Inevitable

I see a frequent email correspondent has accused me of being one of several pundits who are falling for an "inevitability of Barack schtick again." I plead innocent. I'm proud to say that I spent the days between Iowa and New Hampshire warning that Hillary was by no means dead, and one week ago I predicted that Hillary Clinton would win. My argument at that time was based on the idea that even though Obama was favored in each of the remaining February contests that it was likely he would suffer at least one momentum-breaking loss leading up to Clinton wins in Texas and Ohio that put her over the top.

Thus far, it looks like Obama really will pull off the sweep, which is good for him. But the most recent poll of Ohio shows Clinton with a big lead, and considering the convincing nature of Clinton's wins in states like Arizona, Oklahoma, and California I think you need to assume she'll win there until we see some kind of poll offering clear evidence to the contrary. Obama's put together a string of impressive wins, but it's still the case that in the Democratic Party women outnumber men, whites outnumber blacks, working class people outnumber college educated professionals, and senior citizens outnumber under-thirties. Under the circumstances, Clinton continues to be in a strong position.

Comments

"in the Democratic Party women outnumber men, whites outnumber blacks, working class people outnumber college educated professionals, and senior citizens outnumber under-thirties. Under the circumstances, Clinton continues to be in a strong position."

Shorter Matthew Yglesias: Barack's victories don't count because in the Democratic Party women outnumber men, whites outnumber blacks, working class people outnumber college educated professionals, and senior citizens outnumber under-thirties. LOL.

Posted by TLM | February 13, 2008 9:33 AM

Don't forget that Petey is now deploying his blog-commenting skills on behalf of Hillary.

Posted by otto | February 13, 2008 9:33 AM

Matt, have you seen Howard Fineman's calculations? Based on the BEST-case scenario for Clinton, she goes to the convention with a very small delegate disadvantage, and would then try to argue for the superdelegates based on it being close to a tie.

If that qualifies as a strong position, I'm sure glad Obama's not the one in it.

Posted by Dan | February 13, 2008 9:35 AM

Well, the statistics may be true, but on that basis you have a hard time explaining Iowa, Nebraska and Maine, to cite but three. I may have missed the news here, but I can't think of many states that are more white, generally low-income, and relatively short on education. I believe (based on anecdotal evidence) that quite a few women live there too.

Posted by marzuban | February 13, 2008 9:36 AM

I certainly hope it isn't Hillary. She's the Republicans' best GOTV tool available.

Posted by KO | February 13, 2008 9:37 AM

Last night Chuck Todd was saying that according to his delegate math, Clinton has to win the remaining states with about 60% of the vote in order to be the nominee. This seems incredibly unlikely, this current poll not withstanding.

Posted by drjimcooper | February 13, 2008 9:37 AM

I haven't seen Howard Fineman's calculations. Do you have a link?

Posted by Arnold Evans | February 13, 2008 9:47 AM

What happened on the Republican side last night has significantly altered the dynamics of this campaign.

Before last night I thinking the James Dobson hardball ploy was working, and that Huckabee was going to remain a persistent thorn in McCain’s side until the convention. This meant that McCain would have to run to the cultural right to appease them, the Republicans would stay divided and ugly, and it would be great for Democrats. But last night McCain put away Huckabee for good, and immediately moved to the center to start to run against Obama and the Democrats. So the first thing I think we are going to see is a significant rallying effect from the Republicans. This is going to be “get behind the standard bearer” week on the Republican side. Goodbye to all that useful free McCain-bashing from the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter.

But because McCain is now going to be attacking Obama, and because it looks like he is going to be attacking him as (a) too far to the left; (b) too vague and fluffy, this will in turn create a significant countervailing rallying to Obama on the Democratic side. That’s going to give Clinton much less room to maneuver. If it is perceived that the general election campaign has already begun, Democrats are going to want to settle their race so they can start hitting back with a consistent message, and are not going to be patient with a Democratic opponent who is reinforcing the Republican talking points against the likely candidate. Obama has already started to campaign against McCain, and that in itself is going to generate a self-reinforcing dynamic in the minds of voters. Clinton herself cannot spend a lot of time going after McCain, because she is now trailing and needs to go after Obama.

So in addition to the general factor of “momentum” or a “head of steam”, the additional factor of the desire for a unified defense against the common enemy is going to start to draw lots of undecided or wavering Democratic voters and superdelegates to Obama’s side.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 13, 2008 9:48 AM

I have to agree with the other commentators. It's possible that Clinton might turn it around--anything can happen in a month--but New Hampshire appears to be a big outlier that occured thanks to the unique environment going into that race and Cali had a LOT to do with absentee ballots.

At this point it'd be hard to argue that Clinton has the momentum. Heck, at this point it's hard to argue that she has much support that doesn't turn on the steaming remnants of Ye Olde Clinton Inevitability. They're only going to cool, and I'm having trouble seeing how her campaign isn't going to as well.

Posted by Demosthenes | February 13, 2008 9:49 AM

Hillary stopped Obama in MA and CA because she massively outspent him on advertising, and because he didn't have much time to campaign there. With Ohio and Texas three weeks away from yesterday, Hillary has neither a money nor the time advantages she had in MA and CA. I don't expect her to stop him from at least tying her. And she needs a big win, delegate wise. So unless he really screws up in a debates or loses WI (which polls say he's winning), I think he's on course to preventing Hillary from winning Ohio and Texas.

Posted by Dr. VDH | February 13, 2008 9:50 AM

I have supported Hillary since Edwards dropped out.
I am starting to think that Hillary should suspend her campaign for the good of the party.

Posted by BMF | February 13, 2008 9:50 AM

Politico's Ben Smith had a take on that Ohio poll I thought was interesting: It assumes independents will be 10% of the electorate (they were 24% in 2004) and it assumes that African Americans go something like 74% for Obama (which is amazing, but less than the 90% from last night). Plus, Obama hasn't really started campaigning there yet.

ARG supposedly has a new poll out that shows Obama up by 4 or 5 in Wisconsin. However, that poll includes only Democrats, and WI is an open primary.

Posted by BobJ | February 13, 2008 9:51 AM

Hillary stopped Obama in MA and CA because she massively outspent him on advertising, and because he didn't have much time to campaign there. With Ohio and Texas three weeks away from yesterday, Hillary has neither a money nor the time advantages she had in MA and CA. I don't expect her to stop him from at least tying her. And she needs a big win, delegate wise. So unless he really screws up in a debates or loses WI (which polls say he's winning), I think he's on course to preventing Hillary from winning Ohio and Texas.

Posted by Dr. VDH | February 13, 2008 9:51 AM

Iowa = caucus. Maine = caucus. Nebraska = caucus. Sing it with me marzuban, they don't count. See Talkleft for more details.

Posted by jay | February 13, 2008 9:51 AM

Hillary stopped Obama in MA and CA because she massively outspent him on advertising, and because he didn't have much time to campaign there. With Ohio and Texas three weeks away from yesterday, Hillary has neither a money nor the time advantages she had in MA and CA. I don't expect her to stop him from at least tying her. And she needs a big win, delegate wise. So unless he really screws up in a debates or loses WI (which polls say he's winning), I think he's on course to preventing Hillary from winning Ohio and Texas.

Posted by Dr. VDH | February 13, 2008 9:52 AM

Ah, the competing inevitability memes. For a Hilary Clinton supporter to complain about inevitability claims is really absurd. That is her campaign! The media's conception of her inevitability is the fuel that has powered her campaign. Meanwhile, Yglesias is falling victim to the Hillary meme-- that any loss cripples Obama. Obama could lose both Ohio and Texas by a fairly wide margin and still lead the number of delegates, number of states won, and number of total votes. But since the media refuses to award Obama anything other than momentum, it's apparently irrelevant. That's Obama's weakness-- the media refuses to acknowledge the simple reality of the number of delegates he's winning, which means that any loss can damage him a great deal, because he loses his "momentum."

Posted by Freddie | February 13, 2008 9:52 AM

I wonder what will happens if, as seems likely, Clinton wins Ohio and Texas by non-spectacular margins (e.g. 3-7). At that point, she would, mathematically, be in big trouble. But it is hard to imagine her winning two big states and then dropping out. I really hope, as also seems possible, democratic voters start rallying around Obama for the sake of unity and getting the general started. (His speech last night was a good start.) A six week steel cage match in PA sounds very unappealing.

Posted by pjs | February 13, 2008 9:54 AM

I agree with Dan Kervick regarding McCain's attacks on Obama, and would add that Limbaugh, et al, have begun to attack him as well, which should add even more fuel to this new dynamic.

Posted by Alexander | February 13, 2008 9:55 AM

The Howard Fineman video is here:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/178293.php

Some interesting comments from TPM readers here:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/12/is_fineman_right/

Posted by Edward | February 13, 2008 9:55 AM

Remember momentum? That thing that didn't exist in 2008, by some inexplicable miracle? It's baaaaack.

Hillary is going to lose almost all the remaining races because most of the party wants this race over, because no one wants to have a Michigan/Florida/superdelegate fight, and (mostly) because Obama has convinced the party that he's not a flash-in-the-pan.

This race is over.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 13, 2008 9:56 AM

I swear I only hit submit once. Apologies for the time-delayed triple post.

Posted by Dr. VDH | February 13, 2008 9:56 AM

Nothing's inevitable in this race. First thing's first, Obama needs to win Hawaii and Wisconsin next week. Solidly.

Posted by jbryan | February 13, 2008 9:57 AM

"Obama has already started to campaign against McCain, and that in itself is going to generate a self-reinforcing dynamic in the minds of voters. Clinton herself cannot spend a lot of time going after McCain, because she is now trailing and needs to go after Obama."

I think that is wrong. Clinton would be best served by going strong after McCain, to show she can campaign harder and better against McCain than Obama. I'm not saying I think she necessarily would be more effective against McCain, just that this would be her best strategy at this point. That would allow her to draw contrasts with Obama, and show she's the better candidate without pissing off Obama supporters.

Posted by David A | February 13, 2008 9:58 AM

I should add that, to the extent that Obama and McCain are already running general election campaigns, much will depend on how Obama responds to the attacks. If his responses are perceived as inadequate or ineffective, that might lend some currency to Hillary's claim that Obama's never had to stand up to the Republican smear machine. On the other hand, exactly the opposite will be the case if he can deflect these "vague and fuzzy" accusations definitively.

Posted by Alexander | February 13, 2008 10:00 AM

Clinton doesn't just have to win, she needs to win big in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Obama can lose in these states and still win enough delegates to take the nomination.
I suspect team Clinton assumed they would lose certain states (SC, GA, DC), but they would gain enough delegates to coast to victory. They did not anticipate Obama winning with huge margins.
Clinton’s task is to win big in what appears to be friendly territory, there’s a chance she could pull it off. Do not underestimate team Clinton.

That said, Obama should clean her clock.

Posted by bjd | February 13, 2008 10:02 AM

Jay Cost of RealClearPolitics makes a similar case that Obama is not inevitable at this point, and does so using a statistical breakdown of voting patterns: "The Democratic Race Moving Forward".

Posted by Fred | February 13, 2008 10:05 AM

Interestingly, Chuck Todd did some new popular vote totals today:

States Awarding Delegates
Total Vote %
Obama 9,373,334 50%
Clinton 8,674,779 46%
Others 726,095 4%

With Florida
Total Vote %
Obama 9,942,375 49%
Clinton 9,531,987 46%
Others 984,236 4%

With Florida and Michigan
Total Vote %
Obama 9,942,375 47%
Clinton 9,860,138 47%
Others 1,249,922 6%

Posted by jbryan | February 13, 2008 10:05 AM

Jay, my friend, Yglesias was talking demographics, not caucus versus primary. *s* Anyway, I think that a 23-12 margin in wins probably should settle the argument about who is more electable. Of course, you may be indulging in irony. The trouble is that irony often leads to positions that the last bitter Clintonistas hold tewwibly tewwibly sewiously.

Posted by marzuban | February 13, 2008 10:08 AM

It's worth noting that some of the mainstream media sources are starting to realize how bad the delegate math is for Clinton - Chuck Todd on NBC has been pretty clear about it (perhaps helped by NBC's admirable decision not to include superdelegates in their main count), and Howard Fineman apparently as well.

That New York Times story also recognized the real situation, and that was before this unexpectedly large blow out - Clinton has to win Ohio and Texas "comfortably" to stay in this, or her superdelegates defect to Obama.

Personally, I think the fact that, at this point, even her winning Ohio and Texas doesn't really come very close to saving her is essentially going to guarantee that Obama wins those states. Nowhere do voters want to vote for a sure loser, and Clinton is looking more and more like one. Clinton may win Rhode Island, but I'm going to say right now that that's the only win she's got left in her.

Maybe she'll pull it out in Ohio and Texas, but I think those polls are going to change very fast.

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 10:09 AM

To repeat, Matt, whatever you do, no matter how many states and/or state-like entities Obama wins, and no matter by how large a margin, please, for the sake of humanity, whatever you do, do not - I repeat - do not - change your prediction.

This "Thus far, it looks like Obama really will pull off the sweep, which is good for him." is a little too close for comfort.

More posts about Hillary's improving chances please.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 13, 2008 10:11 AM

Howard Fineman notwithstanding, I think I'll wait to see what Al Giordano says.

Posted by plum | February 13, 2008 10:11 AM

Looking beyond the horserace:

The economy is collapsing being led down by the crisis in housing. Who is better prepared to deal with this issue?

Without a doubt Hillary Clinton has a better more detailed plan than does Barack Obmama.

She is the one who has proposed a moratorium on foreclosures and a five year freeze on ARM rates. The five year freeze is critical if we are to get through this crisis without a complete meltdown.

Yesterday Treasury Sect Paulson came on board saying much the same thing but encouraging banks and lenders to do what Hillary proposed on a voluntary basis. It seems that BAC, C, WM, WFC and other large banks are now wanting the same thing Clinton wants.

This is not surprising given Hillary Clinton's understanding of economic issues. But it is surprising that it is not getting more attention.

You can vote for the lesser of the two intellects and pick Obama. Or you can go with the best mind of the era and pick Hillary.

Posted by ken | February 13, 2008 10:13 AM

Strong? Um no. Chance? Sure... but it's not looking good.

Posted by DJ | February 13, 2008 10:17 AM

You heard it here first. Obama will win the Ohio primary, by 5 - 10 points.

Voters are engaged, and pay attention to the national news. The (by then) 10 state winning streak will, if nothing, inspire at least some % of additional turnout. More fence-sitters will have jumped. More (massively attended, buzz-creating) events will have been held, and in Ohio.

Mostly, Obama is crushing the turnout models of every pollster.

And that will be that.

Posted by drinkof | February 13, 2008 10:17 AM

On the other hand, exactly the opposite will be the case if he can deflect these "vague and fuzzy" accusations definitively.

Quite right, and I think this is very likely to happen once Obama starts hammering away on economic policy and pointing out McCain's self-acknowledged ignorance on this topic. Then we'll see which candidate is vague and fuzzy. The Republican default position on the economy is "let's keep the government out of the way, and let the entrepreneurial genius of the American people take care of our problems. Well that's never been a very effective message in a recession, when people are in the mood for more assertive action. McCain is in over his head on the economic debate, and that is going to undercut his claims to more realism and specificity.

McCain is a walking gaffe-machine who is running on a vague "I love this wonderful country" schtick. Well Obama is just going to say something like this: "We all love this wonderful country, and honor Senator McCain for his service to it. But love isn't just a feeling. It's something we show by identifying problems and fixing them. I have the vision and understanding to tackle these problems and bring change, and Senator McCain doesn't."

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 13, 2008 10:20 AM

"She is the one who has proposed a moratorium on foreclosures and a five year freeze on ARM rates."

Obama actually scored points by not jumping on this stupid bandwagon. What would be the consequence of Hillary's plan, which would make mortgage lending so much riskier? Mortgage lenders would demand significantly higher rates to compensate themselves for the risk of this sort of government intervention in the future. Hillary's plan would be awful for the housing market. It's truly scary if she is too stupid to realize this. I can only hope she was just pandering.

Posted by Fred | February 13, 2008 10:25 AM

"It seems that BAC, C, WM, WFC and other large banks are now wanting the same thing Clinton wants."

Then it will be in their best interest to do it without government intervention. I like Obama's plan because it's goal is to make it easier for creditors to work with homeowners to prevent foreclosure. Not some overbearing program that forces them to.

Posted by JordanT | February 13, 2008 10:25 AM

Can someone explain to me why Hillary will win Texas? Is it just because there are Latinos there? My perception is that Texas is a red state, and red states (except of course for Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee) are breaking for Obama, because people in those states understand the deep hatred Republicans have for the Clintons. They know that Hillary will bring the mouth-breathers out to vote in November and that Obama is the better general election candidate. That seems to be how things are panning out so far. Again - is it just that there are Latinos there?

Posted by Craig | February 13, 2008 10:28 AM

women outnumber men, whites outnumber blacks, working class people outnumber college educated professionals, and senior citizens outnumber under-thirties. And people who have already voted badly outnumber those yet to vote. The horses are running out of track.

Posted by Boring Commenter | February 13, 2008 10:31 AM

Craig - it's because Texas is like Oklahoma or Arkansas with a lot of Latinos. The Black population is not terribly high in Texas, and Obama tends to do poorly with white people in the south (or did, until Virginia last night). He's also done poorly among Latinos (or did, until Virginia and Maryland last night). Texas looked decent demographically for Clinton, or at least it did before last night...

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 10:35 AM

Perhaps Hillary has a new policy: when she is president, states that do not count will be expelled from the union. That'll show those Idahoes!

Posted by devlin | February 13, 2008 10:37 AM

"lesser of the two intellects"

This is one situation in which this phrase emphatically does not apply -- to either candidate. Their intellects may differn in the ways they manifest themselves, but neither is markedly inferior to the other. Thank God (for a change).

Posted by David in NY | February 13, 2008 10:38 AM

Anyone else notice that DNC is both Does Not Count and Democratic National Committee? How long before the Hillary Putsch?

Posted by maxinej | February 13, 2008 10:39 AM

I engaged in a Clinton v. Obama discussion with a DNC friend last night. One point we agreed on was that Clinton has a mastery of the fine details of policy, that she is a fairly brilliant person, and is an incredibly hard worker. These are very compelling arguments, and I think indisputably true, and make an incredibly strong case for Mrs. Clinton to be a very successful SENATOR. All of Clinton's strengths seem to me to be perfectly suited for the Senate. The recent news concerning the management of her campaign, coupled with evidence of her role in the mismanagment of the first Clinton whitehouse seem to be good reasons that she should remain in the wonk-filled senate. I would love to hear what others have to say. (Admittedly this thought came to me on the morning metro ride, so it may merely be morning delusions)

Posted by Evan | February 13, 2008 10:39 AM

I engaged in a Clinton v. Obama discussion with a DNC friend last night. One point we agreed on was that Clinton has a mastery of the fine details of policy, that she is a fairly brilliant person, and is an incredibly hard worker. These are very compelling arguments, and I think indisputably true, and make an incredibly strong case for Mrs. Clinton to be a very successful SENATOR. All of Clinton's strengths seem to me to be perfectly suited for the Senate. The recent news concerning the management of her campaign, coupled with evidence of her role in the mismanagment of the first Clinton whitehouse seem to be good reasons that she should remain in the wonk-filled senate. I would love to hear what others have to say. (Admittedly this thought came to me on the morning metro ride, so it may merely be morning delusions)

I have to say: a thousand amens to that. All evidence points to a poisonous managerial style, if you ask me. Loyalty first, vindictiveness, etc. And an arrogant lack of planning. Hmm, why does that sound familiar.

Posted by Bill | February 13, 2008 10:51 AM

Under the circumstances, Clinton continues to be in a strong position.

Wow. You really haven't done the math yet have you?

The skew on delegates makes it really hard to win a ton of them in each state, and makes it really hard to lose a ton of them in each state. To use a term in financial derivatives: Delegate pick-ups/losses have very low volatility--when compared to the underlying movement--i.e. "votes." In other words the swing in votes is much dampened in the delegate award, from each state.

Clinton is now about 105 pledged delegates behind. If she pulls Obama to a draw in the states her campaign is contesting (and let's be frank, she is no longer contesting WI or HI), she loses. She'll never catch up. If she wins these identified states (OH

Do you not see that?

Hillary Clinton has to win OH, TX, and PA by margins not yet seen, in this campaign. She needs to win them by 65/35 margins--or better in order to push the low volatility delegate-awarding in her favor.

She's in Miracle Territory now. She needs Chelsea to fall ill and to remain posted in the hospital for 3 days. She needs someone to discover that Obama has spent 100K on child porn over the last 5 years. That's the territory she has entered now.

This is fantastic that so few people understand this, and are still bickering over Krugman's column, Ed Rendell, Michelle Obama's hairstyle, and Hillary's El Paso speech.

It shouldn't be this easy to know something the crowd doesn't know. But, alas, that's how markets work. And make no mistake, this race to the DEM nomination is replete with math, market dynamics, and lots and lots of emotion to obscure people's vision as to what's unfolding.

I love it.

Posted by Gregor | February 13, 2008 10:51 AM

BTW, Obama is already generating a lot of buzz in NC. That's May 5, and if it still matters, Obama will take NC as well, a fairly large state.

Of course 20% of NC voters are black, so DNC.

Posted by drinkof | February 13, 2008 10:53 AM

Now this is a truly patronizing comment:

You can vote for the lesser of the two intellects and pick Obama. Or you can go with the best mind of the era and pick Hillary.

Let me see... Graduate of Columbia. Harvard Law School. President of Harvard Law Review. Instructor at University of Chicago Law School (well known haven for intellectual lightweights). You can disagree all you want with Obama's positions, but to call him a lesser intellect to Hillary (whose intellect, by the way, I truly respect)? Or do you think that all those accomplishments are simply the attributes of what Stephen Carter calls an "affirmative action baby"? Then you should come out and say so.

Posted by drwohl | February 13, 2008 10:54 AM

Re: The Texas Latino vote. It was mentioned on MSNBC last night that the Latino turnout is usually much lower than expected. And the awarding of Texas delegates is based upon the previous primary's turnout. So even if Clinton gets a great % of the Latino vote (young Latinos are going for Obama) she might not get many delegates out of it.

Posted by Chester | February 13, 2008 10:55 AM

Hmm, child porn, eh? Is that why the Clinton campaign refuses full disclosure of records?

Posted by alxain | February 13, 2008 10:55 AM

The weird thing is, I honestly can't picture how her concession speech will go. I mean, it's gonna be painful to watch. I might even feel sorry for her, at least until I'm able to remind myself what a compulsive liar she's always been.

Posted by Bill | February 13, 2008 10:56 AM

Cautious analysis from an English conservative.

Posted by B | February 13, 2008 10:57 AM

Another thought - Clinton's employment of the highly effective "Guiliani strategy" could be based on the belief that while she is "Tested and Ready" the Clinton camp needs to give Obama time and some horrible scandal from his past will arise. That's the Clinton's cynicism - that everyone has skeletons because they do - and if that is their mindset then they want this to drag on because Obama's inevitable skeletons will eventually fall out and Clinton will reap the rewards. Unless of course, there aren't anymore skeletons.

Posted by Evan | February 13, 2008 11:02 AM

Ms. Clinton is a damn fine Senator. Her diligence, wonkiness, and ability to demonstrate collegiality, are all admirable. She could be one of the most effective and powerful Senate Majority Leaders in the history of the United States, if that's what she so desires.

She should remember that possibility before she decides to go in any ugly, party-destroying direction with her campaign.

Obama just has that undefinable leadership thing going for him. Plus, it just feels like he's Fate's choice; the energy he generates everywhere he goes is unprecedented in the last 40 years.
Losing to him in itself is no disgrace -- everybody else in the country would have lost to him. It's up to Sen. Clinton whether or not she chooses to lose gracefully.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 13, 2008 11:03 AM

Or you can go with the best mind of the era and pick Hillary.

Wow. And people accuse Obama supporters of cult worship.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 13, 2008 11:04 AM

Matt, are you just be contrarian to stir up a high number of comments? No objective analysis can possibly consider Hillary to be in a "strong position." Her own campaign doesn't even consider that as people are resigning left and right and leaking to the NYT that they consider Texas and Ohio must wins (and in reality they must win those states and Pennsylvania by enormous margins that simply aren't going to happen just to have a chance to tie the delegates Obama is getting by winning all these smaller states by 67-33). No, it is Obama who is in the strong position while Clinton is in the position of needing a grand slam in the bottom of the ninth inning vs Mariano Rivera just to tie the game and force extra innings

Posted by Ron | February 13, 2008 11:11 AM

It is over. No poll 3 weeks out has held up. Obama will win every remaining contest because everyone knows its over but Hillary dead-enders. Even HRC probably woke up this morning (if not Monday) knowing it was over.

1675 is the magic number and Obama can't be stopped from getting there. 1675 gives you the majority of the pledged delegates. The fact the Clintons are even discussing shenanigans to seat stripped delegations and superdelegate appeals is disturbing. How can any Democrat in any remaining state vote for her knowing you would be dooming the party?

I've always liked and supported the Clintons, but every day from here on out they lose goodwill and Bill loses legacy. It is over and they are hurting the party by dragging this out. The Rs have their nominee, let's go.

Posted by Patrick | February 13, 2008 11:13 AM

Just one warning: the Clinton campaign has already publicly acknowledged they won't win pledged delegates. They don't think there's any problem with the eventual nominee not winning pledged delegates.

They're going after 1) even more of a superdelegate advantage and 2) seating Michigan and Florida. Their plan is: win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, no matter the margin, and then spin, lobby, and horse-trade like crazy.

It's not really fair by any objective standard, but Obama simply has to win Ohio or Texas to seal this thing on March 4th, or then Pennsylvania, a state with lots of built-in advantages for Clinton, takes on an outsized importance in April.

Intrade has Hillary at about 25% right now -- that seems slightly low to me. Obama needs to win Ohio or Texas to avoid a prolonged and ambiguous battle.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 13, 2008 11:19 AM

>>Meanwhile, Yglesias is falling victim to the Hillary meme-- that any loss cripples Obama.

This is key. The CW seems to be that if Hillary had won even one state out of the last 10 that Obama was in trouble. Meanwhile, Hillary is getting smoked in all of these races and even losing states like MO and CT, which she was supposed to win, yet somehow Hillary is still in a "strong position." How does that work?

Posted by jim | February 13, 2008 11:20 AM

I really don't get why Clinton didn't at least make a credible effort yesterday. Especially in Virginia, where the demographics should have at least made her competitive.

Obama's whole "war chest" of delegates is founded on the split districts he won in the early contests and on Super Tuesday. That, plus big wins in small states, is what kept him alive while Clinton won all the big states. By splitting the delegates, he effectively negated the impact of her technical victory. Clinton has chosen not to follow this strategy, and that may be very bad for the Democratic party.

It is very possible that Clinton will win TX, OH, and even PA. But if she wins them by the margins that she won NJ and MA, she's not really going to pull ahead. That means her only shot at victory is a set of unelected superdelegates. In other words, she's going to have to depend on a set of mostly-white party insiders to overturn the results of a majority of state primaries (characterized by supercharged turnout, particularly in traditionally depressed voting groups like minorities and young people) in order to crush the first serious black Presidential campaign. That kinda seems like it would depress turnout in November.

Now Clinton can easily play the flipside of Obama's strategy. Keep it close in states like VA, WI, HI, in order to keep him from pulling away. Superdelegates in that situation wouldn't come off as quite as sleazy. But she's chosen not to. And that is really troubling.

Posted by NS | February 13, 2008 11:22 AM

To questions about Obama's intellect. The Head Counsel that works with my husband was at a dinner for Lawrence Tribe and Mr. Tribe said that Obama was the SMARTEST student at Harvard Law that he had ever had in his class. Just saying...

Posted by ksandrews | February 13, 2008 11:26 AM

Obama's put together a string of impressive wins, but it's still the case that in the Democratic Party women outnumber men, whites outnumber blacks, working class people outnumber college educated professionals, and senior citizens outnumber under-thirties. Under the circumstances, Clinton continues to be in a strong position.

Which is why, of course, Clinton is still in the lead despite the suprising showing of this outclassed campaign from Obama. Oh. Wait. She isn't, even with superdelegates? Well maybe this whole statement is stiltingly and obviously ridiculous on its face then. Just maybe.

Posted by socratic_me | February 13, 2008 11:31 AM

Obama's put together a string of impressive wins, but it's still the case that in the Democratic Party women outnumber men, whites outnumber blacks, working class people outnumber college educated professionals, and senior citizens outnumber under-thirties. Under the circumstances, Clinton continues to be in a strong position.

Which is why, of course, Clinton is still in the lead despite the suprising showing of this outclassed campaign from Obama. Oh. Wait. She isn't, even with superdelegates? Well maybe this whole statement is stiltingly and obviously ridiculous on its face then. Just maybe.

Posted by socratic_me | February 13, 2008 11:31 AM

I really don't get why Clinton didn't at least make a credible effort yesterday. Especially in Virginia, where the demographics should have at least made her competitive.

She did. She made a major effort in Virginia. She bombarded the state with ads, she and Bill were camped out there -- they seriously contested it. She still lost. Badly.

Posted by jbryan | February 13, 2008 11:32 AM

I really don't get why Clinton didn't at least make a credible effort yesterday. Especially in Virginia, where the demographics should have at least made her competitive.

It has to be psychological. She just can't handle losing. If you actively campaign and the voters still choose the other guy, it feels like a real loss.

A bigger mystery to me than Virginia is Wisconsin. Clinton still leads there in some polls, the demographics seem to favor her, and yet she's spending half the week in Texas.

I think, deep in her bones, it's incredibly painful to her to be beaten every which way by Obama: to be in the same state as him and be outdrawn 3 to 1 in crowd size; to come into a state with poll advantages based on the Clinton brand, and leave the state a loser.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 13, 2008 11:34 AM

I think Matt is just trying to guard against overconfidence, and doesn't want Obama supporters to forget to keep the pedal to the metal until this is over. Obama always does the same thing in his victory speeches, reminding supporters that "the road to change will be hard", that hope means hard work etc.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 13, 2008 11:42 AM

@Evan: Yeah, I have no doubt she's qualified for many things, but president isn't one of them. As has been said and resaid many times now, if she can't run a campaign when she went into it with a ton of advantages, why should we trust her with the country?

I posted this over at Wonkette in regard to what I see as the big difference between her and Obama -- and the blog posts in question are now at 801 comments (Obama's; up 300% in under 12 hours) and 129 (Clinton's; up by 50%). Now, I don't think comments-per-blog-post are a reliable metric for in-depth extrapolation. ;-) But the difference is telling: His people get the 21st century, and his supporters are living in it enthusiastically. Her people thought they could waltz in, play the game the way they did last millennium, and start redecorating the Oval Office.

I really do hope more Democrats start flocking to Obama now, because we seem to have a choice between soaring away from the Bush years or slogging out of them. It'll be hard work either way, but it's a question of tone, and the president, like any manager, has more to do with setting that tone than anyone else.

Posted by moff | February 13, 2008 11:42 AM

IF Hillary wins all three of TX,OH, and PA, she'll almost certainly be the nominee, regardless of the exact pledged delegate count (and btw, I wouldn't trust MSNBCs figures on those-see My DD). She may not; at this point she probably needs all three, and not just OH and one other. But Obama supporters are really counting their chickens too early.

Posted by tdraicer | February 13, 2008 11:48 AM

Hillary's NH victory was only 2 percentage points and an even split in delegates. 2 point victories in are not going to cut it for her. She needs to win big and that seems very unlikely.

In addition, the GOP gerrymandering of Texas does not help the Clinton cause, even if she wins, Obama will still get a lot of delegates out of the lone star state.

Posted by Erik | February 13, 2008 11:52 AM

Yesterday Treasury Sect Paulson came on board saying much the same thing but encouraging banks and lenders to do what Hillary proposed on a voluntary basis. It seems that BAC, C, WM, WFC and other large banks are now wanting the same thing Clinton wants.

This is not surprising given Hillary Clinton's understanding of economic issues. But it is surprising that it is not getting more attention.

You can vote for the lesser of the two intellects and pick Obama. Or you can go with the best mind of the era and pick Hillary.

In 2001, Hillary sided with the banks and credit card companies and voted for the draconian Bankruptcy Bill. After the deregulation that has occurred during 8 years of Bill Clinton's Presidency and 8 years of Bush's, the financial system is a mess. This is another reason for Edwards supporters to back Obama.

Yeah looks like the superdelegates can see which way the wind is blowing:

"COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The man who served as national manager of former President Clinton's 1992 campaign plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama, an aide to Obama said Wednesday.

Obama's campaign planned a 1 p.m. conference call Wednesday to announce the endorsement by David Wilhelm, who later became chairman of the Democratic National Committee, according to an aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement would be made public later in the day.

Wilhelm planned to tell reporters that Obama can build a coalition of Democrats, independents and Republicans needed to win the general election."

Posted by Peter K. | February 13, 2008 11:56 AM

I had this vision that Clinton would sneak one out and that Gore would be brought into the Dem convention to "broker" a vp job for Obama. It would have made for good campaign drama and it would have been a way to get Gore and movement tied in as well. Bill would have loved this because he could try and get some of the "hipness" of Obama over to him and his wife. Now at looks as if my vision was wrong.
It should be interesting to see where Obama goes after the primary.

Posted by Tom in CT | February 13, 2008 11:59 AM

The CW seems to be that if Hillary had won even one state out of the last 10 that Obama was in trouble. Meanwhile, Hillary is getting smoked in all of these races and even losing states like MO and CT, which she was supposed to win, yet somehow Hillary is still in a "strong position." How does that work?

Indeed. And what's really interesting from a market perspective about this dynamic is that it actually hurts Hillary. Obama is the classic bull market that climbs a Wall of Worry. Hillary is the Blue Chip stock that can underperform continually, yet people keep buying the stock. When you put these two dynamics next to each other, you reach an inflection point where the following occurs: the bull market breaks out to the upside and pulls in all the Doubters. And the blue chip stock, which had been propped up through stubborn institutional money, breaks down. That's what we saw in the last 7 days, after Super Tuesday.

The sooner Hillary concedes, the more she can claim Elder Wise Woman of the Party status. She should do this now, and then everyone says Wow. She could make a great speech about how with Obama in the White House and her in the Senate, they will double-team the GOP as a combined force.

But she's such a terrible candidate, who did not even figure out that this was a Change Election until after Iowa, that she is certain to self-destruct and wind up in a ditch.

Hillary's core problem is as follows: she doesn't know herself that well. Most of her moves lack authenticity. It's why her voice doesn't resonate.

It's an old story.

Posted by Gregor | February 13, 2008 12:05 PM

@Tom: Maybe it would have worked months ago, but if you were in Obama's spot, would you take a VP slot now?

Posted by moff | February 13, 2008 12:05 PM

She could be one of the most effective and powerful Senate Majority Leaders in the history of the United States, if that's what she so desires.

Lots of people seem to be realising this. The Clinton campaign, less so.

The TalkLeft line -- 'big states' plus 'popular vote' beats 'more pledged delegates'

I do think it's too early for Obama supporters to declare this one over: the CNN number-crunching suggested that he can't get past the delegate threshold on pledged delegates alone. But I also get the feeling that the superdelegate numbers may shift as people decided March 4th is too late to get on the bandwagon, particularly those in states that have already voted.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 13, 2008 12:17 PM

Does anyone know why the primary schedule has to drag on for another two months after March 4th? How can it possibly be a good thing in a close campaign for two candidates to fight over the last 10-20% of the delegates for two long months while the other party has wrapped up their nomination process? Doesn't that sort of thing just ask for a bitter process with lots of sketchy politics regarding superdelegates and the like? Those last 10-15 states should all be wrapped up by the middle of March, it seems to me. Anyone know what the rational is here?

Posted by mpowell | February 13, 2008 12:43 PM

Surely, at this point, the question is not whether he can get to 2025 on pledged delegates alone, but how close to it he can get on pledged delegates+superdelegates who've already endorsed him.

BTW, Obama's leaked projections, which he's consistently been beating, show him getting a net +4 over the rest of the primary season. That's with him losing significantly in PA, OH, and TX. That means he'll be up about 140 pledged delegates at the end of the primaries. It's hard to see Clinton coming back from that.

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 12:43 PM

"Popular vote" is such a crock in a presidential primary season where about half the states hold caucuses.

Obama is particularly strong in the plains states, Northwest, and North Midwest, and most of those states hold caucuses -- so his popular vote totals actually go under-represented in those states, not over-represented.

More crucially, the candidates weren't ever playing for total popular vote. They were playing for delegates. Both would have campaigned very differently if the name of the game was winning the most voters total. Also, if popular vote was what mattered, no state would ever hold a caucus, as it would give it significantly less say as to the nominee.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 13, 2008 12:45 PM

Checking out the blogs today, I have to say people must be deranged. But maybe there is something less nefarious at work: capitalism. This Dem Primary race is good for blog traffic which is good for Ad dollars. So, keep it going by alluding to impossible scenarios.

But it is over. Obama is killing Hillary in every contest. Do we really think voters in TX, OH, and PA are vastly different then voters in WA, MD, VA, LA, ME? The Clintons interjected all this racial demographic stuff into the race in SC and NV. That is all the TV bobble heads talk about. Nice legacy. But last night, everyone voted for Obama. People keep dismissing the results.

How could you have seen it coming? Well, everyone voted for Obama in WA. He won in every single district. You don't win 65-35 in every State in every region for a month and then start losing.

Posted by Patrick | February 13, 2008 12:48 PM

For me the most telling results of the night came from Virginia. It was one state in which a lot of people - myself included - felt that Clinton had a fairly good chance of eking out a narrow win. But it didn't happen. As a matter of fact, exit polls suggest that Obama *may* have broadened his coalition to include a fair number of Clinton's core constituents. If that is true (that is, if they don't prove themselves to be nothing more than a one-state phenomenon), then Clinton is almost certainly doomed.

John Dickerson (from Slate) gets it exactly right:
"With each previous Obama victory, the Clinton team tried to attach an asterisk. He won because the electorate had too many African-Americans or because the contest was a caucus where party activists dominate. These were attempts not only to explain away Clinton's losses but also to suggest that Obama could never win in a general election in which broader coalitions are required. As he makes inroads into Clinton's base, those asterisks fall away. If Obama wins the key general election swing state of Wisconsin, he'll be in an even stronger position to argue that he can win among working-class whites. These victories give Obama ammunition for future states because they show he can build a coalition across race, gender, and income for the general election."

Posted by Abby | February 13, 2008 1:02 PM

My thoughts (total Hillary Clinton buttboy advance warning) on Hillary's chances of taking the nomination:

They’re not great, obviously, at this juncture. Virginia really hurt. Wisconsin may end up hurting even more. Still, all’s not sunlight and roses for the Obama camp, either. The problem for Obama is that Hillary has amassed nearly 1,000 pledged delegates. That’s too big a number for her to go quietly into the night, and indeed too big a number for there not to exist the possibility of a momentum change. And even Hillary-basher-in-chief Andrew Sullivan is mentioning a recent Ohio poll giving Hillary a nearly twenty point lead there. Also, the Democrats’ proportional representation system means that Clinton continues to pick up delegates, and this keeps Obama’s lead from widening overly rapidly. He’s simply not going to be able to run away with it unless her campaign completely collapses. Obama would need to win something like 80% of the post February delegates to clinch the nomination without the use of superdelegates. That looks mathematically improbable if Clinton is still contesting the election.

After Wisconsin, the reality is it will still be a fairly close race in total delegates, and most superdelegates (I suspect) will wait until after the March 4th contests before making further decisions. Superdelegates are professional politicians who want to win in November, after all, and waiting another couple of weeks to commit hardly hurts the eventual nominee’s chances. But rushing the process may hurt the party’s chances, if it creates irresistible momentum for the wrong (i.e, weaker in a general election) candidate. I’m not stating here that Obama is the weaker candidate against McCain, but taking our time with the process is one way to help insure we get it right.

Hillary will have two whole weeks after Wisconsin to mount a stand, and try to blunt Obama’s momentum. During that time there will be a debate or two. She’ll have an opportunity to sharpen her criticisms. Also, being (finally! at long last!) the undeniable underdog, it will make sense for her to throw a Hail Mary or two. She’s also made major campaign changes, and, while people rightly assume that’s a sign of trouble, they should also consider the possibility that such changes might indeed help her campaign (I mean, could it possibly perform any worse?).

There’s also the probability that the media will finally begin to scrutinize Obama’s record now that he’s on the verge of an historic nomination. There’s been very little coverage of issues, or reportage looking in a more in-depth fashion at what an Obama administration will actually look like. That’s bound to increase — even given the media’s understandable infatuation with the senator. After all, they like a fight, and an early wrap up deprives them of a very dramatic story. Momentum is a very fickle mistress.

If Hillary can use the two weeks between Wisconsin and Texas/Ohio to blunt his momentum, and she can pick up convincing wins that day (which means taking Rhode Island as well; I’m assuming Obama easily takes Vermont), the race will look a lot different. After that, there are at least five more states where the demographics may be more favorable to HRC (Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvannia), and where she can make up for February’s lost ground (again this is assuming a momentum shift driven by an HRC win in Ohio and Texas).

Also, the Rezko trial gets under way early in March. And there’s still the unresolved issue of Florida and Michigan.

If HRC loses Texas and Ohio, it really is all over, and, the cynical prognostications of others aside, I wouldn’t be surprised if Hillary concedes not long thereafter. People say she’ll do whatever it takes to win, but she’s not an idiot, and if victory is a virtual impossibility, the smart move for her will be to get out with some dignity. She could still live to fight another day if Obama loses the general election, and heck, she might even have a shot at becoming Vice President this year (and in 2016 she’d be younger than McCain is now).

But if she does manage a solid win on March 4th, Hillary’s still in decent shape, and she could yet finish up with more popular votes than Obama, and with only a very narrow deficit in pledged delegates (I think coming out ahead of Obama in total pledged delegates is an impossibility for Hillary at this point absent some sort of major scandal erupting for her opponent; the best she can do, I reckon, is to make the difference statistically trivial, and attain a virtual tie).

At the end of the day, there’s nothing in the rule book requiring the party to give the nod to a candidate with, say, a net lead of only thirty pledged delegates, especially if he hasn’t won a majority of said delegates (John Edwards won a few, after all), and even more so if he’s lost the popular vote, and two major states haven’t been able to get their delegates seated.

Anyway, this summarizes my thoughts on the Hilary’s still feasible (if not overly likely) path to the nomination.

Posted by Jasper | February 13, 2008 1:06 PM

A thirty pledged delegate deficit is about the most optimistic scenario imaginable for Clinton at this point. 100 seems a lot more likely now. And that assumes Clinton wins Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania by five to ten points. To get any closer, she has to win some states she's not expected to, and win blowouts in those three states.

I don't see it happening.

Posted by John | February 13, 2008 1:19 PM

The race between Obama and Clinton has felt so familiar to me. Why am I feeling this pervasive sense of deja vu? And then this morning I realized it was like watching the Mets lose the National League East last season.

Go Phils! Go Obama!

Posted by Joe | February 13, 2008 1:29 PM

Obama only recently started running ads in OH, and he hasn't begun to campaign there yet, so how solid is that lead really?

He's got THREE WEEKS to campaign in OH, so lets wait and see what the polls look like in the week leading up to March 4th, before we cede the state to Hillary.

Whenever Obama personally campaigns extensively in a state, the polls tighten up FAST.

Posted by sue | February 13, 2008 1:57 PM

Whenever Obama personally campaigns extensively in a state, the polls tighten up FAST.

I don't recall that happening in New Hampshire. Or Massachusetts. Or California. It seems to me this meme of "Barack catches up whenever he has time to make his case" is overstated. I think sometimes he catches up. But I also think there's ample evidence that Clinton, too, has been hurt by the compressed schedule. Obama was obviously building up momentum and a head of steam as he emerged from Super Tuesday, and as his crack organization got to work in a number of caucus states, and I'd liken the very short interlude running from Washington to Maine to Virginia to a flurry of punches being thrown by a boxer. It was Hillary, this time, who desperately needed an eight count. Well, after Wisconsin, she'll get a two week count.

Posted by Jasper | February 13, 2008 2:16 PM

Whenever Obama personally campaigns extensively in a state, the polls tighten up FAST.

I don't recall that happening in New Hampshire. Or Massachusetts. Or California. It seems to me this meme of "Barack catches up whenever he has time to make his case" is overstated. I think sometimes he catches up. But I also think there's ample evidence that Clinton, too, has been hurt by the compressed schedule. Obama was obviously building up momentum and a head of steam as he emerged from Super Tuesday, and as his crack organization got to work in a number of caucus states, and I'd liken the very short interlude running from Washington to Maine to Virginia to a flurry of punches being thrown by a boxer. It was Hillary, this time, who desperately needed an eight count. Well, after Wisconsin, she'll get a two week count.

Posted by Jasper | February 13, 2008 2:20 PM

I don't recall that happening in New Hampshire.

Then you recall incorrectly.

Or Massachusetts. Or California.

Really? Seriously? The jump in California was huge. You don't recall that? There was a pretty big bump in Massachusetts too, and Matt did a post on that a while back looking at how much Obama's support in the state grew even though he didn't win it.

And of course, those are two states where Obama did not specifically campaign just in them for a protracted period of time, because for Super Tuesday he was trying to eat away at Clinton leads in 21 states. Connecticut, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico were all states that had strong Clinton leads in polling that completely evaporated. That Obama didn't win Massachusetts or California outright doesn't reflect that he certainly improved his showing versus early polls.

It seems to me this meme of "Barack catches up whenever he has time to make his case" is overstated.

It doesn't seem to be. Clinton has had huge polling leads going back a few months in pretty much every single state except for Illinois, but as the national campaign has tightened and as Obama has gone down and campaigned, things in almost each individual state tightened up. Now, there have still been a couple blowouts on the Clinton side (say, Arkansas). But if you even look at New York, every poll up until mid-January 2008 had Clinton leading by at least 20 points, and in most cases it was closer to between 25-30 points.

But I also think there's ample evidence that Clinton, too, has been hurt by the compressed schedule. [...] It was Hillary, this time, who desperately needed an eight count.

This point's been made elsewhere, but it wasn't the compressed schedule that hurt Clinton, it was her campaign's monumentally poor planning and foresight and overall strategy. Anyone coming from a position of as much strength as she had at the start of the campaign (strong money lead, insider advantage, universal name recognition) should have been setting up operations across the board to insulate against the possibility of an insurgent opponent gaining steam from an early victory. She didn't do that; instead, her team kept creating single or double firewall states where she'd pour her resources into those in the hopes of stemming any momentum and continuously ignore the rest of the playing field. It was a really poor strategy, and hindsight reflects that even better.

But while the compressed schedule made Clinton's campaign's self-inflected wounds a bit worse, there's little evidence to suggest that her campaign presence tightens up polls where she has a large lead. Outside of New Hampshire, where temporary momentum after Iowa pushed Obama into a polling lead, I can't think of any state where Obama's been ahead or coming on strong and Clinton's managed to blunt his advance through campaigning. Can you give a few examples where this has played out?

Well, after Wisconsin, she'll get a two week count.

Sure. So will he. And he'll have a minimum of eight, and possibly ten victories to run off of as he gets two weeks to campaign exclusively in these two contested states (I imagine he'll win Vermont easily, without trying, and will make a megarally stop in Rhode Island while otherwise leaving that state uncontested).

Posted by jbryan | February 13, 2008 4:28 PM

On the eve of the Potomac Primary, the genius Mark Penn wrote a memo entitled "Why Hillary, Not Obama, Is the Democrat to Beat" In this memo, exactly 290 words separate descriptions of two key voter groups (Democratic Party stalwarts, and key swing voters.

"Sen. Obama will have to fall back on core Democratic voters to stay competitive with McCain. But this is where Hillary has already built a powerful base, with overwhelming support among women, Latino voters, and other * stalwarts of the Democratic Party * . "

...then 290 words (pretty much "blah blah blah blah blah,") then...

"And Hillary's core voters - working class, women, Latinos, Catholics - are exactly the voters that comprise the * key swing voters * the party has needed in the past to win."

Latinos and women are forced into double duty, both party stalwarts and swing voters, because there's just not a lot of other voter groups left that the Clinton campaign can talk about.

Today the genius Mark Penn got on a conference call with reporters to announce the brilliant new slogan: "Century 21 in the solutions business!" Now we understand all those yellow blazers! (No, wait, I got it wrong: Hillary, the genius Mark Penn said, is in the "21st Century solutions business," while Obama is in the "problems business."

Also, the lines have crossed in the Gallup Dem Prez Daily Tracking poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104317/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx

Posted by Thom | February 13, 2008 4:40 PM

On the eve of the Potomac Primary, the genius Mark Penn wrote a memo entitled "Why Hillary, Not Obama, Is the Democrat to Beat" In this memo, exactly 290 words separate descriptions of two key voter groups (Democratic Party stalwarts, and key swing voters).

"Sen. Obama will have to fall back on core Democratic voters to stay competitive with McCain. But this is where Hillary has already built a powerful base, with overwhelming support among women, Latino voters, and other * stalwarts of the Democratic Party * . "

...then 290 words (pretty much "blah blah blah blah blah,") then...

"And Hillary's core voters - working class, women, Latinos, Catholics - are exactly the voters that comprise the * key swing voters * the party has needed in the past to win."

Latinos and women are forced into double duty, both party stalwarts and swing voters, because there's just not a lot of other voter groups left that the Clinton campaign can talk about.

Today the genius Mark Penn got on a conference call with reporters to announce the brilliant new slogan: "Century 21 is in the solutions business!" Now we understand all those yellow blazers! (No, wait, I got it wrong: Hillary, the genius Mark Penn said, is in the "21st Century solutions business," while Obama is in the "problems business.") Yeah, that will work.

Also, the lines have crossed in the Gallup Dem Prez Daily Tracking poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104317/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx

Posted by Thom | February 13, 2008 4:46 PM

Regarding that Ohio poll:

It does not _assume_ that AA's will vote 73% for Obama. That was the _result_ of the poll. In other words, after filtering out unlikely voters, it was found that, of the AA's remaining in the sample, 73% favored Obama. Now clearly this is lower than in VA for example, but could be the result of many factors such as a non-random sample, actual difference in voting patterns in OH, etc.

It does not _assume_ that independents will comprise 11% of the voters. That was the _result_ of the assessment of the total sample's subpopulation of likely voters. In other words, of the randomly selected poll participants who were determined to be likely voters in the Democratic primary, only 11% were independents. This could also be the result of varying factors such as more independents planning to vote in the Republican primary than in 2004, or a biased sample, or random fluctuation, etc.

Here's the link: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d557457d-00cb-4628-9549-16029e76b808

Posted by Jerold Paulson, Richmond Hill, NY | February 13, 2008 6:37 PM

I don't get it; this:

"Obama's put together a string of impressive wins, but it's still the case that in the Democratic Party women outnumber men, whites outnumber blacks, working class people outnumber college educated professionals, and senior citizens outnumber under-thirties. Under the circumstances, Clinton continues to be in a strong position."

follows two posts on Obama winning convincingly in those very groups in two states; it does not compute.

Posted by les | February 13, 2008 6:47 PM

It is time for Obama supporters to stop being cocky. HRC is not going to concede Wiscoinsin to Obama.

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/02/clinton_tries_to_spark_wiscons.html

Posted by Micheline | February 13, 2008 10:30 PM

May I suggest that everyone wait until Texas and Ohio are OVER, and THEN make pronouncements?

Or am I talking to the wrong crowd?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 14, 2008 12:14 AM

While it may be true that whites, working class people, and senior citizens outnumber their opposites, they do not support Hillary by anywhere near the margins that their opposites do Obama. In fact, in the most recent contests, they don't support her at all. Obama made major inroads or outright won in Hillary's demographics in Virginia and Maryland.

Personally I think it's time to stick a fork in Hillary. She's done.

Posted by Mark C | February 14, 2008 1:33 AM

Basically what Hillary is saying:

Caucuses shouldn't count
Small states shouldn't count
Black voters shouldn't count
Red states shouldn't count
Winning pledged delegates shouldn't count

Florida's uncontested primary should count
Michigan's primary (with Obama's name not on the ballot) should count
Backroom deals for superdelegates should count
Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania should count . . . but only if I win

I'm sure she will keep repeating this BS even after Obama rolls over her in Wisconsin and Hawaii, at which point he'll have won 10 primaries in a row from the Atlantic to the Pacific and everywhere in between. Her pathetic attempts to minimize Obama's wins only highlights the weakness of her organization and her lack of appeal as a potential nominee vs. John McCain.

Posted by Theo | February 14, 2008 11:03 AM