]

    She is (none / 0) (#1)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:42:01 PM EST
    sending out emails for donations fcr Texas, Ohio, Rhode Isand and Vermont primaries.

    We were outspent in Wisconsin by a 4 to 1 margin on ads -- and we can't let that happen on March 4.


    good post i'll add a couple of things (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 04:42:31 PM EST
    Latinos are expected to account for 1/3 of primary voters. Hillary may get the number up to 40%. It's expected she will win 2/3 of those votes. African American voters make up 1/4 of the primary vote, and Obama can be expected to get 85 to 90% of it.

    I would think that even if she increased Hispanic turnout it might be mitigated by Obama increasing AA turnout.

    That being said I hope she can.  Increasing Hispanic turnout would go a long way as far as helping democrats in the future.  Increasing Hispanic turnout as been the great challenge of the modern day Texas Democratic party.

    Let's hope that (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:41:13 PM EST
    the Clinton campaign knows by now how to handle caucuses. I really don't understand why Independents are allowed to vote in primaries, it seems open to so much corruption.

    [ Parent ]
    But we can also grow our party (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:56:55 PM EST
    by more generally connecting people's needs with the PARTY'S interest.  By presenting a platform that shows itself to be sensitive to national concerns where the Republicans are not - for instance, strictly enforcing the rule of law, or making healthcare a priority.  Personally I'm skeptical as to how Obama will help downticket races as opposed to Hillary.  People running for the House and the Senate generally from my experience get good enough press to make an impression on the minds of voters as individuals.  I'm the kind of person who votes Dem downticket even if I couldn't tell the local judge candidate from Adam.  But not everyone is like that, and I can see people willing to crossover for Obama being just as willing to fill in the rest of that ticket with Republican or whatever other preference they have.  Willing to make him their one 'special' selection.  I just haven't seen anything that suggests people who cross over for Obama are ready for a Dem downticket takeover.  I hope they are but I'm not ready to trust them with that!  

    If Obama has a good presidency then it really will pay off.  I can't predict that far.  But I don't think we can depend on one man's charisma and flirtations with independents and Republicans to build our party.  Gingrich built up the GOP by being very well organized, sending out videos to low-level candidates, getting everyone on the same page.  The Dem Party can do this grassroots style thing too, and HAS been doing it.  I canvassed and fundraised fulltime for the 50 State Strategy for 3 months in 2006.  The overall response was pretty good.  Personally, I don't think Obama connects "his" movement to the work that's gone before him in trying to rebuild the party enough.  And I think the people who signed on, or were inspired by, the 50 State Strategy in 2006 may be different from the people who sign on for Obama now.  Due to the way he's used his charisma, I'm constantly frustrated that his movement seems more about him than the party.  

    [ Parent ]

    the state parties decide (none / 0) (#88)
    by clapclappointpoint on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:34:09 PM EST
    The decision to hold a (closed or open) primary or caucus is determined by the state parties.  It's one thing to advocate for a particular primary system, but the people making decisions are in 50 different states and a bunch of territories.

    In states where there is no party registration, it would be pretty tough to have a closed primary.  

    [ Parent ]

    the problem is... (none / 0) (#16)
    by jor on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:07:16 PM EST
    ... exits and national polls show her lead with hispanics is evaporating. That would be the final nail in the coffin if that holds out.

    [ Parent ]
    well if that is true (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jgarza on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    yes
    But the Clinton's are very popular in South Texas, so i would expect them to do well there.  The caveat is negative ads though.  They will turn off her base IMO.  I think that is why she did more poorly with women in Wisconsin.  But what do i know  

    [ Parent ]
    Link? (none / 0) (#26)
    by americanincanada on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:16:42 PM EST
    I have seen no series of national polls or exit polls that show her hispanic support evaporating.

    Link please?

    [ Parent ]

    link (none / 0) (#30)
    by jor on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:23:36 PM EST
    from gallup.

    Hillary is heading for defeat. The question is, will she go out graciously or give McCain a slew of campaign commercials to run with in the general.

    [ Parent ]

    Trend is up, down, up, down (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:31:11 PM EST
    and suggest polling methology problems when it varies so much in such a short time period.

    [ Parent ]
    WRONG... (none / 0) (#43)
    by jor on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:36:52 PM EST
    There is no trend for hispanics -- they only have 2 time points. One around super-tuesday, where hispanics were +30 for clinton, and one recently where they now break evenly.

    The national #'s also have a clear trend, you just are ignoring it.

    [ Parent ]

    Ah, I misread it; thanks (nt) (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Texas Latinos (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    are not all of a single stripe.....Latinos have supported Hillary largely based on name ID--especially among first generation Latinos....

    With time, there is no reason why Obama cannot get an even split among Latinos, most likely along the same generational lines that previously existed among Anglos.

    The close vote in New Mexico, which has I believe the largest percentage of Latino voters of any state, means that Obama had to have done well among Latinos there.  Hillary cannot count on a 66-33 split everywhere.  In Arizona, the split was 55-45....The key is endorsements from local pols with ties to the community.  Word of mouth endorsements go very far indeed....

    Obama seems more ready to compete for Latinos in Texas than in California where Hillary had most of the pols locked up months in advance.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary has all the local pols in S. Texas (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by dmfox on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:38:01 PM EST
    I'm in S. Texas right now, and Hillary has anybody who's anybody down here.  She'll win in the Rio Grande Valley, but will she get 2/3?  Seems to be wishful thinking, given the current trends.  She probably still wins S. Texas by double digits though.

    [ Parent ]
    Recognition (none / 0) (#74)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:42:14 PM EST
    A lot of votes that Clinton got early on in this primary season was based on name recognition. Now that people are learning about Obama, they like him better than H. Clinton. That applies to Latinos, working class voters, lunch bucket toters, whoever. Most people, believe it or not, don't follow politics as closely as people here. They get a few pieces of information, make a judgement and vote.

    That is the little secret no one wants to discuss. The more people know Obama and H. Clinton the more they want Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    if that is the case (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Kathy on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:15:18 PM EST
    then why hasn't he won the large population states and why didn't this end on Super Tuesday?

    She won the popular vote and the delegates.  I don't think anyone sane can argue that California did not know the name Obama when they went to the polls.

    [ Parent ]

    California (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 01:22:39 AM EST
    Actually, Obama's campaign was very truncated here, and first generation Latinos knew Hillary quite well--unlike Obama.  Some had heard of Obama, whom they called Obeema, and thought he was smart and had a "good heart."   He didn't get many of their votes but was close, on the cusp....

    More time here would have been helpful.

    [ Parent ]

    perhaps they will give him (none / 0) (#104)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:42:28 AM EST
    a couple of more years before the ge to work his magic.

    [ Parent ]
    Where is Gov Richardson (none / 0) (#31)
    by Saul on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:24:30 PM EST
    in all this.  Doesn't he owe the Clinton's?  I think it  would be a plus if he campaigned with Hilary.  Also what is Edwards waiting for?  After Texas and Ohio I do not know if his endorsement would be of any significance.  

    Maybe Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:42:20 PM EST
    won't endorse because he hopes to have a position in whichever administration wins, if it is Democratic.

    [ Parent ]
    That might be ok (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Saul on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:02:36 PM EST
     but the only you earn that is because you come out now not after the nomination.  You want your endorsement to be so critical that it was your endorsement that made all the difference on who got nominated.  Your endorsements just does not mean that much after there is a nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    "May" be her last chance? (none / 0) (#35)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:28:01 PM EST
    I don't think there's any doubt that it's her last chance.  She has to win very very big in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania to close the gap.  Because even if she does close the gap in these states somewhat, Obama still has a number of easy victories ahead (Indiana, North Carolina, and Oregon).

    The math is working against her, especially as Obama picks up new superdelegates (four today, she lost one).

    I just don't see how it happens.  Barring an Obama slip-up, I don't know how she pulls off the nomination.

    I don't see that she needs (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:35:00 PM EST
    all three (I know I'm disagreeing with J and BDT on this).  She needs to take either Ohio or Texas -- for delegate count, for popular vote, for momentum -- but not both.  And then she needs to take Pennsylvania.

    Ditto for Obama, although he would be okay with one of the three.  With the weird setup in Texas, it looks like that would be the one for him.  But now we will see what the Teamsters have done to the Dems again (they so often endorse Republicans, I don't trust their support at all -- and I'm the granddaughter of a Teamster and know well what that used to mean for my forebears, but not any more).

    [ Parent ]

    They (none / 0) (#51)
    by tek on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:43:36 PM EST
    endorse Republicans? A trade union? This country is truly messed up.

    [ Parent ]
    The two labor unions (none / 0) (#75)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:48:01 PM EST
    that endorsed Reagan in 1980 were the Teamsters, who had business with Nixon surrounding Jimmy Hoffa's release, and PATCO, who found out just how good Republicans can be for labor.

    The Teamsters are cleaner nowadays, I don't think that they're still making loans to the mob and smuggling drugs like they did under Hoffa in the sixties.

    [ Parent ]

    So, she takes Ohio and Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#56)
    by sar75 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:47:16 PM EST
    ...but say with 10 points.  How many delegates does that yield? 20-30 on Obama, after Obama adds a couple of more to his lead in Texas?  And then comes Oregon and North Carolina and Indiana, all of which should favor Obama.

    It could happen, but the stars have to align just perfectly for her to catch up in pledged delegates and popular vote (even with Michigan and Florida factored in she's now behind Obama there). Add to this the fact that Obama will be gaining and she'll be bleeding superdelegates until March 4.

    Again, I won't count anything out this year, but I think Intrade markets probably has her chances about right now - 15%, tops.

    [ Parent ]

    I heard (none / 0) (#76)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 06:52:15 PM EST
    that in order to get the 65% of the remaining delegates (that would put her back ahead of Obama) she's going to have to win all the remaining primaries by about a 75-25% margin.

    I guess she could hope to win two or three of the big states and hope that would be enough to get the superdelegates to cross over to her, but I don't think that'll work either.

    [ Parent ]

    You heard wrong (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by muffie on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 10:23:08 PM EST
    she needs about 55% of the remaining pledged delegates to tie Obama in that category.  Also, while delegates may not be awarded strictly proportionally, they don't differ by 10% from the popular vote.

    [ Parent ]
    I disagree on those states (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Shawn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:27:17 PM EST
    If Hillary wins Ohio, I'd say she's very likely to win Indiana too. Similar demographics, similar political culture, but with probably a smaller proportion of Obama's best demos (African-Americans and upwardly mobile progressives). She also has the endorsement of Bayh, which could be worth a few points.  

    Oregon - I guess people are giving it to Obama because of his success in Washington state. But remember, it's a primary and yesterday's WA "beauty-contest" primary was much closer than the caucuses. So that could be a close race.

    North Carolina is probably a fairly easy win for Obama compared to the other two, but there's still a significant chunk of moderate-to-conservative white Democrats in the state, so it will probably be closer to Alabama's numbers than Georgia's or SC's. Also in May, Kentucky and West Virginia will be fairly easy wins for her.

    In the late stage of the primaries, Obama's easiest wins are likely to be in South Dakota and Montana on June 3.

    [ Parent ]

    Off topic (none / 0) (#37)
    by 1jane on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:30:39 PM EST
    The original post was about the fact that Texas may be Clinton's last stand. Perhaps she'll have to surrender at The Alamo. Seriously, her money raising abilities are in trouble. The delegate appropriations do her no good in Texas. McCain is clearly running against Obama. The popular vote will rise for Obama as he increases his wins. A brokered national convention with lots of dramatic delegate poaching seems to be fading away. You're right, Clinton needs a blow out to move forward. Sad.

    raising $15 million in 15 days (none / 0) (#93)
    by popsnorkle on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:07:11 PM EST
    is being in trouble raising money?  
    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/19/143037/003
    Obama might be raising more, but Clinton is raising at close to the same rate from what both campaigns have said.  $15 million in 15 days is a rate of $30 million in 30 days.  Obama's campaign talked about being like last month when he raised $36 million.

    [ Parent ]
    back of the envelope math here... (none / 0) (#54)
    by mike in dc on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:46:29 PM EST
    2/3 of 40% is about 27 points of support.  +27 for Clinton, +13 for Obama.
    85-90% of 25% is about 22 points of support, +3 for Clinton, +22 for Obama.  

    That leaves 35%.  Let's assume 5 scenarios:

    1. this splits 60-40 for Clinton
    2. this splits 55-45 for Clinton
    3. 50-50 split
    4. 55-45 for Obama
    5. 60-40 for Obama

    scenario 1 yields +21 Clinton, +14 Obama
    scenario 2 yields +19 Clinton, +16 Obama
    #3 is about +17.5 each
    #4 is +16/+19
    #5 is +14/+21

    So, in the most favorable vote split for Clinton under these scenarios(winning the white vote 60-40), she wins, 51-49.  Under every other scenario, she loses.

    I don't see her winning whites 2:1 (a 53-47 win), let alone 3:1 (the only scenario that would yield a "blowout win" of 57-43).  
    Interesting.  So, the latino turnout can be massive and unprecedented, and go for her 2:1, and she can still lose, possibly by a decent amount.

    Hillary will (none / 0) (#55)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 05:46:32 PM EST
    also have to overcome the redistricting in Texas...

    In 1992, a panel of three Reagan-appointed federal judges in Texas approved a state senate redistricting map that gave Republicans control of the Texas state senate for the first time since Reconstruction. This scheme provided the foundation for Tom Delay's subsequent gerrymandering of congressional districts - and ultimately will prevent Hillary Clinton from winning a significant majority of the 126 delegates up for grabs in the Texas primary on March 4th.


    Hillary and Latino voters? (none / 0) (#92)
    by Baal on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:55:32 PM EST
    I am wondering about the evidence that Latino turnout for Hillary will be massive?  Part of the reason for the current situation is their low turnout in 2004.  So is there polling data that Hillary energizes that particular voting block to make a much greater turnout? Or are people making hopeful assumptions?  Polls more than a two weeks old would not reflect current changes in momentum, which you would have to be wearing blinders to ignore.  I live in Texas and see zero sign of a Latino groundswell for Clinton, but then again I live in Houston.  Maybe it is different in the rest of the state, maybe it also cuts along age divides, or maybe Latinos are not particularly demonstrative in their support.

    My guess here on the ground the last few days is that Obama will win Texas outright.  I like both candidates a lot, am convinced both will make excellent Presidents.  I am thinking at this point I will vote for Obama.    

    New Reuters-Zogby national poll (none / 0) (#95)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:13:20 PM EST
    Obama - 52
    Clinton 38

    Head to heads:

    Obama - 47
    McCain - 40

    Clinton - 38
    McCain - 50

    LINK

    Zogby (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by horseloverfat on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:54:54 PM EST
    nailed California.  Oh wait...

    [ Parent ]
    But at least (none / 0) (#100)
    by BDB on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:44:54 PM EST
    he got New Hampshire right.  Oh, wait...

    [ Parent ]
    sure 1 out of 22 (none / 0) (#105)
    by Salt on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 08:56:59 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    MSM Scenario (none / 0) (#102)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 07:37:25 AM EST
    I think the mainstream media now thinks that Hillary mathematically can't win.  But they want Obama's momentum to fade in the final primaries, so they can paint him as a "waning fad."

    Thus, we begin to see them shifting, jumping on negative stories about Obama, attacking Obama surrogates and so on.

    But in order for this scenario to work, they have to keep Hillary in the race.  They have to get her to win TX and OH.

    So I expect in the debate tonight that they will hit Obama hard on "specifics" and them run "embarrassing clips" for days.  

    But, if Hillary's smart, she can capitalize on this and push the story past what the media wants into a victory.  The odds are getting long, but I think she has a few hail marys in her kit that might work.

    Texas May Be Hillary's Last Chance | 106 comments (106 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment