All About Texohio

Patrick Healy reports for The New York Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers increasingly believe that, after a series of losses, she has been boxed into a must-win position in the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and she has begun reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination is not slipping away from her, aides said on Monday.

Fair enough. On the other hand, Texas and Ohio combined have just a bit fewer delegates than do the Obama Weekend Sweep States plus the Potomac Primary states, so it's not clear that even a Texas and Ohio win would put her over the top. Meanwhile, as I noted this morning we haven't seen any polls from Texas or Ohio and the idea that Clinton is leading in those places is best on pure conjecture.

Comments

You spelled "based" wrong.

Posted by Cryptic Ned | February 11, 2008 10:19 PM

She's going to be in a weird position. After Wisconsin she probably will be behind by upwards of 150+ pledged delegates (when Colorado and Washington are fully taken into account). If she doesn't win TexOhio by 10%+ she'll be sufficiently behind in pledged delegates that it will be next to impossible to end with a positive margin at the end of the day. If she is considering conceding before the convention the question is when? Politicians usually don't concede after victories yet that may be what she's faced with doing after 3/4 if she pulls out a narrow win. The only alternative timing I see would be is to make Wisconsin a must win state but that is right around the corner.

Posted by Robert | February 11, 2008 10:22 PM

hi matt,

just a note that i doubt clinton's team would be emphasizing those two states so much if their polling suggested that they weren't set to do well there.

that said, with the strange caucus/primary hybrid system in texas, it's a pretty risky bet - obama could yet do very very well there.

Posted by david m. | February 11, 2008 10:23 PM

Well, here's my own suggestion...

If you look up the approximate black/non-black ratios within the TX and OH Democratic party primary voters, you'll probably have a good guess at what the actual vote will be 30 years from now.

I don't have the energy to look up those numbers, but maybe someone else here does....

Posted by RKU | February 11, 2008 10:26 PM

Bill Clinton is campaigning at GMU in Fairfax, HRC was on WJLA tonight with some pointed language. I don't know, but they have ceartinly put some time into VA and despite the polls after NH I just feel burnt as an Obama supporter.

Everyone is assuming he'll sweep this month and if he doesn't it'll be reported as a game changing event.

For all we know, Clinton will pull out VA!

Just to say, it's annoying how people are jumping on the winless February narrative. We've alreaady counted votes before they were cast way to many times this election cycle: Cali being the latest case in point.

It's a disservice to both campaigns.

Posted by Rhoda | February 11, 2008 10:28 PM

You don't know that she ISN'T leading either. Obama is going to get pummeled in OH, TX and PA...and Matthews and the rest of the press are going to be eating humble pie, again...while Hillary gets the nomination.

Posted by devin | February 11, 2008 10:30 PM

RKU, please go the fuck away. You're not convincing anyone, and you make us all feel a little dirty.

Posted by max | February 11, 2008 10:30 PM

david m.: They may also be emphasizing them because they have no other choice. The alternative is to try to fight Obama in states that he has apparently crushing advantages in.

Posted by Leo | February 11, 2008 10:30 PM

Hmmm ... I found this poll on Texas:

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/texas.html dated 1/31/08. 48% Clinton, 38% Obama

Pre Super Tuesday.

They also have an Ohio poll listed, but it starts a week earlier and includes Edwards still. Clinton 42 - Obama 19 - Edwards 18.

Posted by DanF | February 11, 2008 10:31 PM

The last poll to come out of Texas was from IVR on January 31st, with 48% Clinton, 38% Obama.

Posted by Abby | February 11, 2008 10:32 PM

I think it goes without saying that if Obama gets the nomination "they're going to get him".

It also bears mentioning that fundamentally speaking that Google and the prison guard unions are a whole different deal than Faux News (and their jackass reporting) as well as Haliburton.

Posted by Linus | February 11, 2008 10:34 PM

'S a headfake. Look at the leaked Obama spreadsheet. That showed him winning pledged delegates comfortably with HRC taking Texohio by an average margin of 5.5%.

But also didn't show him picking up about 15 delegates he picked up last weekend.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html

So now Hillary could win Texohio by an average margin of 10%, and still lose.

They really need Wisconsin to stop Obama's momentum, and to stanch the bleeding of delegates, and they're going to put more resources into that state than their public rhetoric suggests.

Posted by Ted | February 11, 2008 10:35 PM

Just to say, it's annoying how people are jumping on the winless February narrative. We've alreaady counted votes before they were cast way to many times this election cycle: Cali being the latest case in point.
It's a disservice to both campaigns.

Second that.

Posted by guyx | February 11, 2008 10:36 PM

I lived in OH for many years, and though haven't been there for several decades I still have ties there. What I can't figure out is why the Clinton campaign would view OH would be such fertile territory while simultaneously essentially conceding WI. What makes them so different politically?

Posted by Jeff S. | February 11, 2008 10:39 PM

HRC may win Virgnia. I think that many women will rally for her.

Posted by MGJ | February 11, 2008 10:39 PM

Here's a link to the Texas poll. According to them, Obama's support among Latinos increased to 29% which is still (IMO) a low margin but better than the 7% of Latino support he had in 2007.

Posted by Abby | February 11, 2008 10:40 PM

Texohio...back in the 60's, I spent a month there one night...

(Thank you. Tip your waitresses.)

Yeah, this seems like a strategy borne out of necessity to me. And it's a bad one. After WI/HI on the 19th, Obama will have a full two weeks to introduce himself in those two states. And as people get to know him, without exception, his percentages go up.

Texas might be a problem but it could be an opportunity for Barack if he manages to grab some of the Latino vote for Hillary. If Obama wins Texas it's all over.

Posted by Lev | February 11, 2008 10:41 PM

"What makes them so different politically?"

Without looking at a single thing, my guess is that WI is less blue collar, less Catholic, and less Latino. Also wealthier.

Posted by Joe | February 11, 2008 10:44 PM

He won't win Texas. Ohio is more likely. But he doesn't have to win either. Just keep the margins under 10%, and he's okay.

Posted by Ted | February 11, 2008 10:45 PM

This same NY Times article also has this quote from Penn:

“She has consistently shown an electoral resiliency in difficult situations that have made her a winner,” Mr. Penn said. “Senator Obama has in fact never had a serious Republican challenger.”

Can someone tell me who HRC's "serious Republican challenger" was for her Senate seat in New York?

Posted by Georgia | February 11, 2008 10:46 PM

max:

My sincerest apologies!

I'd forgotten that Matt has taken down his "Reality-Based Community" heading some time last year...

Posted by RKU | February 11, 2008 10:46 PM

"If Obama wins Texas it's all over."

If he's within 5 points in either state (or 10 points in both), it's all over. When it gets to the point where HRC can't win on pledged delegates, the pressure on her to drop out will be immense.

Posted by Joe | February 11, 2008 10:49 PM

This analysis of Texas is probably a good bit better than a poll:

http://electioninspection.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/there-is-no-such-thing-as-the-texas-primary-part-ii-delegate-predictions/

It shows Obama winning by a handful of delegates -- though with the caveat that a lot can change in three weeks. Texas is a quasi-primary/quasi-caucus hybrid, apparently.

Posted by NoahB | February 11, 2008 10:51 PM

Second that.

Thirded. Wisconsin and Hawaii are no sure things.

Posted by jbryan | February 11, 2008 10:52 PM

So now Hillary could win Texohio by an average margin of 10%, and still lose.

This is what's so impressive about Hillary-- he campaign has played the expectations game really well. She can lose the upcoming contest, win Texohio, end up behind in delegates by a measureable margin, and still declare victory, perhaps hoping that the superdelegates put her over the top.

Posted by Tyro | February 11, 2008 10:54 PM

Those who point to Wisconsin are correct. It is now (assuming the potomic primaries go as anticipated) a must win for Clinton. It's the cheesehead firewall. That's why Obama is there thid week.

Posted by DP | February 11, 2008 10:54 PM

Ohio and Texas are huge, huge, huge.

Obama has to win one of Ohio, Texas, or Pennsylvania. It's just that simple. I understand he can have a delegate lead even without them, but Hillary will have a serious case if it's a small delegate difference and she's won every major state except Illinois.

If Obama wins any one of the three, I believe he gets the nomination, even if he loses a minor upset somewhere like losing Wisconsin by one or two. I'm very nervous because I'm not sure if he can make up the ground in these big states. Hillary is just so strong with the core democratic voters and has so much more name recognition. It's really hard to switch people who already decided to vote for Hillary months ago. There just aren't enough undecideds.

Posted by Simon | February 11, 2008 10:55 PM

Georgia,
That would be Rick Lazio, not quite as crazy as Alan Keyes, but close. Maybe McCain should pick Keyes for his running mate. Now that would be a hoot.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 11, 2008 11:00 PM

Wisconsin is the real must-win. If Obama pulls off the post-Super Tuesday sweep, the Clintons aren't going to get anywhere near where they need to be on March 4.

Posted by J.B. | February 11, 2008 11:02 PM

Why do people care about Texas? I know it's a big state, but the line coming out of the Clinton camp is that super-red states that will never vote for a Democrat are insignificant. Ohio and Pennsylvania are obviously very important. I live in Ohio and Obama's already got his troops on the ground here. My feeling is that the wind is out of Clinton's sails and Obama is surging. If she doesn't win a state tomorrow or Wisconsin or Hawaii, most people are just going to assume it's over and the primaries in OH and TX will be big but not historic like we've been seeing. This will favor the GOTV and "activist" crowd, ie Obama. More succinctly - Clinton has to win Wisconsin, or Hawaii, or Oregon. Or it's over.

Posted by Craig | February 11, 2008 11:03 PM

RKU: When polls uniformly say that Democrats like both candidates, why would most Democrats who voted for Clinton in the primary not support Obama in the general (or vice versa, for that matter)?

Posted by Led | February 11, 2008 11:04 PM

"Hillary will have a serious case if it's a small delegate difference and she's won every major state except Illinois"

And Georgia.

Actually, if things go according to projections, Obama will have won 4 of the top 10, 11 of the top 20 and 15 of the top 25.

Try again. There are other states outside of the Northeast other than CA and IL.

Posted by Joe | February 11, 2008 11:06 PM

Clinton has to win Wisconsin, or Hawaii, or Oregon. Or it's over.

Oregon's Dem primary is May 20th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Democratic_primary%2C_2008

Posted by Jeff S. | February 11, 2008 11:07 PM

With proportional representation margins of victory matter as well. When she wins she wins in a squeeker and when he wins it is not a margin of victory it is a ratio of victory.

Posted by Larry Geater | February 11, 2008 11:08 PM

Horserace BS-ing is a waste of time. Que sera, sera.

Posted by AQ | February 11, 2008 11:09 PM

The Texas delegate count is heavily skewed toward urban areas (about 2-to-1 in favor of Dalauston verses the Valley). It's likely Clinton will lose the primary delegate count even if she wins the overall vote by a large-ish margin. In addition, later caucuses decide a third of the delegates - prime grounds for BHO.

The question is - how important is momentum (as measured by vote totals) as opposed to Obama's steady accumulation of delegates for PA voters?

Posted by Duncan Young | February 11, 2008 11:09 PM

Oops. I thought it was before OH and TX. So after tomorrow it's just WI and Hawaii? Are there more?

Posted by Craig | February 11, 2008 11:10 PM

Obama has to win one of Ohio, Texas, or Pennsylvania. It's just that simple. I understand he can have a delegate lead even without them, but Hillary will have a serious case if it's a small delegate difference and she's won every major state except Illinois.

Look more carefully at the NYT story Matt is referencing. The Clinton campaign is basically acknowledging that they cannot win this thing by strongarming superdelegates with symbolic arguments if they're behind in the pledged count. "She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably," the Clinton supporter says, or the superdelegates start leaving on March 5.

Note "comfortably." It's really not true that Obama has to carry OH, TX or PA. There is no magic mojo that you get when you carry a big state by 51%. Superdelegates don't care. They're not going to overturn a pledged-delegate majority on the basis of a strained argument about how important big states are.

Posted by Ted | February 11, 2008 11:10 PM

I don't think Clinton will win Virginia, but I'm haunted by NH. It's like being a Mets fan -- no matter how big a lead they have, you're expecting the worst. (And sometimes, alas, the worst does happen.)

I also think that Wisconsin and Hawaii are far from certain for Obama.

Having said that, though, I also think that Texas and Ohio are far from certain for Clinton. Texas, especially, with its crazy half-caucus, half-primary thing. If Obama can target and pick off a couple of state Senate districts, he can keep Clinton's delegate advantage to a minimum, and maybe even beat her. Considering the margins he's been racking up in February, she not only has to win those states to keep pace, she has to win big. Otherwise, she's banking on the superdelegates to come through, and it's not clear that they will.

Posted by Fred App | February 11, 2008 11:12 PM

Let me just repeat the observation that NH was likely the best thing that happened to Obama this primary season.

Posted by Jake | February 11, 2008 11:14 PM

I notice, for example here, http://mediamatters.org/items/200801160004

that the most paranoid low level neocons are just beginning to notice and get scared about Obama. They are fanatically hawkish and have had a dreadul impact on American foreign policy, on one hand. But they can make quite a lot of racket, and I don't like Obama much either (not being a leftist in search of a mystical transformative candidate for president). So the bad news is that America is going to have a terrible president, perhaps worse than Bush (who set the bar pretty low.) The good news is the low-level Dershowitz's and the left will be fighting tooth and nail. It will be terrible for the country but fun to watch.

Posted by SMcC | February 11, 2008 11:16 PM

No offense to Joe, and I don't really know any better than he does (though I probably should, having grown up in Ohio's neighboring state of Kentucky and now living in Wisconsin), but I would guess that Wisconsin is

* At least as blue collar as OH (especially if we count farmers as blue collar),

* At least as Catholic, and

* Almost surely not as wealthy.

I would guess that there are fewer Hispanics, however.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | February 11, 2008 11:20 PM

Jake wrote: "Let me just repeat the observation that NH was likely the best thing that happened to Obama this primary season."

Why's that?

Posted by riffle | February 11, 2008 11:22 PM

SMcC: I don't think the next president needs to worry too much about the persuasive power of the neocons. Though they've done such a great job lately, it's strange: I somehow get the feeling that no one is listening to them.

Posted by Ted | February 11, 2008 11:23 PM

NoahB:

Yes, that Texas analysis seems very thorough and detailed. But poor "Max" shouldn't look at it, since it's based on *exactly* the sort of ethnic/demographic analysis which makes him feel "dirty".

Led:

I'm certainly not saying that *most* non-black Democrats wouldn't vote for Obama in November (or black Democrats vote for Hillary). My argument is more about the empirical data it provides regarding Obama's likely November appeal to non-black Americans who are of the ideological categories which *don't* vote in Democratic primaries.

Posted by RKU | February 11, 2008 11:23 PM

I would guess that there are fewer Hispanics, however.

Believe it or not, WI has almost twice as many hispanics on a percentage basis than OH, according to the 2000 Census.

WI (2000) 3.6%
OH (2000) 1.9%

Source:
http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_hispanicpop.html

Posted by Jeff S. | February 11, 2008 11:29 PM

Joe - You do realize that Obama is not going to win on pledged delegates unless Clinton drops out right? He will also need some portion of the SDs to hit the magic number of 2025.

If Clinton is within 100 pledged delegates she has a chance at the nomination.

Posted by orange crush | February 11, 2008 11:29 PM

orange crush: look at the NYT story.

Short version: "memo from superdelegates to HRC: we will leave you if you don't have a pledged-delegate majority."

That's the end of that narrative. Both sides can stop fretting about it.

Posted by Ted | February 11, 2008 11:34 PM

RKU, I think your analysis is deeply flawed, and rather confused. Obama has won huge majorities in majority white states (every county in Washington state, apparently.) I believe he also tends to beat Hillary among white male independents. Your claim that he only has broad appeal to black voters seems to be invalidated by Idaho, Nebraska, Washington...and, indeed, by, for example, New Hampshire, where he ran almost even with Hillary, getting a sizable chunk of white votes (those being the votes that are on offer in New Hampshire.) Also, your assumption that white democrats who voted for Hillary will not vote for him seems specious, since an overwhelming number of Democratic voters say they like both candidates.

There's an interesting post here about the gains Obama made on super tuesday among non-black constituencies, particularly Jews (whom he won in CT and Mass.) and Hispanics. Check it out.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=518

The post also points out why triumphally trumpeting race-based voting differences as a way to denigrate a black candidate is an unfortunate stance.

Posted by NoahB | February 11, 2008 11:35 PM

Ok, Obama might win the nomination. But is this really a good thing if he wins the nomination?

Meaning, are all those poll repondents who claim they favor him over McCain in the national polls really going to come out to vote for him after the next few months of Republican propaganda slash-and-burn, or are they going to "remember" that "oh, he's black" and stay home?

I'm increasingly concerned about an Obama nomination and the immediate future of this country. I would hate for W's presidency to be a prelude to more.

If Obama is nominated, I'm going to fall in line like everyone else, and be talking about how he's the greatest thing to ever come to this nation since sliced bread, toasted with butter and cinammon and sugar on top-- but I'm convinced more than ever that we're going to have to fight very hard over the next ten years to keep the Republicans' schizo plans that they were planning to put in place beginning with the Bush presidency from coming to fruition, in any part. Part of defeating them is gaining more congressional (esp. Senate) seats, part of it is developing more effective outreach / alternatives to the mainstream media, and part of it is getting liberal people out to the more conservative areas of the country to talk to concervative people and convince them both that their general ideology and their positions on specific issues are wrong. We're going to have to get young liberals to become more energized and public-spirited, and to be concerned with their country instead of just with their sub-culture. We're going to have to do a lot of soul-searching and really provide more, and more unassailable, content to liberal ideology, and a vision of the future that is filled with detailed plans and lots of strong research to back up the viability of those plans.

Without a real concerted effort, and without a lot of planning, we are really, really going to get hit hard. Conservative court nominees will take their toll, and rank and file Republican activists will take their toll, a conservative media will take its toll, and every time we have a conservative president and congress at the same time, it will take its toll. The country is on a course to become a really corrupt mess like Italy or Mexico have been to different degrees in recent times. In a situation like this, we cannot wait for things to get horrible and fall apart in order for people to get appropriately energized.

If our liberal defense is down at all in any place, we are going to pay a big price for it that may be almost impossible to deal with for at least a decade or two, if not more. People need to start thinking about the kinds of things we need to do so smart people can take the leadership of this country back from not-so-cmart people.

Posted by Swan | February 11, 2008 11:43 PM

Orange crush: Clinton's current lead among superdelegates is less than 90, and that's likely to drop as Obama wins more states. (All this with the caveat that tallying superdelegates is kind of ridiculous in the first place since they can change their mind at any time.)

Swan: Most of your points for defeating Republicans match up very closely with Obama's winning election strategy, don't they?

Posted by Marc | February 11, 2008 11:52 PM

Swan: Thanks. That's eloquently said, and I agree with the last 3/4 of that post.

About racism: The last four weeks have taught me more about racism in this country than I learned in the first 39 years of my life. I learned that racism is more persistent than I had ever believed. But I also learned that it's not always where you expect it to be. It's not always the rural voters, or the Republicans, or the white guys.

If you look at the primary totals, we are not getting a discernible Bradley effect, where white voters say they'll vote for Barack and then don't. (We are, interestingly, getting one where black voters say they'll vote for HRC and then don't!) But, the exception of NH notwithstanding, Barack is generally outperforming the pre-election polling.

So when all the polls say that he can beat McCain comfortably . . . well, I believe the polls. Is there racism out there? Yes. Will it be a factor? Yes. Can we beat it this time? Yes!

Posted by Ted | February 11, 2008 11:52 PM

"Joe - You do realize that Obama is not going to win on pledged delegates unless Clinton drops out right? He will also need some portion of the SDs to hit the magic number of 2025."

Agree on the 2025. HOWEVER, I will donate $2300 to whomever the nominee is if he/she wins the nomination without the plurality of pledged delegates. Anything else is pure suicide -- if for no other reason than the loser can play out the string and run again in 2012 when a 76 year-old McCain declares that he won't run for reelection.

My guess is that sometime between now and March 4, the DNC announces a compromise whereby the pledged delegate winner is assured of the nomination.

Posted by Joe | February 11, 2008 11:53 PM

My argument is more about the empirical data it provides regarding Obama's likely November appeal to non-black Americans who are of the ideological categories which *don't* vote in Democratic primaries.

Connect the dots for me. Please come out and say clearly how, in your opinion, the results of Dem primaries are "empirical data" of Obama's "likely appeal" to non-black non-Dems. (By the way, your definition of the demo in question appears specifically tailored to exclude white independents who have chosen to vote in Dem primaries this year, probably because Obama has shown no difficulty winning them.)

Posted by Led | February 12, 2008 12:00 AM

Swan's argument (from a Hillary supporter?) sounds like a rephrasing of Obama's message. He says our system is so rotten that it'll take a mass movement to fix it. I don't know what he has in mind for The People if he wins, but certainly he'll need strong grassroots support to push any legislation past the institutional barriers that are now in place. So if there's anything I wish he were more specific about, it would be about how "we" can become the ones we've been waiting for.

Posted by matt | February 12, 2008 12:02 AM

NoahB:

Well, I skimmed over that article, but frankly it seemed pretty stupid. As one example, the guy used an ambiguous phrase in the LAT to claim that Obama won 40% of the Latino vote in CA and draws all sorts of important conclusions from this. Except that Obama actually only won 32% of vote, according to both LAT and CNN exit polls.

And the fact that Obama's now doing pretty well about Jews is also pretty meaningless. Jews probably aren't even 5% of the Democratic primary electorate, and anywhere they're exactly the sort of "upscale" white voters who are going for Obama in general. And these "upscale" white liberal activist types are exactly the ones who pack the caucuses and give Obama his big victories in all those caucus states.

I'd bet well under 10% of the eventual November electorate will have voted in the Democratic primaries, and the ideological/demographic structure of those two electorates is utterly, totally different. Picking the strongest "November" candidate should be one of the most important goals of the primary system.

Otherwise, I strongly second many of Swan's huge concerns.

Posted by RKU | February 12, 2008 12:06 AM

What's becoming painfully clear is that once Obama's gap in pledged delegates is higher than HRC's gap in superdelegates, those superdelegates are going to start to dry up.

From a quick perusal of CNN (I like their applet). Clinton has a 27 delegate total lead. There are 173 pledged delegates up for grabs tomorrow. If Obama wins 60% of them (not unreasonable at all IMO) That's 103-70, roughly. That means that Obama, overall goes into a 3 delegate lead or so.

The question is will Clinton losing the lead in and of itself be enough for her to lose SD support? My guess is yes, you'll see a few get skittish and jump ship, and that might lead to an avalanche...and an end to the race. That's a long shot, of course. The Clintons' legendary stubbornness (not a criticism, by the way) would probably prevent that from happening. But still. It wouldn't shock me.

Posted by Karmakin | February 12, 2008 12:10 AM

"and part of it is getting liberal people out to the more conservative areas of the country to talk to concervative people and convince them"

I agree 100%.

No one will listen to or learn from someone that doesn't actually respect them. Ask any teacher.

Which of the Democratic candidates has more credibility as someone who has respect for conservative people? Who has based their campaign on ending divisiveness, emphasizing a patriotic duty to country over party? The conservative areas of the country are patriotic, they'll eat that stuff up from an Obama bully pulpit, whereas Clinton will have a much more uphill climb -- and that's IF she thinks it is necessary to actually convince nonbelievers. Since her campaign constantly projects the idea that only she can win a partisan war, I have a hard time believing she sees the need for the effort in the first place.

The wingnuts thought (think?) that the war on terror could be won with brute American force. They were wrong. Clinton seems to think that the war on Republican ideology can be won with brute political force. She is wrong. 51% is not going to defeat them. We have to change the game entirely. She can't do that. She doesn't even try to make the case that she can; the best she can do is pretend to misunderstand the implications of Obama's strategy.

Soft power: better for America overseas, better for America at home. Obama brings way more soft power to the table.

Float like a butterfly... sting like a bee!

Posted by ScottS | February 12, 2008 12:11 AM

We need to start thinking about what to do by November, win-or-lose-- how do we back-up the eventual nominee's presidency (so that the Republicans aren't able to turn it inot a total flop), and if we lose how do we keep going forward?

One thing I thing smart liberals need to do is start making three kinds of writings: (1) Articles or books outlining comprehensively our picture of what the country should be. What should the state do and not do? Is a liberal foreign policy just a less-aggressive version of the recent conservative policy (push other countries around) or do we really think we can do something with the United Nations, and that more development of international law and international trust and cooperation is a profitable trend? Forget writing more philosophy about what it is a state's business to do or not do- your the consumer of those books, but now that you've read them, tell people specifically what the state should do on a bunch of issues. Write it more for the ordinary reader. Give the layman the comprehensive vision of what a liberal, capitalist America would really be like. (2) Strategies for how we get liberals to get out there and make Americans more liveral. (3) Better and newer ethical defenses of the agendas described in (1). Remember, the regular Americans who have been won over by our critics think we're on the defensive as regards the rightness/wrongness of our beliefs and policies. There is more work to do.

Ted, I think we're seeing Obama in primaries where only Democrats or raiders register their votes, so far. We'll get a different look- at what everybody really thinks, after a lot of Republican propaganda (re: they can afford a lot more of it than we can, and they use psychology to create the stuff-- we don't), and after the filter of a lot of Republican poll tampering (re: in a lot of places, if you really want to vote, you've also got to be willing and able to endure hours-long lines, and so on).

Posted by Swan | February 12, 2008 12:12 AM

You know, I'm not much one for caucuses, but if you're arguing that victories don't count because they're the product of an ability to inspire and organize voters, maybe you should just stop.

Posted by Some dude | February 12, 2008 12:14 AM

In terms of Virginia, given the polls and the demographics, losing would be a major, major collapse, and I really don't expect it.

In terms of Wisconsin, the reason it's meant to be strong for Obama that I read somewhere was "it's like Iowa, but with considerably more black people." That seems fairly convincing to me. Also, Clinton seems to be conceding both it and Hawaii. Maybe that's smoke and mirrors, but I think she's really too worried about Ohio/Texas to be willing to spend much time seriously contesting Wisconsin.

I also doubt she has much, if any, organization there.

Posted by John | February 12, 2008 12:14 AM

Eventually Hillary is going to run out of states that she can afford to lose. But when?

Posted by david in norcal | February 12, 2008 12:18 AM

Marc,

Swan: Most of your points for defeating Republicans match up very closely with Obama's winning election strategy, don't they?

That, er, was certainly my reading, too. In particularly these points:

• "Part of defeating them is gaining more congressional (esp. Senate) seats"

Absolutely. And Obama has stressed that. So far he's been running very well, not just with Democrats but also with independents, in places where we'll be having critical races for the Senate and House in the fall. He's working to energize Democratic voters and build organizations in places where the Clinton campaign isn't even competing, such as rural Nevada, Kansas, Idaho, Alaska, Georgia, and so on. We may not win all of these states on the presidential level, but we can damned sure win seats in the House and Senate here. Aside from the fact that he's making an effort in these places, he's also, I think, just flat-out better for the top of the ticket. And I think Govs. Sebelius, Napolitano, and Sen. McCaskill made these points effectively, too.

• "part of it is developing more effective outreach / alternatives to the mainstream media"

Again, agreed. And I think the organization Obama has been setting up across the board is proving very effective there. He's showing a great ability to target, organize, and mobilize voters in terms of outreach. I'm not going to say the huge turnout we're seeing in every election is thanks to him (it's not; it's thanks to George Bush), but I certainly think he's playing at least a part in that, in bringing in new voters. And one of the central themes of his candidacy is restoring people's confidence in government so that they can be more involved in politics with a belief that they can bring about change within the system. That's the best outreach you can get.

• "and part of it is getting liberal people out to the more conservative areas of the country"

Again, agreed. That's why it's heartening that his presidential campaign has been a mirror of the DNC 50 state strategy, where he's setting up offices in Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Georgia, Alabama, New Mexico, and everywhere else that he competes. And he's going out and making visits to all of these places, too. We don't usually have presidential candidates on the Democratic side going to Idaho and Kansas and North Dakota, but he did. And again, he may not WIN these states, but I bet people like Nancy Boyda and Larry LaRocco will thank him for his efforts.

• "We're going to have to get young liberals to become more energized and public-spirited"

I think it's pretty clear which candidate is energizing young people and telling them that they need to be more public-spirited because they can work within the system to bring about change for the country.

• "we cannot wait for things to get horrible and fall apart in order for people to get appropriately energized."

So why pass up an opportunity with a candidate that is truly exciting the electorate?

And finally:
• "but I'm convinced more than ever that we're going to have to fight very hard"

I'm convinced that we need to fight hard, but that we also need to fight smart. And frankly, I've watched Obama's campaign outthink, outflank, outstrategize, and outwork Clinton's campaign so far. It isn't just that they've been fighting hard for the nomination; they've been doing it smarter. Clinton ran a great traditional campaign, but Obama knew he wouldn't be that -- so he came up with a new strategy that so far is proving remarkably effective. It involved going outside the traditional routes to power in Democratic politics, it involved putting together a new, effective coalition (wine track yuppies/students, blacks, and rural white voters), and it involved rigorous organization, sometimes from scratch. I'm not worried about his ability to fight hard against the Republicans, but more importantly, I'm not concerned about his, and his team's, ability to outthink them.

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 12:27 AM

"Obama Weekend Sweep States plus the Potomac Primary states"

This thing is the biggest fairy tale I have heard. Give me a break.

Jessie Jackson ran a good campaign in 1984 and 1988. [Editorial note: Thus, Senator Obama will run a good campaign there. But, we do not know the Latino/Hispanic and African-American voting patters. From a historical perspective, the Senator will have a hard time.]

++++++++++++
The above is a joke, in case people send me hate mail.
++++++++++++
The Next President and First Lady of these United States: Barack and Michelle Obama.

Posted by Ali Karim Bey | February 12, 2008 12:32 AM

Matt, have you noticed that despite Texas holding the primary, due to arcane Texas rules, a lot, possibly a majority of delegates will come from the caucus process? Check it out.

Posted by Gary Farber | February 12, 2008 12:32 AM

"Obama Weekend Sweep States plus the Potomac Primary states"

This thing is the biggest fairy tale I have heard. Give me a break.

Jessie Jackson ran a good campaign in 1984 and 1988.

[Editorial note: Thus, Senator Obama will run a good campaign in TX and OH. But, we do not know the Latino/Hispanic and African-American voting patterns in those two states. But, from a historical perspective, the Senator will have a hard time. If Clintons lose, then there will have been some irregular breach of voting stations. Off to PA primary.]

++++++++++++
The above is adapted text from WJC, in case people send me hate mail.
++++++++++++

The Next President and First Lady of these United States: Barack and Michelle Obama.

Posted by Ali Karim Bey | February 12, 2008 12:34 AM

One thing people have to remember is that for what..28 years? The consensus, the basis for all conversation has been a conservative one. We all know that. In order to get anything done, that consensus needs to change. As far as I'm concerned, Obama has proven to me that he can build that consensus. I don't even care if on some subjects it's not what I'd like..doesn't matter. The consensus needs to change, and THAT becomes the new starting point.

Finally winning the debate (the GOP hasn't had to since Reagan, remember), changes everything. Winning the debate with the current congress would probably be enough. It would make opposing the new consensus as politically suicidal as opposing Bush right after 9/11.

Posted by Karmakin | February 12, 2008 12:36 AM

Gary - my understanding is that 2/3 are from the primary, 1/3 from the caucus. But the primary is all district based, and the black districts seem to be favored over the Hispanic ones in terms of number of seats. Obama has a got shot to win more delegates, although the news story will still be "Clinton wins Texas" if she wins the statewide primary vote.

Posted by John | February 12, 2008 12:37 AM

Swan: Well, come Nov., we'll see. What I'm trying to say is that a lot of Democrats think, "If Barack can't win Democrats in Massachusetts, how can he ever win Republicans in Missouri?" Because, presumably, Republicans would be more reluctant to vote for a black guy than Dems, and rustic Missourians than cosmopolitan Massawhatevers.

But that's really flawed logic, based on a mistakenly simplified and dismissive view of the other side. There are lots of rural Republicans who are less race-conscious than urban Democratic voters in Boston and NYC.

The big demographic we need to poach to win the general election, frankly, is the male demographic. Now, I would never use that as an argument against HRC -- it would be craven. But it should reassure you a bit about Barack's odds in the general election.

Posted by Ted | February 12, 2008 12:40 AM

New Clinton argument:

"I know that there are three things, when you think about electability. Number one, I've been winning the big states we have to win.

You know, with all due respect, unless there's a tsunami change in America, we're never going to carry Alaska, North Dakota, Idaho. It's just not going to happen. But we have to carry the states that I'm carrying, the primary states, the states that really have to be in the winning Democratic column."

Like... Texas. Right. You know, I don't think we expand our majority by telling Democrats in these states that their votes don't matter just because they didn't vote for you. Maybe this is why so many elected officeholders in these red states are arguing against her.

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 12:55 AM

Sincere question that I haven't seen reported anywhere.

What is the most successive state primaries and/or caucuses lost by a candidate in the modern era who still went on to win the nomination?

(Humphrey didn't win one primary in 1968...but then, he didn't compete in any.)

Posted by kid oakland | February 12, 2008 2:01 AM

On doubts that Hawaii will be an Obama win:

I've said why I think this is a sure thing for Obama on another thread, but one more thought to add:

Has there been a race so far where Obama has had a sustained lead (or any lead except NH) and had it overcome by Clinton? Or even eroded significantly? (compared with the reverse, which has happened a couple of times, including most obviously the recent examples of Maine and Conn)

Posted by Kolohe | February 12, 2008 2:25 AM

(Humphrey didn't win one primary in 1968...but then, he didn't compete in any.)

To hear Sen. Clinton tell it, she still hasn't lost any primaries that she's competed in.

Posted by jbryan | February 12, 2008 2:32 AM

One insight about African Americans not voting for Clinton that you might want to factor into trying to understand this voting pattern. Many people seem to think that the reason is identity politics - voting for one of our own. I find it frustrating that feminists are starting to understand why many African Americans refuse to vote for her, but the media and the rest of society does not.

So, I will give you my opinion. In January, the Clintons began treating Obama as feminists felt women are often treated in the workplace. -- patronizing him as merely a "good speaker," trivializing his accomplishments, minimizing the importance of his early judgment and risk-taking in opposing the war in Iraq, and using surrogates to demonize his morality.

This often is the perception that some Blacks have about how they are treated sometimes in the workplace as well - perhaps more so in the past. It was not one event, but a series of events that took place over three weeks and involved a number of players in their organization and inner circle. It was intentional. And if we had any doubt, the Jesse Jackson comment confirmed it for many of us.

Most Blacks did not come away thinking they were racists, but callously willing to throw away one of their most loyal constituents for the sake of winning one election. They were willing to throw us away because of one fact that the Republicans keep throwing in our face. That the democratic party takes Blacks for granted. Most believe it is true but think the Republicans are a horrible alternative and the democrats do have policies that are beneficial for many Blacks. But when the Clintons decide to marginalize Obama and inadvertently do the same to MLK on the eve of the holiday, it was throwing that fact up in our face. They thought they could do all that because after they got rid of Obama, a nice heartfelt mea culpa would fix everything and we would be willing to welcome them back

Before those series of events, there were heated debates among Blacks about whether, Edwards, Obama or Clinton were better. Some who liked Obama, were starting to consider him after it became clear that Whites would vote for a Black, but many like Latinos, many were extremely still liked Hilary. My Mom is and speaking against her is Blasphemy. I saw breakdowns based on the same demographics as the rest of the country. More women were for Hilary, Men were for Edwards or Obama. Older People went more for Hilary, Under sixty went for Obama. Those with higher education went for Obama and blue collar workers leaned more toward Hilary. Feminists went for Hilary. I can not tell you that there were none going for Obama strictly because he was Black, but the numbers were not as significant as we are seeing now. I think those that say they will vote for her and then don't, can't shake the negative feelings she now conjures up for many of us, and change their mind at the last minute, despite originally supporting her all along. I always thought she would have maintained between 40- 25% of the votes from African Americans. I've always noticed that unlike many other ethnic groups, many of us seem to have a collective fear of being seen as picking a person for something because they are Black. In this case, the distaste that the Clintons leave in our mouths is worse than being perceived as voting for Obama because he is Black. Think about it, Sharton, Jackson, Chisolm and Braun never got anywhere near this level of support from the Black community. We have never voted that way, so why now.

After the Clintons did their three week make Obama the Black candidate show, the debates just stopped. All I heard was shock, anger and hurt. Edwards fans, myself included, voted for Obama because he was our second choice and we knew that Edwards could not win. While some vote for her in the general election if she wins the nomination, I've heard some say they would not vote in the general election, or they would vote for mc Cain, or vote for the green party candidate. At the very least, I think that should Obama lose, you will see voter apathy among Black voters. Not because they could not get their "Black President", but because Hillary has made herself a poor alternative. Many blacks live in districts that the Republicans have worked successfully to make it hard to vote. Every election I hear of people having to stand in lines for hours, sometimes in the rain, because they only have one voting machine or all the machines are broken or their names have mysteriously been removed from the rolls. If you feel apathetic about your candidate who recently displayed a callous disregard for you as a voter, are you going to stay in line or fight for your vote?

I'm surprised that the media and the general public has decided to forget what happened only a three short weeks ago and come up with the idea that Blacks are simply voting for one of our own.

End of rant. Sorry for the typos, I was rushing.

Thanks for reading through this

Tracey

Posted by Tracey de Morsella | February 12, 2008 4:02 AM

Great comment Tracey.

Posted by joejoejoe | February 12, 2008 4:07 AM

Matt,
In all the talk of Texas, Ohio, and the later primaries, I haven't heard anything about North Carolina. People talk about this fight going all the way to the convention, but stop talking about states after Pennsylvania. True, the later they remain tied, the less likely anyone can get to 2100 delegates, but surely momentum will count with the superdelegates? Pennsylvania gets 188 delegate, but North Carolina gets 144. Add the Indiana primary, on the same day in May, and you get 221 delegates. Yet I've seen more mentions of Puerto Rico in the blogs. What's the deal?

Posted by RichardSB | February 12, 2008 6:09 AM

The Clinton Campaign, perhaps rightly, appears to think that the chattering class bought their Super Tuesday spin that wins in the "big states" (a term which apparently excludes states like Illinois, Georgia, Washington, and probably Virginia, even though it includes lower population states like Massachusetts) matter more than who won the most delegates. So, it is natural that they are trying to repeat that apparent success by treating all of the remainder of February, March, and April as one big repeat of Super Tuesday.

Personally, I strongly suspect that the Clinton Campaign is going to fail in this effort to spin three months of contests in the same way that they spun Super Tuesday. My sense is that slowly but surely, people are moving up the learning curve with respect to the implications of the proportional allocation system, and this series of contests is helping that process along. Specifically, it is becoming increasingly obvious to people why low margin "wins" in Clinton's hand-picked "big states" do not actually have more impact than Obama's high margin wins in small, medium, and excluded big states.

But I also think it simply doesn't matter. The delegate tally is not subject to spin, and at the end of the process that is the thing people are going to look at. So while it is conceivable to me that these efforts to overemphasize the importance of Clinton's hand-picked subset of "big states" may extend the contest, I doubt it will actually change the outcome.

Posted by DTM | February 12, 2008 6:29 AM

Tracey: I agree. I haven't forgotten.

Two thoughts about those weeks. The first is how depressing it was. I would never have believed that the Clintons would rely on that strategy. It was subtle, and I wasn't completely sure -- up until the Jesse Jackson comment.

But the second thought is more cheerful, and it's that the strategy of racial marginalization blew up in their faces.

a) Because Obama played it very well. He didn't ignore the bait, but he let his surrogates express anything that might have sounded like anger.

b) Because, as you point out, African-American voters decided that they didn't have to put up with it.

and c) because at this point, white voters *are* starting to forget about the whole thing. But not black voters. Or historians.

In future years, I don't think we're going to see that strategy used so much.

Posted by Ted | February 12, 2008 6:31 AM

By the way, a number of people (e.g., "poblano" at Daily Kos, Jay Cost in his Horse Race Blog, and so on) have been doing much more interesting versions of the sort of crude demographic analysis RKU has been trying to push here. Obviously, the big problem for everyone is the the non-random distribution of the caucus states, which has to be compensated for in some way.

But my sense is that with respect to race in particular, a pretty clear picture is emerging: to the extent his race might be an issue for Obama, that issue appears to be largely limited to white voters in the South (maybe just white Southern Baptists, in fact). Moreover, we will soon get some additional non-caucus tests of this hypothesis (e.g., in Wisconsin).

Personally, my guess is that Wisconsin will handily demonstrate that Obama does not have the sort of hard ceiling of support among "white voters" that RKU has been pushing. But we shall see.

Posted by DTM | February 12, 2008 7:14 AM

RichardB asked:
Yet I've seen more mentions of Puerto Rico in the blogs. What's the deal?

From what I've read on several sites, including RCP, although Puerto Rico is technically proportional, the Democratic Party leaders there run the process in such a way that one candidate gets all 63 delegates. Whether that's simply a function of voting at a time where the nominee was already known, or something that could happen this year, imagine if the last pledged delegates of the year were all delivered to the same candidate. I'm not familiar with the situation, but my reading suggest it would be Clinto.

Posted by Alexis | February 12, 2008 7:20 AM

No one is going to let the process drag on that long. It's March, April at the latest. It's not going to be in play in June.

The "deal" with Puerto Rico being mentioned is that journalists need something to speculate about.

Posted by Not gonna happen | February 12, 2008 7:50 AM

That Texas Analysis

The analysis by Philip Martin using Lone Star Project data probably understates the Obama potential. The "Primacaucus" is far, far from decided on 4 March, as Philip and his sidekick, Matt Glazer, note.

The analysis reflects race-based segmented marketing techniques habitually employed by our not very successful "likely voter" consultants. Only, we are already way beyond likely voters here now with projections of turn-out in the Democratic primary (which is only semi-closed) running up to three times the norm. We call this Queuing Theory. The cornpone party establishment -- trial-lawyers almost exclusively, straight out of the latest Grisham novel -- are not real good with math.

Also, Democratic Primary voters are not really sympathetic to the "soft-quota" racism of the "cringing liberal" (white, male, lawyer) party establishment -- a decrepit patronage-chain, not a real party -- who prop up the consultants and subvert anything like republican democracy within the party. They run an undisciplined party that is designed to collaborate with moderate Republicans, not to compete with and extremist and disciplined GOP.

So, (a) there have been significat defections to the Obama camp by prominent Hispanic leaders in Texas; (b) there is an ongoing rebellion against the wildly unpopular state party establishment, which was pro-Edwards, not pro-Clinton, at the outset; and, finally, (c) the state convention itself is designed to simply ratify a dead-certain front-runner, not to resolve either competition between two front-runners or to replace an entrenched establishment in power, much less both. We call this Chaos Theory.

The Texas story will run from 4 March to 6 June. It will be as good as anything Molly Ivins or Larry McMurtry ever wrote about.

As one proceeds upwards through the caucuses, the state party establishment becomes a more controlling in

Posted by JRBehrman | February 12, 2008 8:00 AM

I don't see much about Maryland on here at all, which has almost as many Democratic delegates as Virginia, or DC - I have no idea how many delegates they have. Just for completeness sake, Obama is also set to sweep Maryland (despite the guv and Sen. Mikulski stumping for Clinton) and DC - all of the Chesapeake Primary states. Same with McCain. Still, Huckabee is stumping all over Virginia. Of course he couldn't be bothered to come to Maryland at all, so he sent his wife instead.

Posted by JDinBalt | February 12, 2008 8:09 AM

Tracey -- Thank you so much for your comment. I think that summed up a lot of what I've been reading on AA blogs. (BTW, I never used to read AA blogs before I got excited about Obama, so that's something positive.)

That's what turns me off the Clintons. It's not exactly dirty politics, but it makes me feel smaller whenever I come in contact with it.

Posted by plum | February 12, 2008 8:20 AM

BTW: Did I really read the new Clinton meme in one of the comments above? Have we really gone from 'It's just a small state, so it doesn't matter' to 'It's just a caucus so it doesn't matter' all the way to 'It's just the presidential nomination so it doesn't matter'?

Posted by plum | February 12, 2008 8:21 AM

From what I've read on several sites, including RCP, although Puerto Rico is technically proportional, the Democratic Party leaders there run the process in such a way that one candidate gets all 63 delegates.

Nope, this is bullshit. It's all based on Michael Barone, who apparently based this on the fact that all the delegates from the June caucuses went to Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Clearly that means that "party bosses" control the process. It's total nonsense. See here for more.

Posted by John | February 12, 2008 8:34 AM

Here's one longtime Ohio resident who just doesn't understand the notion that Ohio is Clinton country. The demographics of the state have changed considerably since the days when the big cities in the northern part of the state were heavily ethnic. If you go to Cleveland, Toledo, Akron, or Youngstown what you'll see are ghost towns. The kids all moved to Arizona and North Carolina, leaving a lot of very poor African Americans behind.

The one bright spot is Columbus, and it's very much a white collar town, with the largest university (Ohio State) in the country. Prime Obama territory. I suspect Obama will cruise in Franklin (Columbus) Cuyahoga (Cleveland) and Hamilton (Cincinnati) counties....and that will do it.

Posted by Buckeye Hillbilly | February 12, 2008 8:44 AM

1) I don't know where the CW that Obama is favored in Wisconsin comes from. Recent ARG poll has Clinton up 9 points there.

2) The Clintons won't give up and won't concede. If they're losing, they're losing ugly. Chances are, if they're winning, they're winning ugly also (winning despite losing in pledged delegates). When have the Clintons ever been about anything other than the Clintons?
So, the notion that this thing ends in March or April is wishful thinking, in my opinion. June, at the earliest.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 12, 2008 8:55 AM

Ban - ARG polls suck, and there's no other polls to test it against. Wisconsin is demographically most similar to other states Obama has won - Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota. I don't think it's a slam dunk for Obama, but I don't think the ARG poll can really be trusted.

Posted by John | February 12, 2008 9:01 AM

In all the talk of Texas, Ohio, and the later primaries, I haven't heard anything about North Carolina.

Oh, it's been mentioned. But May is a long way away.

Time is the key here. To Tweety's delight, there's the prospect of six weeks camped in Philly, with occasional trips to Pittsburgh. (Atrios's roofdeck: available for hire.) In a campaign where weeks feel like years, that amount of time creates the sense that something needs to be resolved. I can't see that being repeated unless it turns into an absolute fight to the death. That may happen, but I think one of the campaigns -- most likely the Clinton camp -- will be subject an intervention, courtesy of donors and superdelegates, before then, for the sake of the party.

Not that it wouldn't be fun to have the candidates stumping here.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 12, 2008 9:12 AM

Nope, this is bullshit. It's all based on Michael Barone, who apparently based this on the fact that all the delegates from the June caucuses went to Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. Clearly that means that "party bosses" control the process. It's total nonsense. See here for more.

Thanks for the article. I have a friend from college who's from Puerto Rico and she sent me an email this morning about it. The main English daily in Puerto Rico, The San Juan Star is reporting that it is possible that the caucus will switch to a primary and that a lot of the political leaders there are behind the idea. It was always interesting to talk to her about PR politics because the pro-statehood and pro-commonwealth parties don't split evenly along US party lines (although there are some generalities). It did sound like parties there had strong loyalty and certain "machine"-like qualities.

Posted by Alexis | February 12, 2008 9:28 AM

To Tweety's delight

Making Chris Matthews happy should be everyone's main goal. Tweety wants a Pennsylvania primary!
Let's give Tweeety a Pennsylvania primary! Take a drink every time Tweety mentions Ed Rendell!

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 12, 2008 9:35 AM

Making Chris Matthews happy should be everyone's main goal.

I think the idea is that six weeks in Philly may be OMG TWEETY HEAD ASPLODE.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 12, 2008 9:39 AM

TPM sez there is now an Ohio poll showing Clinton ahead.

Posted by syzygy | February 12, 2008 4:49 PM